The NIH-led research response to COVID-19.

Investment, collaboration, and coordination have been key.

Impact of the US FDA "Biopharmaceutics Classification System" (BCS) Guidance on Global Drug Development.

The FDA guidance on application of the biopharmaceutics classification system (BCS) for waiver of in vivo bioequivalence (BE) studies was issued in August 2000. Since then, this guidance has created worldwide interest among biopharmaceutical scientists in regulatory agencies, academia, and industry toward its implementation and further expansion. This article describes how the review implementation of this guidance was undertaken at the FDA and results of these efforts over last dozen years or so across the new, and the generic, drug domains are provided. Results show that greater than 160 applications were approved, or tentatively approved, based on the BCS approach across multiple therapeutic areas; an additional significant finding was that at least 50% of these approvals were in the central nervous system (CNS) area. These findings indicate a robust utilization of the BCS approach toward reducing unnecessary in vivo BE studies and speeding up availability of high quality pharmaceutical products. The article concludes with a look at the adoption of this framework by regulatory and health policy organizations across the globe, and FDA's current thinking on areas of improvement of this guidance.

Value Assessment in the Regulatory Context.

Value assessments are made on new drugs before they even enter the market. Regulators at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) at the US Food and Drug Administration make a clinical benefit-risk assessment to determine whether to approve a new drug. Benefits of a drug are typically quantified directly, as an assessment of efficacy. CDER defines risk as the intersection of the severity of possible harm and the probability of that harm. For a novel drug to be approved, its benefits and risks must be well understood, and the trade-off between the two must be acceptable. To assist with these benefit-risk value assessments, CDER has two ongoing initiatives: the Patient-Focused Drug Development Initiative that aims to substantially increase the role of patient voice in the regulatory process, and a transparency initiative that focuses on creating a structured framework for benefit-risk assessment.

FDA pharmaceutical quality oversight.

The launch of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) Office of Pharmaceutical Quality (OPQ) is a milestone in FDA's efforts to assure that quality medicines are available to the American public. As a new super-office within CDER, OPQ is strategically organized to streamline regulatory processes, advance regulatory standards, align areas of expertise, and originate surveillance of drug quality. Supporting these objectives will be an innovative and systematic approach to product quality knowledge management and informatics. Concerted strategies will bring parity to the oversight of innovator and generic drugs as well as domestic and international facilities. OPQ will promote and encourage the adoption of emerging pharmaceutical technology to enhance pharmaceutical quality and potentially reinvigorate the pharmaceutical manufacturing sector in the United States. With a motto of "One Quality Voice," OPQ embodies the closer integration of review, inspection, surveillance, policy, and research for the purpose of strengthening pharmaceutical quality on a global scale.

Understanding pharmaceutical quality by design.

This review further clarifies the concept of pharmaceutical quality by design (QbD) and describes its objectives. QbD elements include the following: (1) a quality target product profile (QTPP) that identifies the critical quality attributes (CQAs) of the drug product; (2) product design and understanding including identification of critical material attributes (CMAs); (3) process design and understanding including identification of critical process parameters (CPPs), linking CMAs and CPPs to CQAs; (4) a control strategy that includes specifications for the drug substance(s), excipient(s), and drug product as well as controls for each step of the manufacturing process; and (5) process capability and continual improvement. QbD tools and studies include prior knowledge, risk assessment, mechanistic models, design of experiments (DoE) and data analysis, and process analytical technology (PAT). As the pharmaceutical industry moves toward the implementation of pharmaceutical QbD, a common terminology, understanding of concepts and expectations are necessary. This understanding will facilitate better communication between those involved in risk-based drug development and drug application review.

An improved approach to measuring drug innovation finds steady rates of first-in-class pharmaceuticals, 1987-2011.

For more than a decade, industry analysts and policy makers have raised concerns about declining pharmaceutical innovation, citing declining numbers of new molecular entities (NMEs) approved in the United States each year. Yet there is little consensus on whether this is the best measure of "innovation." We examined NME approvals during 1987-2011 and propose the three distinct subcategories of NMEs--first-in-class, advance-in-class, and addition-to-class--to provide more nuanced and informative insights into underlying trends. We found that trends in NME approvals were largely driven by addition-to-class, or "me too," drug approvals, while first-in-class approvals remained fairly steady over the study period. Moreover, the higher proportion of first-in-class drug approvals over the most recent decade is an encouraging sign of the health of the industry as a whole.

Advancing the science for active surveillance: rationale and design for the Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act of 2007 mandated that the FDA develop a system for using automated health care data to identify risks of marketed drugs and other medical products. The Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership is a public-private partnership among the FDA, academia, data owners, and the pharmaceutical industry that is responding to the need to advance the science of active medical product safety surveillance by using existing observational databases. The Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership's transparent, open innovation approach is designed to systematically and empirically study critical governance, data resource, and methodological issues and their interrelationships in establishing a viable national program of active drug safety surveillance by using observational data. This article describes the governance structure, data-access model, methods-testing approach, and technology development of this effort, as well as the work that has been initiated.

