Use of US Food and Drug Administration Expedited Drug Development and Review Programs by Orphan and Nonorphan Novel Drugs Approved From 2008 to 2021.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has 4 programs that can be used alone or in combination to expedite drug availability: Accelerated Approval, Breakthrough Therapy, Fast Track, and Priority Review. Drugs using these programs can include novel drugs, which do not contain a previously FDA-approved active moiety, and orphan drugs, intended for diseases or conditions affecting fewer than 200 000 people; to date, no comprehensive evaluation of how these programs have been used in combination has been published. Objective: To assess how often and in what combinations expedited programs are used in the development and review of approved novel biologics and small-molecule drugs, stratified by orphan drug status and indication. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study evaluated all novel drugs that were FDA approved between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2021. Main Outcomes and Measures: The main outcome was the frequency with which expedited programs were used and in what combinations, stratified by orphan drug status and drug type (small molecule vs therapeutic biologic). The unit of analysis was the novel drug-indication pair because a drug can be approved for multiple indications, each of which may use a different expedited program or differ in orphan drug status. Results: The study included 581 novel drug-indication pairs approved during the 14-year study period; 252 (43.4%) were orphan drugs, 139 (23.9%) were therapeutic biologics, and 442 (76.1%) were small-molecule drugs. Use of at least 1 expedited program increased from 11 of 26 drug-indication pairs (42.3%) in 2008 to 41 of 55 (74.5%) in 2021. Of the 363 approved drug-indication pairs using at least 1 expedited program, 225 (62.0%) were orphan drugs; at least 1 expedited program was used by 97 of the 139 approved biologic drugs (69.8%) and by 266 of the 442 approved small-molecule drugs (60.2%). Eighty-two of the 581 novel drug-indication pairs (14.1%) used the Accelerated Approval Program; of those, 65 (79.3%) were oncology drugs and 70 (85.4%) had an orphan designation. Conclusions and Relevance: The study showed that use of the FDA's expedited programs to bring novel drugs to market in the US increased from 2008 to 2021. The findings suggest that this trend is likely to continue.

Contents of US Food and Drug Administration Refuse-to-File Letters for New Drug Applications and Efficacy Supplements and Their Public Disclosure by Applicants.

Importance: Before reviewing drug applications, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducts "filing reviews" to assess whether they are complete enough for full review. If the applications are incomplete, the FDA issues refuse-to-file (RTF) letters identifying deficiencies. The FDA does not make these RTF letters public at the time of issuance. Why the FDA issues RTF letters and how often the letters and their contents are made publicly available are unknown. Objectives: To quantitatively analyze the FDA's reasons for issuing RTF letters and assess the public transparency of RTF letters and their contents. Design and Setting: This cross-sectional study analyzes RTF letters issued in response to new drug applications and efficacy supplements (applications for new indications or patient populations for already approved drugs) submitted to the FDA between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2017. Statistical analysis was conducted in July 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Two types of information were extracted and cataloged from RTF letters: (1) the reasons why the FDA refused to file applications and (2) the FDA comments that, while not a basis for RTF letters, conveyed important information to applicants. The extent to which applicants publicly disclosed the FDA's refusal reasons were also assessed. Results: The study included 103 RTF letters containing a total of 644 identified FDA refusal reasons. Among the 2475 applications that the FDA received during the study time frame, 98 (4.0%) received RTF letters. Overall, 84.5% (544 of 644) of the refusal reasons were for scientific deficiencies; most reasons were related to drug efficacy and safety (196 [30.4%]) and drug quality (125 [19.4%]). The remaining 15.5% of refusal reasons (100 of 644) were for application organization deficiencies or legal issues. A total of 26.2% of the RTF letters (27 of 103) identified presubmission advice from the FDA that applicants did not follow; the most frequently ignored advice was related to clinical trial design (33.3% [9 of 27]), followed by product chemistry and manufacturing (25.9% [7 of 27]). Applicants publicly disclosed the existence of 16 of 103 RTF letters (15.5%); however, only 5.4% of applicant-disclosed reasons (35 of 644) matched the refusal reasons that the FDA had provided in the RTF letters. Conclusions and Relevance: This cross-sectional study found that the FDA refused to file applications for substantive reasons related to quality, safety, and efficacy, and applicants' disclosure of those reasons was incomplete. This work sheds light on the FDA's regulatory decision-making processes and the RTF reasons that could delay availability of therapies to patients.

