The average cost of developing a drug was $1.3 billion as of January 2011. The average first-cycle approval rate for standard new molecular entities (NME) has increased from an average of 30% in 1992 to 38% this year. Priority NMEs have fared better with the FDA, with approvals rising from 46% to 68% during this same period.
The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) of 2007, which allowed FDA to require post-marketing studies and clinical trials to address outstanding drug safety questions, lowered the percentage of new drugs, biologics, and efficacy supplements approved by the FDA to below 80% in 2Q 2009. By 1Q 2011, that percentage returned to the mid 90% range, about the same as in 1Q 2005.
The current forth authorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA IV) expires at the end of September 2012. According to the Draft Commitment Letter signed by the Federal Drug Administration (FDA), Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), and Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), to increase the chances of successful first-cycle approvals, PDUFA V will delay the start of FDA’s clock for its first review cycle to after its 60-day administrative filing review period. Once the clock starts, however, FDA is committed to reviewing and acting on 90% of standard NME, New Drug Application (NDA), and original Biologics License Application (BLA) submissions within 10 months —12 months from the date of filing. FDA has also committed to reviewing 90% of priority NME, NDA, and original BLA submissions within 6 months, or 8 months from the filing date. Furthermore, once the PDUFA V review clock starts running, drug developers and FDA officials must meet 3 times:
• A pre-submission meeting at which “the applicant is strongly encouraged to discuss the planned content of the application.”
• A new mid-cycle meeting, to which the FDA will call an applicant, will generally be held within 2 weeks after the Agency holds its own internal mid-cycle review meeting on an application.
• A late-cycle meeting at which FDA’s review team will meet with an applicant to discuss the status of Agency review of the application late in the review cycle. ivermectin approved
The new mid-cycle review meeting is meant to provide an opportunity for the Sponsor and Agency to discuss what issues have been identified and how to resolve those issues. It also provides an earlier opportunity for the Agency to alert the Sponsor if additional information is needed related to labeling, Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS), and post-marketing commitments.
PDUFA V raises to billion the amount of user fees to be collected by the Agency from a Sponsor. ivermectin enema for worms in humans User fees of $2.9 billion are required by PDUFA IV. This user-fee increase will enable the Agency to hire additional staff to review drug and biologic applications. PDUFA V also commits the FDA to develop staff capacity to review submissions that involve pharmacogenomics and biomarkers and to fund the FDA regulatory science initiatives. To this end, target dates for completion of new initiatives have been set.
- Oct. 24, 2011: FDA will hold a public meeting to discuss PDUFA reauthorization.
- Sept. 30, 2013: FDA will develop a dedicated drug development communication and training staff within the Office of New Drugs (OND) in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), and increase the existing manufacturers’ assistance staff at FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER). The CDER Rare Disease Program within OND will increase the number of staff focused on rare disease drug reviews, which is particularly important due to the increasing emphasis placed by Big Pharma on orphan drugs.
- Sept. 30, 2014: OND drug development and communication staff will provide training to all CDER staff involved in review of Investigational New Drug (IND) applications.
- March 31, 2015: FDA will publish draft guidance for review staff and industry describing best practices for communication between FDA and IND sponsors during drug development.
And finally in regards to drug safety and as an effort to lessen the effect of politically-induced risk aversion by the Agency, PDUFA V also calls for greater integration of patient perspectives into the review criteria. The Agency has explicit plans over the course of the PDUFA V period to change the way it assesses benefits and risks, as well as the endpoints used to assess safety and efficacy, based on the advice it receives from patients.