Trends in development and approval times for new therapeutics in the United States

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery

Volumn 2, Issue 9, 2003, Pages 695-702

  Reichert, Janice M ^a  

^a TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALGESIC AGENT; ANESTHETIC AGENT; ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; CARDIOVASCULAR AGENT; CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM AGENTS; MONOCLONAL ANTIBODY; NEW DRUG; ORPHAN DRUG; RECOMBINANT PROTEIN; RIBOSOME DNA;

CLINICAL TRIAL; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG LEGISLATION; DRUG RESEARCH; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS MODEL; REVIEW; UNITED STATES; ANIMAL; LEGAL ASPECT; METHODOLOGY; PHARMACEUTICS; STATISTICS;

ANIMALS; DRUG APPROVAL; DRUGS, INVESTIGATIONAL; HUMANS; TECHNOLOGY, PHARMACEUTICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 0142121432     PISSN: 14741776     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1038/nrd1178     Document Type: Review

References (16)

1. Lasagna, L. The development and regulation of new medicines. Science 200, 871-873 (1978).
2. Severson, J. A. Hearing Testimony Oversight hearing on 'Gene Patents and Other Genomic Inventions,' House Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property, July 13, 2000. J. Assoc. Univ. Technol. Managers 12, 1-8 (2000).
3. Milne, C.-P. Orphan products-pain relief for clinical development headaches. Nature Biotechnol. 20, 780-784 (2002).
4. Shulman, S. R., DiMasi, J. A. & Kaitin, K. I. Patent term restoration: the impact of the Waxman-Hatch Act on new drugs and biologics approved 1984-1995. J. Biolaw Bus. 2, 63-68 (1999).
5. Milne, C.-P. & Bergman, E. Fast track product designation under the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act: the industry experience. Drug Inf. J. 35, 71-83 (2001).
6. Reichert, J. M., Chee, J. & Kotzampaltiris, C. S. The effects of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act and the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act on the development and approval of therapeutic medicines. Drug Inf J. 35, 85-94 (2001).
7. Reichert, J. M. & Paquette, C. Therapeutic recombinant proteins: trends in US approvals 1982-2002. Curr. Opin. Mol. Ther. 5, 139-147 (2003).
8. Reichert, J. M. Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies: trends in development and approval in the US. Curr. Opin. Mol. Ther. 4, 110-118 (2002).
9. DiMasi, J. A. New drug development in the United States 1963-1999. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther 69, 286-296 (2001).
10. Kaitin, K. I. & Cairns, C. The new drug approvals of 1999, 2000, and 2001: drug development trends a decade after passage of the user fee act. Drug Inf. J. (in the press).
11. Kaitin, K. I. & Healy, E. M. The new drug approvals of 1996, 1997, and 1998: drug development trends in the user fee era. Drug Inf. J. 34, 1-14 (2000).
12. Kaitin, K. I. & Manocchia, M. A. The new drug approvals of 1993, 1994, and 1995: trends in drug development. Am. J. Ther. 4, 46-54 (1997).
13. Kaitin, K. I., Manocchia, M., Seibring, M. & Lasagna, L. The new drug approvals of 1990, 1991, and 1992: trends in drug development. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 34, 120-127 (1994).
14. Kaitin, K. I., DiCerbo, P. A. & Lasagna, L. The new drug approvals of 1987, 1988, and 1989: trends in drug development. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 31, 116-122 (1991).
15. Kaitin, K. I., Richard, B. W. & Lasagna, L. Trends in drug development: the 1985-86 new drug approvals. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 27, 542-548 (1987).
16. US FDA. Improving Innovation in Medical Technology: Beyond 2002 [online], (cited 04 August 2003),