An Evaluation of US Food and Drug Administration's Program to Register HIV Drugs for Use in Resource-Constrained Settings.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) program to review antiretroviral drugs for use in low-resource settings via the US President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) now supports treatment of more than 14 million patients with HIV. However, an in-depth evaluation of the program has not been undertaken. Objective: To conduct a quantitative analysis of the FDA-reviewed antiretroviral drug applications in order to assess the contributions of PEPFAR and to identify areas for improvement. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cross-sectional study was conducted of all PEPFAR applications submitted to the FDA from December 1, 2004, to May 31, 2018. The analyses were conducted between October 2018 and February 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures: Numbers and types of applications reviewed, how long it took for applications to obtain approval or tentative approval (time to registration), how often the FDA issued a complete response letter (CRL) identifying deficiencies precluding application approval or tentative approval and their reasons, and the association between CRLs and time to registration. Results: Overall, 260 PEPFAR applications for 327 antiretroviral therapies were reviewed by FDA, of which 216 applications (83%) for 272 drugs were authorized for use. Of the 216 authorized applications, 184 applications for 231 drugs remain in active status and, thus, are available for use. Twenty-six percent (56 of 216) of the applications were for pediatric-specific formulations or strengths; the remainder were for adults. For all 216 applications, the median (interquartile range) time to registration was 10.0 (7.0-17.5) months. Thirty-seven percent (95 of 260) of the applications received 1 or more CRLs, resulting in a total of 172 CRLs; most applications received 1 CRL, whereas some were issued up to 6 CRLs. Among all CRLs, 264 deficiency reasons were identified; the most common deficiencies were associated with manufacturing processes (155 [44%]), followed by product labeling (62 [23%]), and failing facility inspections (54 [20%]). Complete response letters were associated with an increased time to registration. Applications without CRLs had a median (interquartile range) time to registration of 9.0 (5.5-12.0) months, whereas those with at least 1 CRL took a median (interquartile range) of 22.0 (14.0-38.0) months (P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: The FDA's PEPFAR program has made many antiretroviral drugs available for global use. However, FDA and the pharmaceutical companies could take steps to improve the quality of applications submitted to prevent avoidable deficiencies in manufacturing processes and labeling. Further efforts to develop better, easier to use pediatric-specific therapies are needed.

Impact of the US Food and Drug Administration registration of antiretroviral drugs on global access to HIV treatment.

BACKGROUND: Since 2004, the US Food and Drug Administration's (USFDA) dedicated drug review process in support of President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has made safe, effective and quality antiretrovirals (ARVs) available for millions of patients. Furthermore, the WHO and Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (Global Fund) can add the USFDA-reviewed products to their respective formularies, through a novel process of 'one-way reliance'. We assessed the number of ARVs made available through WHO and Global Fund based on the USFDA review. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of all the USFDA-reviewed PEPFAR drugs between 1 December 2014 and 20 March 2017 to determine 1) the percentage that are included on the WHO and Global Fund formularies; 2) the number of the USFDA ARVs supporting the WHO HIV treatment guidelines, and their uptake by WHO and Global Fund and 3) time between the USFDA review and WHO review of the same ARVs. FINDINGS: Overall, 91% (204/224) of the USFDA products appeared on either the WHO/Prequalification of Medicines Programme (PQP) or the Global Fund ARV lists. Forty-five per cent (100/224) and 83% (184/224) appear on WHO/PQP and Global Fund formularies through one-way reliance, respectively. Forty-one per cent (91/224) of the USFDA products support the WHO-preferred first-line HIV treatment options. Of these 91 products, 38% and 85% of products were adopted by WHO/PQP and Global Fund through one-way reliance, respectively. Sixty-six products that were fully reviewed and registered by WHO (vs one-way reliance) had also undergone the USFDA review; 46 of these were registered by WHO after the USFDA review was complete (median delay of 559 days (IQR 233-798 days)). CONCLUSIONS: The USFDA's PEPFAR process is making safe and effective ARVs available worldwide, in part because the major global ARV procurement organisations rely on the USFDA registration as proof of quality. There is room for improved information sharing and collaboration to reduce duplication of effort, save resources and further expedite access to ARVs.

The US Food and Drug Administration's tentative approval process and the global fight against HIV.