Comparative effectiveness research: who will do the studies?

A key tenet of comparative effectiveness research is that it should be conducted in real-world health care settings. This article addresses a basic question: What is the capacity of the clinical research enterprise to conduct such studies? We argue that the clinical trial system is already at capacity and will not be able to absorb large amounts of comparative effectiveness research without diverting resources from other needs. We propose a federally funded national clinical research infrastructure that would increase comparative effectiveness research capacity by encouraging community-based clinicians and their patients to participate in trials.

Biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease: academic, industry and regulatory perspectives.

Advances in therapeutic strategies for Alzheimer's disease that lead to even small delays in onset and progression of the condition would significantly reduce the global burden of the disease. To effectively test compounds for Alzheimer's disease and bring therapy to individuals as early as possible there is an urgent need for collaboration between academic institutions, industry and regulatory organizations for the establishment of standards and networks for the identification and qualification of biological marker candidates. Biomarkers are needed to monitor drug safety, to identify individuals who are most likely to respond to specific treatments, to stratify presymptomatic patients and to quantify the benefits of treatments. Biomarkers that achieve these characteristics should enable objective business decisions in portfolio management and facilitate regulatory approval of new therapies.

Comparing generic and innovator drugs: a review of 12 years of bioequivalence data from the United States Food and Drug Administration.

BACKGROUND: In the US, manufacturers seeking approval to market a generic drug product must submit data demonstrating that the generic formulation provides the same rate and extent of absorption as (ie, is bioequivalent to) the innovator drug product. Thus, most orally administered generic drug products in the US are approved based on results of one or more clinical bioequivalence studies. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate how well the bioequivalence measures of generic drugs approved in the US over a 12-year period compare with those of their corresponding innovator counterparts. METHODS: This retrospective analysis compared the generic and innovator bioequivalence measures from 2070 single-dose clinical bioequivalence studies of orally administered generic drug products approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 1996 to 2007 (12 y). Bioequivalence measures evaluated were drug peak plasma concentration (C(max)) and area under the plasma drug concentration versus time curve (AUC), representing drug rate and extent of absorption, respectively. The generic/innovator C(max) and AUC geometric mean ratios (GMRs) were determined from each of the bioequivalence studies, which used from 12 to 170 subjects. The GMRs from the 2070 studies were averaged. In addition, the distribution of differences between generic means and innovator means was determined for both C(max) and AUC. RESULTS: The mean +/- SD of the GMRs from the 2070 studies was 1.00 +/- 0.06 for C(max) and 1.00 +/- 0.04 for AUC. The average difference in C(max) and AUC between generic and innovator products was 4.35% and 3.56%, respectively. In addition, in nearly 98% of the bioequivalence studies conducted during this period, the generic product AUC differed from that of the innovator product by less than 10%. CONCLUSIONS: The criteria used to evaluate generic drug bioequivalence studies support the FDA's objective of approving generic drug formulations that are therapeutically equivalent to their innovator counterparts.

Contaminated heparin associated with adverse clinical events and activation of the contact system.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to determine whether oversulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS), a compound contaminating heparin supplies worldwide, is the cause of the severe anaphylactoid reactions that have occurred after intravenous heparin administration in the United States and Germany. METHODS: Heparin procured from the Food and Drug Administration, consisting of suspect lots of heparin associated with the clinical events as well as control lots of heparin, were screened in a blinded fashion both for the presence of OSCS and for any biologic activity that could potentially link the contaminant to the observed clinical adverse events. In vitro assays for the activation of the contact system and the complement cascade were performed. In addition, the ability of OSCS to recapitulate key clinical manifestations in vivo was tested in swine. RESULTS: The OSCS found in contaminated lots of unfractionated heparin, as well as a synthetically generated OSCS reference standard, directly activated the kinin-kallikrein pathway in human plasma, which can lead to the generation of bradykinin, a potent vasoactive mediator. In addition, OSCS induced generation of C3a and C5a, potent anaphylatoxins derived from complement proteins. Activation of these two pathways was unexpectedly linked and dependent on fluid-phase activation of factor XII. Screening of plasma samples from various species indicated that swine and humans are sensitive to the effects of OSCS in a similar manner. OSCS-containing heparin and synthetically derived OSCS induced hypotension associated with kallikrein activation when administered by intravenous infusion in swine. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide a scientific rationale for a potential biologic link between the presence of OSCS in suspect lots of heparin and the observed clinical adverse events. An assay to assess the amidolytic activity of kallikrein can supplement analytic tests to protect the heparin supply chain by screening for OSCS and other highly sulfated polysaccharide contaminants of heparin that can activate the contact system.