The Pharmaceutical Industry in 2019. An Analysis of FDA Drug Approvals from the Perspective of Molecules.

During 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 48 new drugs (38 New Chemical Entities and 10 Biologics). Although this figure is slightly lower than that registered in 2018 (59 divided between 42 New Chemical Entities and 17 Biologics), a year that broke a record with respect to new drugs approved by this agency, it builds on the trend initiated in 2017, when 46 drugs were approved. Of note, three antibody drug conjugates, three peptides, and two oligonucleotides were approved in 2019. This report analyzes the 48 new drugs of the class of 2019 from a strictly chemical perspective. The classification, which was carried out on the basis of chemical structure, includes the following: Biologics (antibody drug conjugates, antibodies, and proteins); TIDES (peptide and oligonucleotides); drug combinations; natural products; and small molecules.

Pharmaceutical Ethics and Grassroots Activism in the United States: A Social History Perspective.

Women's health activists laid the groundwork for passage of the law that created the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1906. The pharmaceutical and food industries fought regulatory reforms then and continue to do so now. We examine public health activism in the Progressive Era, the postwar era and the present day. The women's health movement began in the 1960s, and criticized both the pharmaceutical industry and the medical establishment. In the 1990s, patient advocacy groups began accepting industry funds; thousands of commercially-funded groups now dominate the advocacy landscape. As pharma funding became normalized, concerns arose regarding a) the lack of transparency and public accountability regarding funding, b) the distortion of groups' agendas, and c) the ability of pharma-funded groups to dominate the discourse and override less well-resourced patient and health advocacy groups. Although industry-funded groups argue that funding allows them to provide useful services, the trade-off in health risks, exorbitant prices and distorted information is far too high. Sincerity is beside the point; patients and the industry have differing interests when it comes to drug safety and efficacy, drug information and drug prices. A growing resistance movement is asserting the values of its activist predecessors and opposing the prevailing culture of pharma-funded advocacy.

A Chronology for the Identification and Disclosure of Adverse Effects of Succinylcholine.

BACKGROUND: New therapies are created to address specific problems and enjoy popularity as they enter widespread clinical use. Broader use can reveal unknown adverse effects and impact the life cycle significantly. Succinylcholine, a depolarizing neuromuscular blocker, was the product of decades of research surrounding the ancient compound, curare. It was introduced into practice in the 1950s by Burroughs Wellcome and Company (BW Co) and was welcomed due to its rapidly acting muscle relaxation effects. Global clinical use revealed adverse effects, both minor and major, in particular, hyperkalemia and malignant hyperthermia. We investigated when practitioners and the manufacturer became aware of these adverse effects, how information about these side effects was disseminated, and whether the manufacturer met the regulatory requirements of the time, specifically regarding the timely reporting of adverse effects. SOURCES: Primary literature search using online and archived documents was conducted at the Wood Library-Museum of Anesthesiology, Schaumburg, IL. We consulted documents submitted by BW Co to federal authorities, through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports, promotional advertisements, package inserts, published articles, and textbooks. RESULTS: Initial clinical testing in humans in 1952 found no adverse effects on cardiovascular or respiratory systems. Fasciculations and myalgia were early side effects described in case reports in 1952. Large-scale clinical trials in 1953 found abnormally long recovery times among some patients; the discovery of abnormal pseudocholinesterase enzyme activity was not fully demonstrated until the early 1960s. Bradycardia was first reported in 1957 in children, and in 1959 in adults. In 1960, animal studies reported a transient increase in plasma potassium; further experiments in 1969 clearly demonstrated succinylcholine-induced hyperkalemia in burn patients. Malignant hyperthermia was first described in 1966. Similar cases of elevated temperatures and muscle rigidity were described globally but the underlying mechanism was not elucidated until the 1990s. Standard anesthesia textbooks did not report major side effects of succinylcholine until 1960 and included newly documented side effects with each edition. BW Co's packaging contained warnings as early as the 1950s but were later updated in 1962 and beyond to reflect the newly discovered hyperkalemia and malignant hyperthermia. CONCLUSION: Particularly given the regulatory environment of the time, BW Co appropriately reported the adverse effects of succinylcholine after market entry; it updated promotional and packaging material in a timely manner to reflect newly discovered adverse effects. The toxicity, though alarming and put clinicians on alert, did not seem to heavily impact succinylcholine's use, given its various desirable properties. It is still a choice muscle relaxant used today, although there are efforts to develop superior agents to replace succinylcholine.

Data Integrity: History, Issues, and Remediation of Issues.

