The Novel Drugs of 2015 – An Extraordinary Growth of Innovative Pharmaceuticals

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 3331-3336
Author(s):  
D. Samba Reddy ◽  
Savitha Reddy
Keyword(s):  
Rare Diseases ◽  
Prescription Drugs ◽  
Orphan Drugs ◽  
Pharmaceutical Products ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Regulatory Review ◽  
Regulatory Pathways ◽  
Novel Drugs ◽  
Drug Approvals ◽  
Tract Infections

The FDA has approved 45 new drugs in 2015, a record approval in two decades, indicating another year of excellent innovation and productivity. There are many regulatory pathways at the FDA for the approval of novel drugs. Sixteen drugs (36%) were First-in-Class with a new or unique mechanism of action for treating a disease. About 29% of the new drugs are biologics. Moreover, 21 of 45 (47%) are orphan drugs for the treatment of rare diseases. The FDA approved many new drugs to treat various forms of cancer, urinary tract infections, chronic hepatitis C, cystic fibrosis, irritable bowel syndrome, heart failure, and high cholesterol, as well as the first approved reversal agent for a commonly-used blood thinner.  For the second consecutive year, the FDA approved more “orphan” drugs for rare diseases than any previous year in recent history. From 2006 through 2014, the FDA averaged about 28 novel drug approvals per year. Such products represent innovation and provide important new therapies for patients worldwide. Despite such record new drug approvals, there is a continued productivity crisis in R&D due to a progressive rise in cost for drug discovery and development. The U.S. pharmaceutical market is forecasted to reach $548 billion by 2020. The prices appear to be increasing faster for generic and branded prescription drugs. Overall, faster development and regulatory review contributed to a spike in record approval of innovative pharmaceutical products in 2015

Safety-Related Postmarketing Modifications of Drugs for Hematological Malignancies

2019 ◽  
Vol 143 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-77
Author(s):  
Anat Gafter-Gvili ◽  
Ariadna Tibau ◽  
Pia Raanani ◽  
Daniel Shepshelovich
Keyword(s):  
Hematological Malignancies ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Priority Review ◽  
Regulatory Review ◽  
Regulatory Pathways ◽  
The Us ◽  
Black Box Warnings ◽  
Accelerated Approval ◽  
Drug Approvals ◽  
Approved Drugs

The prevalence of safety-related postmarketing label modifications of medications for hematological malignancies is unknown. We identified 35 new drugs indicated for hematological malignancies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between January 1999 and December 2014. Characteristics of supporting trials and safety-related label modifications from approval to December 2017 were collected from drug labels. Regulatory review and approval pathways were also collected. New drug approvals were supported by trials with a median of 167 patients (interquartile range 115–316). All drugs were approved based on surrogate endpoints. Twenty-seven drug approvals (77%) were not supported by randomized controlled trials. All drugs received orphan drug designation, and most were granted fast track designation, priority review, and accelerated approval (83, 74, and 60%, respectively). A total of 28 drugs (80%) had postmarketing safety-related label modifications. Additions to black box warnings, contraindications, warnings and precautions, and common adverse reactions were identified in 31, 11, 77, and 46% of drugs, respectively. Five drugs (14%) were permanently or temporarily withdrawn from the US market. Drugs for hematological malignancies are often approved based on limited evidence through expedited regulatory pathways with incomplete safety profiles. Hematologists should be vigilant for unrecognized side effects when prescribing newly approved drugs.

The Novel Drugs of 2014 –Record Approvals for Niche Markets

2015 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 2889-2893
Author(s):  
D Samba Reddy
Keyword(s):  
Prescription Drugs ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Niche Markets ◽  
Novel Drugs ◽  
Accelerated Approval ◽  
Pricing Power ◽  
Drug Approvals ◽  
Unique Mechanism ◽  
The U.S

In 2014, 41 new drugs were approved by the FDA, the highest approval in two decades. This number was 52% higher than the 27 approvals in 2013, indicating another year of excellent innovation and productivity. Seventeen drugs (41%) were First-in-Class with a new or unique mechanism of action for treating a disease. Moreover, 17 of 41 (41%) of these novel drugs were for the treatment of rare diseases, a testament to continued focus or shift to niche diseases. The U.S. FDA is the leading authority for drug approvals worldwide. Many schemes and tracks at the FDA have led to accelerated approval of novel drugs. Such reviews as fasttrack or breakthrough designation are established for meeting demand more quickly. Despite such historic drug approvals, there is continued productivity crisis in R & D due to steady cost escalation for drug discovery and development. The U.S. pharmaceutical market is forecasted to increase from an estimated value of $395 billion in 2014 to reach $548 billion by 2020. The prices appear to be increasing faster for branded prescription drugs. Overall, the current drug approvals and trends clearly reveal the pharma industry shift to niche diseases for pricing power and return on investment.   

