New FDA breakthrough-drug category - Implications for patients

New England Journal of Medicine

Volumn 370, Issue 13, 2014, Pages 1252-1258

  Darrow, Jonathan J ^a   Avorn, Jerry ^a   Kesselheim, Aaron S ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG CLASSIFICATION; DRUG INDICATION; DRUG LEGISLATION; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG SAFETY; FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HUMAN; INSURANCE; POSTMARKETING SURVEILLANCE; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH; REVIEW; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

DRUG APPROVAL; DRUGS, INVESTIGATIONAL; HUMANS; INVESTIGATIONAL NEW DRUG APPLICATION; RISK ASSESSMENT; UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION;

EID: 84896973049     PISSN: 00284793     EISSN: 15334406     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMhle1311493     Document Type: Article

References (65)

1. Grady D. Serious danger of blood clots halts sales of leukemia drug. New York Times. October 31, 2013:B4.
2. Pub. L. No. 112-144, § 902, 126 Stat. 993 (2012).
3. McCrimmon KK. 'Breakthrough' drugs speed path to cures and the NBA. Health Policy Solutions. 2013 (http://www.healthpolicysolutions.org/2013/05/15/ breakthrough-drugs-speed-path-to-cures-and-the-nba).
4. Bennet M. Food and Drug Safety and Innovation Act. 158 Cong. Rec. S3400, S3418 (May 22, 2012).
5. Burr R. Food and Drug Safety and Innovation Act. 158 Cong. Rec. S4610, S4618 (June 26, 2012).
6. McClellan M, Sigal E. Getting drugs to market place faster. The Hill. April 20, 2012 (http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/healthcare/222771- getting-drugs-to-market-place-faster).
7. Sherman RE, Li J, Shapley S, Robb M, Woodcock J. Expediting drug development - the FDA's new "breakthrough therapy" designation. N Engl J Med 2013;369:1877-80.
8. Fischer S. BIO hails house passage of reconciled user fee package (press release). Washington, DC: Biotechnology Industry Organization, June 21, 2012.
9. Food and Drug Administration. Frequently asked questions: breakthrough therapies - CDER BT totals as of 8/23/13. Silver Spring, MD: FDA (http://www.fda.gov/RegulatoryInformation/Legislation/ FederalFoodDrugandCosmeticActFDCAct/SignificantAmendmentstotheFDCAct/FDASIA/ ucm341027.htm).
10. Expanding access to investigational therapies for HIV infection and AIDS. Washington, DC: Institute of Medicine, 1991.
11. Carpenter D. Reputation and power: organizational image and pharmaceutical regulation at the FDA. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2010.
12. Kessler DA. Remarks by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs. Food Drug Law J 1996;51:207-15. (Pubitemid 26179296)
13. Investigational new drug, antibiotic, and biological drug product regulations: treatment use and sale. Fed Regist 1987;52:19476.
14. Expanded availability of investigational new drugs through a parallel track mechanism for people with AIDS and HIV-related disease. Fed Regist 1990;55:20857.
15. Investigational new drug, antibiotic, and biological drug product regulations: procedures for drugs intended to treat life-threatening and severely debilitating illnesses. Fed Regist 1988;53:41516.
16. New drug, antibiotic, and biological drug product regulations: accelerated approval. Fed Regist 1992;57:58958.
17. Carpenter D, Chernew M, Smith DG, Fendrick AM. Approval times for new drugs: does the source of funding for FDA staff matter? Health Aff (Millwood) 2003;Suppl Web Exclusives: W3-618-W3-624.
18. Zelenay JL Jr. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act: is a faster Food and Drug Administration always a better Food and Drug Administration? Food Drug Law J 2005;60:261-338.
19. Shulman SR, Kaitin KI. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992: a 5-year experiment for industry and the FDA. Pharmacoeconomics 1996;9:121-33. (Pubitemid 26029975)
20. Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007, Pub. L. No. 110-85, § 101(c), 121 Stat. 863 (2007).
21. Letter from the Secretary of Health and Human Services Re: Medical Device User Fee Program. 158 Cong. Rec. S8272 (December 20, 2012).
22. Expanded access to investigational drugs for treatment use. Fed Regist 2006;71:75148.
23. Shulman SR, Brown JS. The Food and Drug Administration's early access and fast-track approval initiatives: how have they worked? Food Drug Law J 1995;50:503-31. (Pubitemid 26088373)
24. Kaitin KI. The prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992 and the new drug development process. Am J Ther 1997;4:167-72. (Pubitemid 27263921)
25. Food and Drug Administration. FY 2012 Innovative drug approvals. Silver Spring, MD: FDA, December 2012 (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/aboutfda/ reportsmanualsforms/reports/ucm330859.pdf).
26. Munos B. Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2009;8:959-68.
27. Food and Drug Administration. Summary of NDA approvals and receipts, 1938 to the present. Silver Spring, MD: FDA, January 18, 2013 (http://www.fda.gov/ AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/ProductRegulation/ SummaryofNDAApprovalsReceipts1938tothepresent/default.htm).
28. Schultz WB. Bolstering the FDA's drug-safety authority. N Engl J Med 2007;357:2217-9. (Pubitemid 350190750)
29. Downing NS, Aminawung JA, Shah ND, Braunstein JB, Krumholz HM, Ross JS. Regulatory review of novel therapeutics - comparison of three regulatory agencies. N Engl J Med 2012;366:2284-93.
30. Carpenter D, Zucker EJ, Avorn J. Drug-review deadlines and safety problems. N Engl J Med 2008;358:1354-61. (Pubitemid 351468412)
