Over the last two decades, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has adopted several initiatives designed to speed the approval of new drugs. In the 1970s, the agency implemented a therapeutic rating system and developed procedures for holding end-of-phase II conferences. More recently, the agency has expanded the use of computer-assisted new drug applications and has begun holding New Drug Application (NDA) days. This paper examines the impact of these initiatives on drug review times. Results suggest that in general the earlier initiatives are associated with reduced review times for therapeutically important drugs. Despite the FDA's limited experience with the more recent initiatives, preliminary results suggest the potential for speeding the new drug review process.
Final Report of the National Committee to Review Current Procedures for the Approval of New Drugs for Cancer and AIDS (The “Lasagna Committee Report”), August 15, 1990.
2.
Final Report of the Advisory Committee on the Food and Drug Administration (The “Edwards Committee Report”), US Department of Health and Human Services, May 1991.
3.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration.New drug, antibiotic, and biologic drug product regulations [IND Rewrite]. Federal Register1987;52: 8796–8847.
4.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration.New drug and antibiotic regulations [NDA Rewrite]. Federal Register1985;50: 7452–7519.
5.
WardellWM. Introduction of new therapeutic drugs in the United States and Great Britain: An international comparison. Clin Pharmacol Ther.1973;14: 773–790.
6.
WardellWM. Therapeutic implications of the drug lag. Clin Pharmacol Ther.1974;15: 73–96.
7.
KennedyD.A calm look at “drug lag.”JAMA.1978;239: 423–426.
8.
KaitinKIMattisonNNorthingtonFKLasagnaL.The drug lag: An update of new drug introductions in the United States and in the United Kingdom, 1977 through 1987. Clin Pharmacol Ther.1989;46: 121–138.
9.
Staff Manual Guide.Drug classification.Food and Drug Administration, Bureau of Drugs, Rockville, MD, Guide No. BD 4820.3, August 31, 1976.
10.
KaitinKIPhelanNRRaifordDMorrisB.Therapeutic ratings and end-of-phase II conferences: Initiatives to accelerate the availability of important new drugs. J Clin Pharmacol.1991;31: 17–24.
11.
FinkelMJ. FDA's classification system for new drugs: An evaluation of therapeutic gain. N Engl J Med.1980;302: 181–183.
12.
Staff Manual Guide.End-of-Phase II Conference. Food and Drug Administration, Bureau of Drugs, Rockville, MD, Guide No. BD 4850.7, August 3, 1979.
13.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration.Proposed new drug, antibiotic, and biologic drug product regulations. Federal Register, 1983;48: 26720–26749.
14.
US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration.New drug, antibiotic, and biologic drug product regulations; Final rule [IND Rewrite]. Federal Register, 1987;52: 8798–8847.
15.
FDC Reports [The Pink Sheet]. “General investigational plan” can provide focus for pre-IND meeting. September 14, 1987; T&G 8–9.
16.
FDC Reports [The Pink Sheet].FDA will offer end-of-phase II conference to any drug sponsor, HHS indicates. February 7, 1983; 3–5.
17.
Washington Drug Letter. Few firms find end phase II meetings helpful. February 19, 1990; 1–2.
18.
U.S. Regulatory Reporter.Kessler calls for CANDA initiative at FDA. May 1991; 1–2.
19.
FDC Reports [The Pink Sheet].Computer-assisted NDA guidelines are being prepared by FDA for release. June 24, 1991; T&G 4–5.
20.
BrennanTP. Emerging issues — electronic NDAs. Food Drug Cosm Law J.1988;43: 194–199.
21.
S&T Notes.The electronic NDA experiment. February 13, 1987; 2–3.
22.
FDC Reports [The Pink Sheet].Computer-assisted NDAs have “potential” to cut back approval times, FDA reviewers indicate in survey of FDA and industry experience with CANDAs. July 23, 1990; 12–13.
23.
DobbsJH. Computer-assisted new drug applications (CANDAs): A review. J Clin Res Pharmacoepidemiol.1990;4: 227–234.
24.
Washington Drug Letter.Many firms reluctant to submit CANDAs to agency. March 26, 1990; 3.
25.
Washington Drug Letter. Peck says all applications must be computerized by 1995. December 17, 1990;1–2.
26.
U.S. Regulatory Reporter. Novel approaches to drug review: A divisional inventory. January 1991; 5–8.
27.
CalifreR.CANDA barrier breaker: The Voltaren victory. Pharmaceutical Executive. May 1990; 40–44.
28.
U.S. Regulatory Reporter.NDA Days: Some divisions do, some don't. August 1991; 3–5.