INTRODUCTION: In 2004, the US government began to utilize the Food and Drug Administration's (USFDA) tentative approval process (tFDA) as a basis to determine which HIV drugs are appropriate to be purchased and used in resource-constrained settings. This process permits products that are not approved for marketing in the US, including medicines with active patents or marketing restrictions in the US, to be purchased and distributed in resource-constrained settings. Although the tFDA was originally intended to support the United States' President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the USFDA list has become a cornerstone of international HIV programmes that support procurement of ARVs, such as the World Health Organization and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. Our objective in this article is to help the global HIV policy makers and implementers of HIV programmes better understand the benefits and limitations of the tFDA by providing an in-depth review of the relevant legal and regulatory processes. DISCUSSION: USFDA's dedicated tFDA process for ARVs used by the PEPFAR programme has a wide impact globally; however, the implementation and the regulatory processes governing the programme have not been thoroughly described in the medical literature. This paper seeks to help stakeholders better understand the legal and regulatory aspects associated with review of ARVs under the tFDA by describing the following: (1) the tFDA and its importance to global ARV procurement; (2) the regulatory pathways for applications under tFDA for the PEPFAR programme, including modifications to applications, review timelines and costs; (3) the role of US patents, US marketing exclusivity rights, and the Medicines Patents Pool in tFDA; and (4) an overview of how applications for PEPFAR programme are processed through the USFDA. We also provide a case study of a new ARV, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (TAF), not yet reviewed by USFDA for PEPFAR use. CONCLUSIONS: In this paper, we describe the importance and implementation of USFDA's tentative approval process to review ARVs for resource-constrained settings. We also highlight the impact of patents and exclusivities on review of HIV drugs under tFDA and illustrate the concepts using a new HIV drug as an example.

Establishing a regulatory value chain model: An innovative approach to strengthening medicines regulatory systems in resource-constrained settings.

Medicines Regulatory Authorities (MRAs) are an essential part of national health systems and are charged with protecting and promoting public health through regulation of medicines. However, MRAs in resource-constrained settings often struggle to provide effective oversight of market entry and use of health commodities. This paper proposes a regulatory value chain model (RVCM) that policymakers and regulators can use as a conceptual framework to guide investments aimed at strengthening regulatory systems. The RVCM incorporates nine core functions of MRAs into five modules: (i) clear guidelines and requirements; (ii) control of clinical trials; (iii) market authorization of medical products; (iv) pre-market quality control; and (v) post-market activities. Application of the RVCM allows national stakeholders to identify and prioritize investments according to where they can add the most value to the regulatory process. Depending on the economy, capacity, and needs of a country, some functions can be elevated to a regional or supranational level, while others can be maintained at the national level. In contrast to a "one size fits all" approach to regulation in which each country manages the full regulatory process at the national level, the RVCM encourages leveraging the expertise and capabilities of other MRAs where shared processes strengthen regulation. This value chain approach provides a framework for policymakers to maximize investment impact while striving to reach the goal of safe, affordable, and rapidly accessible medicines for all.

Establishing a regulatory value chain model: An innovative approach to strengthening medicines regulatory systems in resource-constrained settings / Establecimiento de un modelo de cadena de valor reglamentaria: un enfoque innovador para fortalecer los sistemas de reglamentación farmacéutica en entornos de escasos recursos

ABSTRACT Medicines Regulatory Authorities (MRAs) are an essential part of national health systems and are charged with protecting and promoting public health through regulation of medicines. However, MRAs in resource-constrained settings often struggle to provide effective oversight of market entry and use of health commodities. This paper proposes a regulatory value chain model (RVCM) that policymakers and regulators can use as a conceptual framework to guide investments aimed at strengthening regulatory systems. The RVCM incorporates nine core functions of MRAs into five modules: (i) clear guidelines and requirements; (ii) control of clinical trials; (iii) market authorization of medical products; (iv) pre-market quality control; and (v) post-market activities. Application of the RVCM allows national stakeholders to identify and prioritize investments according to where they can add the most value to the regulatory process. Depending on the economy, capacity, and needs of a country, some functions can be elevated to a regional or supranational level, while others can be maintained at the national level. In contrast to a "one size fits all" approach to regulation in which each country manages the full regulatory process at the national level, the RVCM encourages leveraging the expertise and capabilities of other MRAs where shared processes strengthen regulation. This value chain approach provides a framework for policymakers to maximize investment impact while striving to reach the goal of safe, affordable, and rapidly accessible medicines for all.(AU)