Fake Pharmaceuticals: How They and Relevant Legislation or Lack Thereof Contribute to Consistently High and Increasing Drug Prices

2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 525-542
Author(s):  
Merri C. Moken
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Prescription Drugs ◽  
The United States ◽  
Pharmaceutical Products ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Pharmaceutical Companies ◽  
Brand Name ◽  
Potential Factors ◽  
Counterfeit Pharmaceuticals ◽  
New Applications

The use of pharmaceutical products in the United States has increased more than the use of any other health resource from 1960 to 1990. In excess of 9,600 drugs were on the market in 1984, and the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approves approximately 30 new drugs and countless new applications for alterations of already existing drugs each year. In 2001, the $300 billion pharmaceutical industry sold $154 billion worth of prescription drugs in the United States alone, nearly doubling its $78.9 billion in sales in 1997. With such a rapid increase in market domination and expenditures, the U.S. government and many hospitals have focused their attention on the sales and pricing practices of pharmaceutical companies, as well as other potential factors contributing to these escalating prices. One such cause of the steadily increasing prices of brand name pharmaceuticals is the sale of fake or counterfeit pharmaceuticals (also called “look-alike” drugs).

Dare voce ai pazienti nella ricerca sulle malattie rare e sui famaci orfani / Giving patients a voice in the rare diseases and orphan drugs research

2018 ◽  
Vol 67 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-40
Author(s):  
Elena Mancini ◽  
Roberta Martina Zagarella
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Rare Diseases ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Narrative Medicine ◽  
Orphan Drugs ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Critical Issues ◽  
The Impact

L’articolo ha l’obiettivo di mettere in luce potenzialità e criticità dell’inclusione della prospettiva dei pazienti nella ricerca sulle malattie rare e sui farmaci orfani. A tal fine, nella prima parte, si propone un’analisi epistemologica dell’utilizzo dei racconti dell’esperienza individuale della malattia nella ricerca scientifica e nei trial clinici, facendo emergere, anche attraverso gli strumenti della medicina narrativa, le sfide teoriche e operative poste dall’inclusione della soggettività del paziente e del vissuto di malattia nonché l’importanza della valorizzazione della prospettiva del paziente, sia in generale sia nella ricerca sulle malattie rare e sui farmaci orfani. Nella seconda parte, il testo analizza in particolare il ruolo degli esiti riportati dai pazienti o Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs), misure per la valutazione complessiva della salute basate sulla prospettiva dei pazienti stessi, incentrandosi sulla sperimentazione clinica nel campo delle malattie rare. In questo contesto, infatti, i racconti di malattia, raccolti e valorizzati da fonti istituzionali e associazioni di pazienti, hanno contribuito a far emergere importanti questioni critiche e difficoltà nell’impiego di outcome centrati sul paziente nello sviluppo di nuovi farmaci e trattamenti, generando una serie di documenti e raccomandazioni relative al loro utilizzo per il benessere della comunità dei malati rari. ---------- This paper aims to highlight the potentiality and criticality of including patients’ perspective in rare diseases and orphan drugs research. In the first part, we propose an epistemological analysis of individual narrations of disease experience as they are used in scientific research and clinical trials. With the help of narrative medicine approach, this analysis points out theoretical and operational challenges of a perspective that includes patient’s subjectivity and illness experience. Furthermore, it reveals the significance of patients’ standpoints in general and in rare diseases as well as in the orphan drugs research. The second part of our article focuses on the role of the Patient reported Outcomes (PROs) – which are measures for the health’s overall assessment based on patient’s perspective – by investigating the impact on clinical trials for rare diseases. In this context, illness stories, which are collected and promoted by institutional sources and patients’ associations, contribute to underline important critical issues at stake in the employment of patient-centered outcomes both in new drugs and in the treatments development. Moreover, these stories are crucial to elaborate documents and recommendations concerning the use of PROs for the rare patients’ community welfare.

scholarly journals From Off-Label to Repurposed Drug in Non-Oncological Rare Diseases: Definition and State of the Art in Selected EU Countries

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. maapoc.0000016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paola Minghetti ◽  
Elena P. Lanati ◽  
Josie Godfrey ◽  
Oriol Solà-Morales ◽  
Olivier Wong ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rare Diseases ◽  
Drug Repurposing ◽  
Orphan Drugs ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Success Rates ◽  
Great Opportunity ◽  
Off Label ◽  
Research Activities ◽  
Oncological Diseases ◽  
Repurposed Drugs

