Examination of the relationship between oncology drug labeling revision frequency and FDA product categorization.

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA.
American Journal of Public Health (Impact Factor: 4.23). 05/2009; 99(9):1693-8. DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.141010
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT I examined the relationship between the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) use of special regulatory designations and the frequency with which labels of oncology drugs are revised to explore how the FDA's designation of products relates to product development and refinement.
One hundred oncology drugs, designated by the FDA as accelerated approval, priority review, orphan drug, or traditional review, were identified from publicly available information. Drug information for each product was evaluated to assess the rate at which manufacturers revised product labeling. Rates were compared between specially categorized products and traditional review products (e.g., orphan vs nonorphan drugs) to produce revision rate ratios for each special category.
Labeling for accelerated approval and priority review products are revised significantly more frequently than are labels for traditional products.
Accelerated approval products are approved based on surrogate endpoints; this approval process anticipates subsequent labeling refinement. Priority review products, however, are approved through a process that is ostensibly as rigorous as traditional review. Their higher than expected label revision rate may suggest deficiencies in the FDA's current priority review evaluation processes.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: AimsHealth Canada has developed a pathway to approve drugs that have limited efficacy and safety data, the Notice of Compliance with conditions (NOC/c) policy. Increased safety reporting is required for these drugs but there has not been any systematic review of their post-market safety. This study compares safety warnings for NOC/c drugs with drugs with a priority and a standard review.MethodsA list of drugs approved between January 1 1998 and March 31 2013 was developed and serious safety warnings for these drugs were identified. Drugs were put into one of three groups based on the way that they were approved. Kaplan−Meier curves were generated to examine the likelihood of NOC/c drugs receiving a serious safety warning compared with drugs with a priority and a standard review. The time spent in the review process for each of the groups was also measured.ResultsCompared with drugs with a priority review, NOC/c drugs were not more likely to receive a serious safety warning (P = 0.5940) but were more likely than drugs with a standard review (P = 0.0113). NOC/c drugs spent less time in the review process compared with drugs with a standard review.Conclusions Possible reasons for the increase likelihood of a serious safety warning are the limited knowledge of the safety of NOC/c drugs when they are approved and the length of time that they spend in the review process. Health Canada should consider spending longer reviewing these drugs and monitor their post-market safety more closely.
    British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 11/2014; 79(5). DOI:10.1111/bcp.12552 · 3.69 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Available online at: ijkey=GtigG2rvHUFQzAS&keytype=ref In response to rising demands and treatment costs, and the need to achieve better value for money in the face of tight fiscal constraints, both the National Health Service and the public drug reimbursement system are undergoing important reforms. Concurrently, the pharmaceutical sector itself is also alleged to be experiencing significant changes, perhaps most notably, a decline of the blockbuster model of drug development and a growing focus on niche market products. As pharmaceutical development strategies evolve and the resulting drug products become more complex, regulatory and policy responses must be able to evolve along with them. We explore how in numerous jurisdictions, including the UK, proposals for 'adaptive licensing' on the regulatory side and 'performance-based risk sharing agreements' on the funding side are shifting the focus of drug regulation and reimbursement towards more incremental access to new therapies and more post-market evidence generation. However, serious questions remain about how such reforms can be successfully implemented and whether they can balance demands for earlier access to promising new therapies with the need for robust evidence on safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness.
    Medical Law Review 05/2014; 22(2):200-20. DOI:10.1093/medlaw/fwu005 · 0.73 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Archives of internal medicine 10/2012; 172(21):1-2. DOI:10.1001/archinternmed.2012.4444 · 13.25 Impact Factor


Available from