RESUMEN Los organismos de reglamentación farmacéutica son parte esencial de los sistemas nacionales de salud y se encargan de proteger y promover la salud pública mediante la reglamentación en torno a los medicamentos. Sin embargo, en lugares con pocos recursos, estos organismos suelen tener dificultad para supervisar eficazmente la entrada en el mercado y el uso de los productos sanitarios básicos. En el presente artículo se propone un modelo de cadena de valor reglamentaria (MCVR) que los responsables de las políticas y de la reglamentación pueden usar como marco conceptual para guiar las inversiones dirigidas a fortalecer los sistemas reglamentarios. El modelo incorpora en cinco módulos nueve funciones básicas de los organismos de reglamentación farmacéutica: (i) directrices y requisitos inequívocos; (ii) el control de los ensayos clínicos; (iii) la autorización de la comercialización de los productos médicos; (iv) el control de calidad antes de la comercialización; y (v) las actividades posteriores a esta. La aplicación del MCVR les permite a los interesados directos en los países determinar qué inversiones hacen falta y darles la prioridad debida teniendo presente dónde contribuirían en mayor medida a realzar el valor del proceso reglamentario. Si lo permiten la economía, la capacidad y las necesidades de un país, ciertas funciones pueden extenderse al nivel regional o supranacional, mientras que otras pueden seguir siendo nacionales. A diferencia de un método único para todos los casos, en el que cada país administra todo el proceso reglamentario en el nivel nacional, el MCVR promueve el aprovechamiento de la pericia y capacidades de otros organismos de reglamentación farmacéutica en áreas donde los procesos comunes fortalecen la reglamentación. Este método de la cadena de valor les proporciona a los formuladores de las políticas un marco para potenciar al máximo el efecto de las inversiones a la vez que se esfuerzan por lograr el objetivo de poner al alcance de todos medicamentos inocuos, asequibles y rápidamente accesibles.(AU)

Establishing a regulatory value chain model: An innovative approach to strengthening medicines regulatory systems in resource-constrained settings / Establecimiento de un modelo de cadena de valor reglamentaria: un enfoque innovador para fortalecer los sistemas de reglamentación farmacéutica en entornos de escasos recursos

Medicines Regulatory Authorities (MRAs) are an essential part of national health systems and are charged with protecting and promoting public health through regulation of medicines. However, MRAs in resource-constrained settings often struggle to provide effective oversight of market entry and use of health commodities. This paper proposes a regulatory value chain model (RVCM) that policymakers and regulators can use as a conceptual framework to guide investments aimed at strengthening regulatory systems. The RVCM incorporates nine core functions of MRAs into five modules: (i) clear guidelines and requirements; (ii) control of clinical trials; (iii) market authorization of medical products; (iv) pre-market quality control; and (v) post-market activities. Application of the RVCM allows national stakeholders to identify and prioritize investments according to where they can add the most value to the regulatory process. Depending on the economy, capacity, and needs of a country, some functions can be elevated to a regional or supranational level, while others can be maintained at the national level. In contrast to a “one size fits all” approach to regulation in which each country manages the full regulatory process at the national level, the RVCM encourages leveraging the expertise and capabilities of other MRAs where shared processes strengthen regulation. This value chain approach provides a framework for policymakers to maximize investment impact while striving to reach the goal of safe, affordable, and rapidly accessible medicines for all.

Los organismos de reglamentación farmacéutica son parte esencial de los sistemas nacionales de salud y se encargan de proteger y promover la salud pública mediante la reglamentación en torno a los medicamentos. Sin embargo, en lugares con pocos recursos, estos organismos suelen tener dificultad para supervisar eficazmente la entrada en el mercado y el uso de los productos sanitarios básicos. En el presente artículo se propone un modelo de cadena de valor reglamentaria (MCVR) que los responsables de las políticas y de la reglamentación pueden usar como marco conceptual para guiar las inversiones dirigidas a fortalecer los sistemas reglamentarios. El modelo incorpora en cinco módulos nueve funciones básicas de los organismos de reglamentación farmacéutica: (i) directrices y requisitos inequívocos; (ii) el control de los ensayos clínicos; (iii) la autorización de la comercialización de los productos médicos; (iv) el control de calidad antes de la comercialización; y (v) las actividades posteriores a esta. La aplicación del MCVR les permite a los interesados directos en los países determinar qué inversiones hacen falta y darles la prioridad debida teniendo presente dónde contribuirían en mayor medida a realzar el valor del proceso reglamentario. Si lo permiten la economía, la capacidad y las necesidades de un país, ciertas funciones pueden extenderse al nivel regional o supranacional, mientras que otras pueden seguir siendo nacionales. A diferencia de un método único para todos los casos, en el que cada país administra todo el proceso reglamentario en el nivel nacional, el MCVR promueve el aprovechamiento de la pericia y capacidades de otros organismos de reglamentación farmacéutica en áreas donde los procesos comunes fortalecen la reglamentación. Este método de la cadena de valor les proporciona a los formuladores de las políticas un marco para potenciar al máximo el efecto de las inversiones a la vez que se esfuerzan por lograr el objetivo de poner al alcance de todos medicamentos inocuos, asequibles y rápidamente accesibles.