Introduction Almost 8,000 rare diseases exist worldwide, affecting approximately 350 million people. Nevertheless, only 5% receive a specific authorized or licensed treatment. The need for effective and rapidly available therapies is still unmet for many patients. Objective The objective is to define repurposing versus off-label drugs, and to evaluate pathways of repurposed drugs for rare non-oncological diseases in Italy, France, England, and Spain (the EU4 countries). Methods This original paper is based on 3 research activities: (i) a nonsystematic literature research; (ii) a questionnaire-based survey to regulatory experts; and (iii) research on approval timelines and therapy prices of repurposed non-oncology orphan drugs. Official approval dates in England are not available if the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence does not appraise the products. Results Only France provides a specific adaptive pathway from off-label to repurposed drugs. Pricing and reimbursement assessment for the drug samples varied across the EU4 countries: time-to-market for repurposed drugs versus new drugs is longer in all analyzed countries; that is, 979 days versus 462 days in Italy, 502 days versus 350 days in France, and 624 versus 378 days in Spain. Repurposed drugs have higher success rates from development to approval than novel drugs (30% vs. 11%). Small- and medium-sized enterprises owned 9 of 12 repurposed non-oncology orphan drugs, of which only 4 were reimbursed in all EU4 countries. Prices were more homogeneous across EU4 although the reimbursement rates were different. Conclusions Drug repurposing represents a great opportunity to treat rare non-oncological diseases. However, a more homogenous assessment across EU4 could ensure reimbursement and prices high enough to reward organizations investing in this field.

scholarly journals Time for Change? The Why, What and How of Promoting Innovation to Tackle Rare Diseases – Is It Time to Update the EU’s Orphan Regulation? And if so, What Should be Changed?

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Denis Horgan ◽  
Barbara Moss ◽  
Stefania Boccia ◽  
Maurizio Genuardi ◽  
Maciej Gajewski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rare Disease ◽  
Rare Diseases ◽  
Orphan Drugs ◽  
Regulatory Pathways ◽  
Regulatory Systems ◽  
Strategic Plans ◽  
The Us ◽  
Deliberative Processes ◽  
Process Coordination

Since developments are global in the healthcare arena, more should be done to align EU and other big markets’ regulatory practices for rare disease patients. Notwithstanding efforts and cooperation between the US and EU aimed to harmonize their strategic plans in the field of orphan drugs, regulatory criteria and procedures to gain the designation, terms and classifications should be still harmonised. Aligning the criteria of prevalence and support to orphan medicines in the various jurisdictions internationally, would facilitate patient recruitment eventually at global level, so as to gain the data and the biological insights required to identify biomarkers and appropriate endpoints needed for progressing clinical development. A conducive regulatory environment can further support the development of medicines to treat rare diseases. Overall there is a need for joined-up regulatory process coordination. Better integration of regulatory pathways and better integration of regulatory systems, such as scientific tools and methods to generate evidence, would be helpful. There is a need to revise and agree the current frameworks to be improved which will take into account the considerations and challenges to diagnose and treat different rare diseases and improve quality of life. Deliberative processes with multi-stakeholders’ involvement for reimbursement should be considered. This paper explores the successes and limitation of both the regulation and its implementation mechanisms in the current regulatory context, and suggests some improvements that could maximise its benefits and boost rare disease research even further.

scholarly journals FDA's drug regulatory pathways, its development strategies and regulatory considerations

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 6-15
Author(s):  
Iva Dhulia ◽  
Himani Patel ◽  
Narendra Chauhan ◽  
Nidhi Pardeshi
Keyword(s):  
Prescription Drugs ◽  
Active Ingredient ◽  
Drug Product ◽  
The United States ◽  
Development Strategies ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Regulatory Pathways ◽  
New Drug ◽  
Generic Products ◽  
Abbreviated New Drug Applications

People who are interested in drug development may be aware that New Drug Applications (NDA) and Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA) are 2 of the FDA's regulatory pathways for how prescription drugs can be approved and ultimately reach the market. In basic terms, NDAs are for new drugs that have not yet been approved and ANDAs are for generic products. NDA, also called 505 (b)(1), is the format that manufacturers use to bring a formal proposal to the FDA that a new drug should be approved and made available for use by patients in the United States. Under 505(b)(1), all investigations supporting safety and effectiveness, both clinical and nonclinical, are conducted by or on behalf of the sponsor. The other pathway is termed as abbreviated because preclinical and clinical trials are not required. The abbreviated approval pathways are described in section 505(j) and 505(b)(2) of the FD&C Act and known as ANDA and Hybrid applications respectively. Hatch-Waxman amendments in 1984 provided for a suitability petition that allows the application of ANDA for a drug product that differs from the RLD in its dosage form, route of administration, strength, or active ingredient (in a product with more than one active ingredient). The differences allowed for suitability petition and 505(b)(2) application are same but ANDA filed through suitability petition can contain only those differences that do not need clinical evidence for efficacy and safety. This article identifies considerations to help potential applicants determine the appropriate submission pathway, its development strategies to support approval under those pathways.

