Factors Associated with Multiple FDA Review Cycles and Approval Phase Times

Abstract

We examined the regulatory review histories of 298 approved new drugs and biologics with new drug applications (NDAs) or new biologic license applications (BLAs) submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during fiscal years 1996–2006 for factors that were associated with multiple review cycles and with longer or shorter total approval phase times (sum of FDA action and sponsor response times) for a given number of review cycles. Using logistic regression models, we found that the likelihood of multiple cycle review varied by therapeutic class, product type (odds ratio = 3.1 for BLAs), fast track status (odds ratio = 0.3), limited sponsor regulatory experience (odds ratio = 2.1 for first US approval), and more recent submissions (odds ratio = 1.7 for fiscal year 2000–2003 submissions compared to fiscal year 1996–1999 submissions). We also applied least squares multivariate regression analysis to explain the variation in total approval phase times with a number of drug, sponsor, and regulatory characteristics. After controlling for the number of review cycles and other factors, we found longer average approval phase times for more recent submissions (56% longer for priority rated compounds with multiple cycle reviews and submissions during a later period, P < .0001), compounds approved in CDER versus CBER (18% longer for single-cycle NDAs versus single-cycle CBER approvals, P = .0372; 35% longer for single-cycle BLAs approved by CDER versus single-cycle CBER approvals, P = .0264; and 44% > longer for multiple-cycle BLAs approved by CDER versus multiple-cycle CBER approvals, P = .0209), compounds with December submissions (18% longer for compounds with multiple cycle reviews, P = .0069), and compounds with advisory committee meetings (13% longer for compounds with a single review cycle, P = .0344). We found shorter average approval phase times for compounds with a fast track designation (21 % shorter for compounds with multiple cycle reviews, P = .0825) and accelerated approval status (24% lower for compounds with a single review cycle, P = .0010). Statistical models such as those presented here can help improve the precision with which drug developers and regulators predict approval times and assess the effectiveness of regulatory programs designed to speed the drug approval process.

Keywords

Approval times Food and Drug Administration Review cycles Sponsor response times

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

DiMasi JA. A new look at United States drug development and approval times. Amer J Ther. 1995;3:1–11.

DiMasi

Manocchia

Initiatives to speed new drug development and regulatory review: the impact of FDA-sponsor conferences. Drug Inf J. 1997;31(3): 771–788.

Kaitin

DiMasi

. Measuring the pace of new drug development in the user-fee era. Drug Inf J. 2000;34:673–680.

DiMasi

. New drug development in the United States, 1963 to 1999. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001; 69(5):286–296.

Reichert

Chee

Kotzampaltiris

. The effects of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act and the Food and Drug Administration Act on the development and approval of therapeutic medicines. Drug Inf J. 2003;35:85–94.

Kaitin

Cairns

The new drug approvals of 1999, 2000, and 2001: drug development trends a decade after passage of the User Fee Act of 1992. Drug Inf J. 2003;37:357–371.

Reichert

. Trends in development and approval times in the United States. Nature Rev Drug Disc. 2003;2(September):695–702.

Carpenter

Chernew

Smith

Fendrick

. Approval times for new drugs: does the source of funding for FDA staff matter? Health Aff. 2003;Web Exclusive(December 17):618–624.

Berndt

Gottschalk

AHB

Philipson

Strobeck

. Industry funding of the FDA: effects of PDUFA on approval times and withdrawal rates. Nature Rev Drug Disc. 2003;4(July):545–554.

10.

Berndt

Gottschalk

AHB

Philipson

Strobeck

. Assessing the impact of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) on the FDA approval process. Forum for Health Economics and Policy 2005;8(Frontiers in Health Policy Research), Article 2. Available at: http://www.bepress.com/fhep/8/2.

11.

Hirako

McAuslane

Salek

Anderson

Walker

A comparison of the drug review process at five international regulatory agencies. Drug Inf J. 2007;41:291–308.

12.

DiMasi

Grabowski

Hansen

. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ. 2003;22(2): 151–185.

13.

DiMasi

. The value of improving the drug development process: faster times and better decisions. Pharmacoeconomics. 2002;20(Suppl 3):1–10.

14.

Congressional Budget Office. How Increased Competition From Generic Drugs Has Affected Prices and Returns in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Washington, DC: US Congress, July 1998.

15.

Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Applications for approval to market a new drug; complete response letter: amendments to unapproved applications. Federal Register. July 10, 2008;73(133): 39588–39611.

16.

Food and Drug Administration. Prescription Drug User Fee Reports and Plans. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/oc/pdufa/reports.html.

17.

Johnson

Winslow

Side effect: drug makers say FDA safety focus is slowing new-medicine pipeline. Wall Street J. June 30, 2008:A1.

18.

Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. Independent Evaluation of FDA's First Cycle Review Performance—Retrospective Analysis Final Report. Prescription Drug User Fee Act III—Initiatives and Evaluations, Contract No. 223–04–8100, Task No. T1. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration, January 2006. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ope/pdufa/PDUFA1stCycle/pdufa1stcycle.pdf.

19.

Booz Allen Hamilton, Inc. Independent Evaluation of FDA's First Cycle Review Performance—Final Report. Prescription Drug User Fee Act III—Initiatives and Evaluations, Contract No. 223–04–8100, Task No. T3. Rockville, MD: Food and Drug Administration, July 16, 2008. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/oc/pdufa3/firstcyclerept08/pdufaDel17.pdf.

20.

Chow

. Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions. Econometrica. 1960;28(3): 591–605.

21.

Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Applications Covered by Section 505(b)(2). Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), October 1999.

22.

Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: Fast Track Drug Development Programs—Designation, Development, and Application Review. Rockville, MD: US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), July 2004.

23.

Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. New drug, antibiotic, and biological drug product regulations: accelerated approval. Federal Register. December 11, 1992;57(239): 58942–58960.

24.

Tufts CSDD Newsletter. Database Snapshot—End-of-the-Year Surge in Approvals. Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, Boston, MA, 1998; 23:1.

25.

Graham

Berndt

. The December effect in FDA drug approvals: assessing the submissions echo hypothesis. Drug Inf J. 2007;41:649–655.

26.

Belsley

Kuh

Regression Diagnostics. New York: John Wiley; 1980.

27.

White

A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica. 1980;48:817–838.

28.

Baghdadi

The data everybody's talking about: proof FDA is more conservative?

RPM Report. 2007;2(11):19–21.

29.

Baghdadi

Rejected out of hand: FDA “refuse-to-file” letters hit five-year high. RPM Report. 2008;3(3): 14–15.

30.

Food and Drug Administration. White Paper: Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA): Adding Resources and Improving Performance in FDA Review of New Drug Applications. November 10, 2005;5. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/pdufa/whitePaper.pdf.

31.

Food and Drug Administration. Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA IV), p. 5. PowerPoint presentation, February 16, 2007. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cder/present/galson/2007/PDUFAIVPublicMeetingFeb162007.pdf.

32.

Filmore

More money for FDA: Congress and White House tussle over timing. Pink Sheet. 2008;70(24):20.

33.

Rawson

The new user fee rules. RPM Report. 2008;3(4):18–24.