Regulatory review of novel therapeutics - Comparison of three regulatory agencies

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 366, Issue 24, 2012, Pages 2284-2293

  Downing, Nicholas S ^a   Aminawung, Jenerius A ^a   Shah, Nilay D ^d   Braunstein, Joel B ^e   Krumholz, Harlan M ^a,b,c   Ross, Joseph S ^a,c  

^a YALE UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^b YALE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c YALE NEW HAVEN HOSPITAL   (United States)

^d MAYO CLINIC   (United States)

^e LifeTech Research   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANALGESIC AGENT; ANTIDIABETIC AGENT; ANTIINFECTIVE AGENT; ANTINEOPLASTIC AGENT; CARDIOVASCULAR AGENT; CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM AGENTS; GASTROINTESTINAL AGENT; HEMATOLOGIC AGENT; HORMONE; IMMUNOMODULATING AGENT; RESPIRATORY TRACT AGENT;

ARTICLE; CANADA; CONTROLLED STUDY; DRUG CLASSIFICATION; DRUG CONTROL; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG RESEARCH; DRUG USE; EUROPE; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; GOVERNMENT REGULATION; INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW; INTERMETHOD COMPARISON; MEDICAL SOCIETY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRESCRIPTION; PRESCRIPTIVE AUTHORITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROCESS OPTIMIZATION; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84862239891     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa1200223     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Food and Drug Administration. Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) (http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/ PrescriptionDrugUserFee/default.htm).
2. Philipson T, Berndt E, Gottschalk A, Strobeck M. Assessing the safety and efficacy of the FDA: the case of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2005.
3. Effect of user fees on drug approval times, withdrawals, and other agency activities (GAO-02-958). Washington, DC: General Accounting Office, September 2002 (www.gao.gov/new.items/d02958.pdf).
4. Carpenter D, Zucker EJ, Avorn J. Drug-review deadlines and safety problems. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1354-61. (Pubitemid 351468412)
5. Carpenter D, Chattopadhyay J, Moffitt S, Nall C. The complications of controlling agency time discretion: FDA review deadlines and postmarket drug safety. Am J Pol Sci 2012;56:98-114.
6. Food and Drug Administration. Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) reauthorization (http://www.accessdata.fda .gov/FDATrack/track-proj?program=cder &id=CDER-OPI-PDUFA-Reauthorization).
7. Idem. PDUFA reauthorization performance goals and procedures, fiscal years 2013 through 2017. (http://www.fda.gov/ downloads/forindustry/userfees/ prescriptiondruguserfee/ucm270412.pdf).
8. Fox JL. Interest groups jostle to influence PDUFA V. Nat Biotechnol 2011;29: 1062.
9. Kronquist AR. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act: history and reauthorization issues for 2012. Washington, DC: The Heritage Foundation, December 21, 2011 (http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/ 2011/12/the-prescription-drug-user-fee-act-history- and-reauthorization-issues- for- 2012).
10. Rawson NSB. Time required for approval of new drugs in Canada, Australia, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States in 1996-1998. CMAJ 2000; 162:501-4. (Pubitemid 30111990)
11. Hirako M, McAuslane N, Salek S, Anderson C, Walker S. A comparison of the drug review process at five international regulatory agencies. Drug Inf J 2007;41: 291-308. (Pubitemid 46744269)
12. Faden LB, Kaitin KI. Assessing the performance of the EMEA's centralized procedure: a comparative analysis with the US FDA. Drug Inf J 2007;42:45-56.
13. Roberts SA, Allen JD, Sigal EV. Despite criticism of the FDA review process, new cancer drugs reach patients sooner in the United States than in Europe. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011;30:1375-81.
14. Food and Drug Administration. Drugs@FDA: FDA approved drug products (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/ cder/drugsatfda).
15. European Medicines Agency. European public assessment reports (http://www .ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/ medicines/landing/epar-search.jsp).
16. Idem. Applying for EU marketing authorisation: for medicinal products for human use (http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/ en-GB/document-library/Brochure/2011/ 03/WC500104233.pdf).
17. Health Canada. Drug Product Database (DPD) (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp- mps/ prodpharma/databasdon/index-eng.php).
18. Idem. Summary Basis of Decision (SBD) documents: drugs (http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ dhp-mps/prodpharma/sbd-smd/drug-med/ index-eng.php).
19. Heads of Medicines Agencies. Human mutual recognition product index (http:// www.hma.eu/mri.html).
20. WHO Collaborating Center for Drug Statistics Methodology. ATC/DDD index 2012 (http://www.whocc.no/atc-ddd- index).
21. Eichler H-G, Pignatti F, Leufkens H, Breckenridge A. Balancing early market access to new drugs with the need for benefit/risk data: a mounting dilemma. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2008;7:818-26.
22. Institute of Medicine. The future of drug safety: promoting and protecting the health of the public. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 2006.
23. Food and Drug Administration. FY 2010 PDUFA performance report (http://www .fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/ Reports/UserFeeReports/ Performance Reports/PDUFA/ucm243357.htm).
24. Generic Pharmaceutical Association. GPhA says cuts to FDA generic drug program would have 'devastating impact' on consumers and government. March 21, 2011 (http://www.gphaonline.org/media/ press-releases/2011/gpha-says-cuts-fda- generic- drug-program-would-have-%E2% 80%98devastating-impact%E2%80%99-co).
25. Suter LG, Paltiel AD, Rome BN, et al. Medical device innovation - is "better" good enough? N Engl J Med 2011;365: 1464-6.
26. Challoner DR, Vodra WW. Medical devices and health - creating a new regulatory framework for moderate-risk devices. N Engl J Med 2011;365:977-9.