Data integrity is critical to regulatory compliance, and the fundamental reason for 21 CFR Part 11 published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA published the first guideline in 1963, and since then FDA and European Union (EU) have published numerous guidelines on various topics related to data integrity for the pharmaceutical industry. Regulators wanted to make certain that industry capture accurate data during the drug development lifecycle and through commercialization-consider the number of warning letters issued lately by inspectors across the globe on data integrity. This article discusses the history of regulations put forward by various regulatory bodies, the term ALCOA Plus adopted by regulators, the impact of not following regulations, and some prevention methods by using some simple checklists, self-audit, and self-inspection techniques. FDA uses the acronym ALCOA to define its expectations of electronic data. ALCOA stands for Attributable, Legible, Contemporaneous, Original, and Accurate. ALCOA was further expanded to ALCOA Plus, and the Plus means Enduring, Available and Accessible, Complete, Consistent, Credible, and Corroborated. If we do not follow the regulations as written, then there is a huge risk. This article covers some of the risk aspects. To prevent data integrity, various solutions can be implemented such as a simple checklist for various systems, self-audit, and self-inspections. To do that we have to develop strategy, people, implement better business processes, and gain a better understanding of data lifecycle as well as technology.LAY ABSTRACT: If one does a Google search on "What is data integrity?" the first page will give the definition of data integrity, how to learn more about data integrity, the history of data integrity, risk management of data integrity, and at the top about various U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Union (EU) regulations. Data integrity is nothing but about accuracy of data. When someone searches Google for some words, we expect accurate results that we can rely on. The same principle applies during the drug development lifecycle. Pharmaceutical industry ensures that data entered for various steps of drug development is accurate so that we can have confidence that the drugs produced by the industry are within some parameters. The regulations put forward by FDA and EU are not new. The first regulation was published in 1963, and after that regulators published multiple guidelines. Inspectors from both regulatory bodies inspected the industry, and they found that the data was not accurate. If pharmaceutical industry produces drugs within the stated parameters, then it is approved and available in the market for patients. If inspectors find that the data is modified, then the drug is not approved. That means revenue loss for industry and drugs not available for patients. In this article, I explain some of the remediation plans for the industry that can be applied during the drug development lifecycle pathway.

Prohibited or regulated? LSD psychotherapy and the United States Food and Drug Administration.

Over the 1950s and early 1960s, the use of the hallucinogenic drug lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) to facilitate psychotherapy was a promising field of psychiatric research in the USA. However, during the 1960s, research began to decline, before coming to a complete halt in the mid-1970s. This has commonly been explained through the increase in prohibitive federal regulations during the 1960s that aimed to curb the growing recreational use of the drug. However, closely examining the Food and Drug Administration's regulation of LSD research in the 1960s will reveal that not only was LSD research never prohibited, but that the administration supported research to a greater degree than has been recognized. Instead, the decline in research reflected more complex changes in the regulation of pharmaceutical research and development.

Food and Drug Administration Drug Approval Process: A History and Overview.

In this article, the processing of investigational and new drug applications is described and the standard and expedited review processes are examined. The efforts of the US Food and Drug Administration to ensure greater agency transparency and fiscal responsibility and intensify oversight during the drug development and approval process are reviewed. Often attributed to a decrease in the number of uninsured adults, both the increase in prescription drug sales and the high costs associated with bringing a new drug to market highlight the necessity for a streamlined and cost-effective process to deliver these drugs safely and effectively.

The tragedy of the commodity and the farce of AquAdvantage Salmon.

The US Food and Drug Administration is expected to approve AquAdvantage Salmon as the first genetically modified animal for human consumption. The genetic modifications allow the proprietary fish to grow at a rate twice as fast as a wild salmon, leading to greater 'efficiency' in terms of reduced costs and reduced time to market. This article provides an analysis of the ways in which AquAdvantage Salmon exemplifies capitalist market forces controlling and guiding the terms of salmon recovery and conservation. The authors trace historical developments within the salmon industry to demonstrate how capitalist commodity production has impacted fishing communities. They reject the oft-cited 'tragedy of the commons' hypothesis offered to explain fisheries crises. In its place, they offer the conceptual framework of the 'tragedy of the commodity' to explore how capitalist market forces and complicit state regulations amplify rather than resolve global environmental problems.

The complications of controlling agency time discretion: FDA review deadlines and postmarket drug safety.

Public agencies have discretion on the time domain, and politicians deploy numerous policy instruments to constrain it. Yet little is known about how administrative procedures that affect timing also affect the quality of agency decisions. We examine whether administrative deadlines shape decision timing and the observed quality of decisions. Using a unique and rich dataset of FDA drug approvals that allows us to examine decision timing and quality, we find that this administrative tool induces a piling of decisions before deadlines, and that these "just-before-deadline" approvals are linked with higher rates of postmarket safety problems (market withdrawals, severe safety warnings, safety alerts). Examination of data from FDA advisory committees suggests that the deadlines may impede quality by impairing late-stage deliberation and agency risk communication. Our results both support and challenge reigning theories about administrative procedures, suggesting they embody expected control-expertise trade-offs, but may also create unanticipated constituency losses.

Bioequivalence: the regulatory career of a pharmaceutical concept.

Generic drugs cannot be marketed without regulatory and clinical demonstration of "bioequivalence." The authors argue that the concept of "bioequivalence" is a joint regulatory and scientific creation, not purely a technical concept, and not purely a legal concept. It developed at the interstices of networks of pharmacologists, regulators, food and drug lawyers, and American and European policy makers interested in "generic" drugs. This article provides a situated perspective on the history of bioequivalence, which emphasizes the shaping role of the state upon scientific processes, networks of regulators and scientists, and the centrality of transnational dynamics in the formation of drug regulatory standards.

Governmental oversight of prescribing medications: history of the US Food and Drug Administration and prescriptive authority.

The evolution of drug regulation and awarding of prescriptive authority is a complex and sometimes convoluted process that can be confusing for health care providers. A review of the history of how drugs have been manufactured and dispensed helps explain why this process has been so laborious and complicated. Because the federal and state governments have the responsibility for protecting the public, most regulations have been passed with the intentions of ensuring consumer safety. The current system of laws and regulations is the result of many years of using the legal system to correct drug marketing that had adverse health consequences. Government oversight will continue as prescribing medications transitions to an electronic form and as health care professionals in addition to physicians seek to gain prescriptive authority.