Article

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: 4.55). 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.

Full-text preview

Available from: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
  • Source

    Full-text · Article · Oct 2012 · Archives of internal medicine
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We compared, and determined the reasons for any differences in, the review and approval times of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI) by the FDA and the EMA/CHMP. Applications for these novel cancer drugs were submitted to them within a mean of 31.2 days of each other, providing a fair basis for comparison. The FDA had granted priority review to 12 TKIs but the EMA/CHMP did not grant the equivalent accelerated assessment to any. The FDA granted accelerated approvals to 6 (38%) and CHMP granted (the equivalent) conditional approvals to 4 (29%) of these agents. On average, the review and approval times were 205.3 days in the US compared to 409.6 days in the EU. The active 225.4 days in the EU and 205.3 days in the US). Since oncology drug development lasts about 7 years, the 20-days difference in review times between the two agencies is inconsequential. Clock stops during review and the time required to issue an approval had added the extra 184.2 days to review times, however were comparable (review time in the EU. We suggest possible solutions to expedite the EU review and approval processes. However, post-marketing emergence of adverse efficacy and safety data on gefitinib and lapatinib, respectively, indicate potential risks of expedited approvals. We challenge the widely prevalent myth that early approval translates into early access or beneficial impact on public health. Both the agencies collaborate closely but conduct independent assessments and make decisions based on distinct legislation, procedures, precedents, and societal expectations.
    No preview · Article · Jan 2013 · British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background New drug approvals in the US and Canada were reviewed in short-term studies in the 1990s. A database of drugs approved in both countries between 1992 and 2011 exists allowing for a longer time horizon to assess trends.Objective To compare review times of drugs approved in the US and Canada over the 20-year period and their duration on the respective markets until any serious safety risk arose.Methods Data on submission and approval dates and review type were obtained from the regulatory agencies.Results 454 drugs were approved in both countries in the 20-year period for which the US median approval time was shorter than the Canadian median by >6 months (382 versus 574 days). Nevertheless, in 2007-11, the median approval times were closer in the two countries (302 and 356 days, respectively). 3% of the drugs were discontinued for safety reasons in both countries. The 10-year survival rate without a serious safety warning was significantly lower in Canada (58.4%) than in the US (69.3%). Being approved in 2002-11 with a shorter review time had the greatest impact on a drug receiving a serious safety warning.Conclusions Overall, new drug approval times in the two countries in the last five years were closer, although some important differences remain so that Canadians still wait longer for some new drugs to be approved. The survival rate of a drug without a serious warning decreased substantially in the last decade in both countries, especially in drugs approved with shorter review times.
    No preview · Article · May 2013 · The Canadian journal of clinical pharmacology = Journal canadien de pharmacologie clinique
Show more