scholarly journals The Office of Innovation: As Core Initiative to Bolster Novel Pharmaceutical Products-The Cuban Approach

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Belkis Romeu ◽  
Rafael Perez Cristiá
Keyword(s):  
Latin American ◽  
Pharmaceutical Products ◽  
Regulatory Framework ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Caribbean Region ◽  
Leading Role ◽  
Regulatory Frameworks ◽  
Novel Drugs ◽  
Latin American Region ◽  
And Performance

Regulatory agencies across the Latin American Region have strengthened the regulatory science through the development of new tools, standards and various other related parameters to evaluate and assess safety, efficacy, quality and performance. The former have been implemented to promote and incorporate new drugs and technologies, which still, are a challenge to well-established regulatory frameworks. Furthermore, in today’s environment, the existing regulatory framework protecting public’s health creates barriers for market entry of novel drugs and medical devices. This article aims to the pioneering work that Cuban Regulatory Agency (CECMED) has been developing with the aim to build a strong regulatory framework geared to accelerated innovation and the successful transition from research and development to clinical development. The Office of Innovation recently established at the CECMED is the first flagship in Latin America and the Caribbean region. Its aim is to play a leading role as a driving force for the national and regional biopharmaceutical innovation. This article will discuss the Office of Innovation its conceptualisation and management taking into account the Latin American regional and national Cuban context.

scholarly journals Use of the Certificate for Pharmaceutical Products (CPP) in 18 Maturing Pharmaceutical Markets: Comparing Agency Guidelines with Company Practice

2020 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 118-128
Author(s):  
Céline Rodier ◽  
Magda Bujar ◽  
Neil McAuslane ◽  
Prisha Patel ◽  
Lawrence Liberti
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Products ◽  
Pharmaceutical Product ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Regulatory Review ◽  
Pharmaceutical Markets ◽  
Regulatory Guidelines ◽  
Complicating Factors ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Quality Of Products

Abstract Background The certificate of pharmaceutical product (CPP) was implemented to accelerate the availability of new drugs in developing countries by providing evidence of the quality of products and reducing the time to market through reliance on a prior trusted analysis. However, the CPP format, issuing process and use have not been revised since 1997 and there are significant differences among countries in regard to requirements for CPP timing, terminology, and format. We sought to determine current CPP practices versus national regulatory guidelines and to inform recommendations for the efficient use of the CPP based on the needs of the modern regulatory environment. Methods We conducted a comparative analysis of company practice versus agency guidelines across 18 maturing pharmaceutical markets using data from the Cortellis for Regulatory Intelligence® (CRI) and the Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (CIRS) Emerging Markets Regulatory Review Times (EMaRReT) databases and regulatory authorities’ websites. Results Of the studied 18 countries, 16 require the CPP for submission of new registrations; many accept alternative documentation but most still require legalization of the CPP and many are not compliant with the complex CPP format. Additional complicating factors include language requirements and varying local guidelines for CPP submission timing and validity dates. Conclusions With the implementation of a number of suggested improvements, the CPP can continue to serve an important role in streamlining regulatory efficiency and provide confidence in new medicines, ensuring a more efficient and effective approval process and expediting patient access to safe and effective medicines worldwide.

Insights into the FDA 2018 new drug approvals.

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alaa Bedair ◽  
Fotouh R. Mansour
Keyword(s):  
Drug Evaluation ◽  
Drug Market ◽  
New Drugs ◽  
Good News ◽  
Antimicrobial Drugs ◽  
New Drug ◽  
Novel Drugs ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Drug Approvals ◽  
Online Library

Objective: The center of drug evaluation and research (CDER) in the food and drug administration (FDA) approves new drugs every year. This review discusses the novel drugs of the FDA in 2018 with emphasis on the breakthrough drugs, the milestones in the approved list, and drugs with the highest expected sales in 2024. Method: The following scientific search engines were surveyed for the clinical trials of the drugs approved by FDA in 2018: Pubmed, Springer link, ScienceDirect, Scopus, Wiley online library, Taylor and Francis, and Google Scholar. The total forecast sales were compared based on information from Cortellis database, EvaluatePharma, and Nature Biobusiness Briefs. Results: The 2018 year was full of good news for the drug market in the USA, with 59 new drug approvals by FDA, which is the highest number of approvals in the last twenty years. The oncology and the antimicrobial drugs represent almost 50% of the new list, which gives hope to cancer patients and subjects with infectious diseases. In the 2018 FDA list, a number of drugs are expected to exceed 1$ billion dollars of sales by 2024. Conclusion: The new drugs approved by FDA in 2018 have been reviewed. This year showed the highest number of new drug approvals in the last two decades. Among the 59 drugs approved in 2018, 14 drugs are considered breakthrough which revives hope for many poorly managed diseases. The list also contains 19 drugs that are first in class and 43 that were given priority reviews.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document