Research and Education Needs for Complex Generics.

Complex generics are generic versions of drug products that generally have complex active ingredients, complex formulations, complex routes of delivery, complex dosage forms, are complex drug-device combination products, or have other characteristics that can make it complex to demonstrate bioequivalence or to develop as generics. These complex products (i.e. complex generics) are an important element of the United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Generic Drug User Fee Amendments (GDUFA) II Commitment Letter. The Center for Research on Complex Generics (CRCG) was formed by a grant from the FDA to address challenges associated with the development of complex generics. To understand these challenges, the CRCG conducted a "Survey of Scientific Challenges in the Development of Complex Generics". The three main areas of questioning were directed toward which (types of) complex products, which methods of analysis to support a demonstration of bioequivalence, and which educational topics the CRCG should prioritize. The survey was open to the public on a website maintained by the CRCG. Regarding complex products, the top three selections were complex injectables, formulations, and nanomaterials; drug-device combination products; and inhalation and nasal products. Regarding methods of analysis, the top three selections were locally-acting physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling; oral absorption models and bioequivalence; and data analytics and machine learning. Regarding educational topics, the top three selections were complex injectables, formulations, and nanomaterials; drug-device combination products; and data analytics, including quantitative methods and modeling & simulation. These survey results will help prioritize the CRCG's initial research and educational initiatives.

Women and babies are dying from inertia: a collaborative framework for obstetrical drug development is urgently needed.

Obstetrical complications, often referred to as the "great obstetrical syndromes," are among the most common global causes of mortality and morbidity in young women and their infants. However, treatments for these syndromes are underdeveloped compared with other fields of medicine and are urgently needed. This current paucity of treatments for obstetrical complications is a reflection of the challenges of drug development in pregnancy. The appetite of pharmaceutical companies to invest in research for obstetrical syndromes is generally reduced by concerns for maternal, fetal, and infant safety, poor definition, and high-risk regulatory paths toward product approval. Notably, drug candidates require large investments for development with an unguaranteed return on investment. Furthermore, the discovery of promising drug candidates is hampered by a poor understanding of the pathophysiology of obstetrical syndromes and their uniqueness to human pregnancies. This limits translational extrapolation and de-risking strategies in preclinical studies, as available for other medical areas, compounded with limited fetal safety monitoring to capture early prenatal adverse reactions. In addition, the ethical review committees are reluctant to approve the inclusion of pregnant women in trials, and in the absence of regulatory guidance in obstetrics, clinical development programs are subject to unpredictable regulatory paths. To develop effective and safe drugs for pregnancy complications, substantial commitment, and investment in research for innovative therapies are needed in parallel with the creation of an enabling ethical, legislative, and guidance framework. Solutions are proposed to enable stakeholders to work with a common set of expectations to facilitate progress in this medical discipline. Addressing this significant unmet need to advance maternal and possibly perinatal health requires the involvement of all stakeholders and specifically patients, couples, and clinicians facing pregnancy complications in the dearth of appropriate therapies. This paper focused on the key pharmaceutical research and development challenges to achieve effective and safe treatments for obstetrical syndromes.

2018 in review: FDA approvals of new molecular entities.

2018 was a remarkable year, both in terms of the number of new molecular entities (NMEs) approved and the organizations developing them. In total, 59 NMEs received a nod from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), most of which were approved using a priority or breakthrough designation. Orphan drugs accounted for more than half of new approvals, only the second time in history that level has been achieved. Moreover, the net number of organizations that received an FDA approval and remain active in new drug research surged in 2018, reflecting both an increase in new organizations and lower levels of industry consolidation.

Renal Function Considerations for Stroke Prevention in Atrial Fibrillation.

Renal impairment increases risk of stroke and systemic embolic events and bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation. Direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) have varied dependence on renal elimination, magnifying the importance of appropriate patient selection, dosing, and periodic kidney function monitoring. In randomized controlled trials of nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, DOACs were at least as effective and associated with less bleeding compared with warfarin. Each direct oral anticoagulant was associated with reduced risk of stroke and systemic embolic events and major bleeding compared with warfarin in nonvalvular atrial fibrillation patients with mild or moderate renal impairment. Renal function decrease appears less impacted by DOACs, which are associated with a better risk-benefit profile than warfarin in patients with decreasing renal function over time. Limited data address the risk-benefit profile of DOACs in patients with severe impairment or on dialysis.

Disparities between research attention and burden in liver diseases: implications on uneven advances in pharmacological therapies in Europe and the USA.

OBJECTIVES: Effective oral therapies for hepatitis B and C have recently been developed, while there are no approved pharmacological therapies for alcoholic and non-alcoholic fatty liver diseases (ALD and NAFLD). We hypothesise that fewer advances in fatty liver diseases could be related to disparities in research attention. METHODS: We developed the Attention-to-Burden Index (ABI) that compares the research activities during 2010-2014, and an estimate of disease burden of these 4 major liver diseases. The resulting ratio reflects either overattention (positive value) or inadequate attention (negative value) compared with disease burden. The mean research attention and disease burden were calculated from 5 and 6 different parameters, respectively. The efficacy rate of current pharmacological therapies was assessed from published clinical trials. FINDINGS: The mean research attention for hepatitis B and C was 31% and 47%, respectively, while NAFLD and ALD received 17% and 5%. The overall burden was 5% and 28% for hepatitis B and C, and 17% and 50% for NAFLD and ALD. The calculated ABI for hepatitis B and C revealed a +6.7-fold and +1.7-fold overattention, respectively. NAFLD received an appropriate attention compared with its burden, while ALD received marked inadequate attention of -9.7-fold. The efficacy rate of current pharmacological agents was 72% for hepatitis B, 89% for hepatitis C, 25% for non-alcoholic steatohepatitis and 13% for alcoholic hepatitis. Importantly, we found a positive correlation between the mean attention and the efficacy rate of current therapies in these 4 major liver diseases. INTERPRETATION: There are important disparities between research attention and disease burden among the major liver diseases. While viral hepatitis has received considerable attention, there is a marked inadequate attention to ALD. There is a critical need to increase awareness of ALD in the liver research community.