31. 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.
32. Lexchin J. New drugs and safety: what happened to new active substances approved in Canada between 1995 and 2010? Arch Intern Med 2012;172:1680-1.
33. Olson MK. The risk we bear: the effects of review speed and industry user fees on new drug safety. J Health Econ 2008;27:175-200.
34. Reaves N. Drug approvals and drug safety: preliminary results. Presented at the Annual Conference of the Pennsylvania Economic Association, West Chester, PA, June 4-6, 2009.
35. Grabowski H, Wang YR. Do faster Food and Drug Administration drug reviews adversely affect patient safety? An analysis of the 1992 Prescription Drug User Fee Act. J Law Econ 2008;51:377-406.
36. Olson MK. Eliminating the U.S. drug lag: implications for drug safety. J Risk Uncertain 2013;47:1-30.
37. Kesselheim AS, Myers JA, Avorn J. Characteristics of clinical trials to support approval of orphan vs nonorphan drugs for cancer. JAMA 2011;305:2320-6.
38. Moore TJ, Furberg CD. Development times, clinical testing, post-market follow-up, and safety risks for the new drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration: the class of 2008. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174:90-5.
39. Steenburg C. The Food and Drug Administration's use of postmarketing (phase IV) study requirements: exception to the rule? Food Drug Law J 2006;61:295-383.
40. Avorn J. Paying for drug approvals - who's using whom? N Engl J Med 2007;356:1697-700. (Pubitemid 46658698)
41. Harris G. F.D.A. backtracks and returns drug to market. New York Times. September 3, 2010:A11.
42. Food and Drug Administration. Mylotarg (gemtuzumab ozogamicin): market withdrawal. Silver Spring, MD: FDA, June 21, 2010 (http://www.fda.gov/Safety/ MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm216458.htm).
43. Fain K, Daubresse M, Alexander GC. The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act and postmarketing commitments. JAMA 2013;310:202-4.
44. Johnson JR, Ning YM, Farrell A, Justice R, Keegan P, Pazdur R. Accelerated approval of oncology products: the Food and Drug Administration experience. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:636-44.
45. Avorn J. Approval of a tuberculosis drug based on a paradoxical surrogate measure. JAMA 2013;309:1349-50.
46. Allen J. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 112th Cong., 2d. Sess 2012:65.
47. Maraganore J. Hearing before the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, 112th Cong., 2d. Sess 2012:52-3.
48. Crawford SY. Changes in FDA drug classification and priority review policy. Am J Hosp Pharm 1992;49:2383, 2386.
49. Providing a breakthrough for drugs with promise. FDA Consum 1979;July-August:25-6.
50. Drug classification and priority review policy: FDA Staff Manual Guide 4820.3. Silver Spring, MD: Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, January 22, 1992.
51. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: fast-track drug development programs: designation, development and application review. January 2006 (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/ucm079736.pdf).
52. Idem. Guidance for industry: fast track drug development programs: designation, development, and application review. July 2004 (http://www.fda.gov/ downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm077104.pdf) .
53. Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992. 138 Cong. Rec. H9095 (1992).
54. Pub. L. No. 112-144, Sec. 801-03, 126 Stat. 993 (2012).
55. Food and Drug Administration. Fast track, breakthrough therapy, accelerated approval and priority review. June 26, 2013 (http://www.fda.gov/ ForConsumers/ByAudience/ForPatientAdvocates/SpeedingAccessImportantNewTherapies/ ucm128291.htm).
56. Investigational new drug, antibiotic, and biological drug product regulations: procedures for drugs intended to treat life-threatening and severely debilitating illnesses. Fed Regist 1988;53:41517.
57. Etzioni A. The active society: a theory of societal and political processes. London: Collier-Macmillan, 1968.
58. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Proposal to withdraw approval for the breast cancer indication for Avastin (bevacizumab): decision of the Commissioner. November 18, 2011 (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/NewsEvents/Newsroom/UCM280546.pdf).
59. Mayer M. Listen to all the voices: an advocate's perspective on early access to investigational therapies. Clin Trials 2006;3:149-53. (Pubitemid 43829215)
60. Schaeffer MH, Krantz DS, Wichman A, Masur H, Reed E, Vinicky JK. The impact of disease severity on the informed consent process in clinical research. Am J Med 1996;100:261-8. (Pubitemid 26111622)
61. Bompey N. Insurers' 'wait and see' stance worries makers of breakthrough drugs. Friends of Cancer Research. September 13, 2013 (http://www.focr.org/9-13- 2013-inside-health-policy-insurers-wait-and-see-stance-worries-makers- breakthrough-drugs).
62. Hirschler B. UK says Novartis, Bristol cancer drugs too costly. Reuters. February 8, 2010 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/09/britain-cancer- idUSLDE61718V20100209).
63. Basu S, Hassenplug JC. Patient access to medical devices - a comparison of U.S. and European review processes. N Engl J Med 2012;367:485-8.
64. Creating an alternative approval pathway for certain drugs intended to address unmet medical need. Fed Regist 2013;78:3005-8.
65. Antibiotic Development to Advance Patient Treatment Act of 2013, H.R. 3742, 113th Cong., 1st Sess. (Dec. 2013).