Archive for February, 2012

  • Feb
  • 27
  • 2012

Innovation vs. Safety: Another Definition for the “Chicken or the Egg”

Innovation vs. Safety: Another Definition for the “Chicken or the Egg”

We all know that the FDA’s mission is to promote and protect public health. However, in their effort to protect the public health, it seems that they may be inadvertently harming the industry that develops new drugs and therapies. Despite the adherence to PDUFA-mandated review timing, in recent years, the number of new drug approvals has been flat and the biopharmaceutical industry has laid the blame for this on the FDA. Because of some recent drug safety controversies, the Agency has increased its focus on drug safety and efficacy. The resulting increase in the number of regulatory hurdles has resulted in increased development time, cost and the palpable uncertainty of new drug approval. This has made investment in new drugs riskier. Without investment, the biopharmaceutical industry is slowing down innovation that is essential to finding new and better treatments for patients. Investors and senior management in companies within the biopharmaceutical industry believe the FDA must make changes to allow for more innovation.

So what’s the FDA’s story? Well, on the other side, it is becoming more difficult for the FDA to promote public health. Fewer drugs submitted for approval results in fewer drugs available to patients in need of new treatments. FDA says that their process for drug approval is still faster than in other countries, but the reason the number of new drug approvals has been flat is due to new scientific challenges, specifically in drug safety. All drugs have benefits that must be weighed against the risk of serious adverse reactions. FDA is hoping new research techniques will help make this risk-benefit decision easier. If FDA has a better way to gauge safety and efficacy, then the regulation process will run smoother and faster for everyone involved.

The FDA’s challenge is to have greater drug safety without sacrificing the speed of the review process. If this challenge can be achieved, the growth of innovation would be stimulated. The biopharmaceutical industry believes the FDA’s mission should include promoting the advancement of innovation that supports public health. By doing this, the FDA will have to keep in mind that the decisions they make have far reaching consequences into the biopharmaceutical industry. Even without an expansion in their mission, the FDA is already trying to find new ways to promote innovation and update the regulatory process to accommodate new advances in science and drug therapies.

Posted by Joel Falk, Executive Vice President. For more information, please contact Joel at joel.falk@weinberggroup.com.

  • Feb
  • 21
  • 2012

What to Expect During NDA Review

What to Expect During NDA Review

Compiling and submitting an NDA is a complicated and intensive activity. Once you have submitted your application to FDA, you may be curious about what can you expect to hear and when. Below are some of the common questions we receive from sponsors about what to expect during the NDA review process.

When will I know that my NDA has been accepted for filing?
You will know within 60 days of submitting your NDA whether it has been accepted for filing (or conversely, if FDA refuses to file your application). If your application is accepted for filing (60 days after submission), then you will receive a 74-day letter, which confirms your action date, confirms standard versus priority review, and identifies any preliminary deficiencies in your application.

How many information requests can we expect to receive?
The answer is that it varies, and there really is no predicting how eventful your review will be. Throughout the course of the Agency’s review, there are likely to be issues that come up, but the number and significance of these requests will vary from application to application. Hopefully you took the time to ensure that all of the components of your NDA were accurate and complete, and you reviewed any previous correspondence with the Agency to make sure that all issues were addressed. However, FDA may request clarification on where information resides in your NDA, clarification on information you already provided, or they may request additional analyses.

Regardless of how many information requests you receive, it is important that you make sure you understand what FDA is asking for and that you respond with information that is clear, comprehensive and transparent. This will help the reviewers understand your response and minimize the need for additional follow-up questions or requests. It is the sponsor’s responsibility to respond to these requests as soon as possible, as timely and complete responses help ensure that you don’t inadvertently push out your action date.

When does label negotiation occur?
This very critical step takes place at the very end of the review, in many cases in the last two weeks. Tensions often run high during this period, since many parties have an interest in the final wording of the label. You should have developed strong, data-driven statements about your product prior to submission, but you need to be prepared to defend those statements now. Because timing and responsiveness is critical at this stage, all important members of your team should be available to review versions of labels and participate in calls on very short notice.

Whether you are compiling an NDA for submission or responding to requests during FDA review, it is important to remember that an NDA is the most important and most complex series of documents that you will need to assemble during your product’s lifecycle. An accurate and complete NDA is critical to ensuring a streamlined review and maximizing the likelihood of product approval.

Posted by Lauren Wind, Senior Consultant. For more information, please contact Lauren at lauren.wind@weinberggroup.com.

  • Feb
  • 13
  • 2012

What is the Difference Between Required and Nice to Know?

Posted by Theresa Allio In FDA, Regulations, Uncategorized | No Comments »
What is the Difference Between Required and Nice to Know?

This actually can be a very good question to ask, especially when considering elements of drug development. Often, there are multiple roads that lead to Rome, or in this case an acceptable clinical trial proposal or NDA filing. Why is this the case? The answer is reflected in the regulations and how they are written in order to allow for advances in science without having to be constantly revised. It is also an element of science and a residual of us all being human.

First of all, one should understand what is written in the FDA regulations. If you actually have the time to read them, you will find them to be quite specific in some areas (e.g. annual reports must be filed for an IND within 60 days of the anniversary of the IND filing), while they remain fairly ambiguous in other areas (e.g. specifically what studies need to be done to get a drug approved). The regulations talk about demonstrating proof of safety and efficacy, but recognize that an exhaustive list addressing every situation cannot be generated. This is where the regulations provide the FDA authority to issue guidance to share the agency’s thoughts on specific elements of the drug development process with the public. The guidances are in fact non-binding, but provide a sponsor with an idea of the points that need to be addressed in order to demonstrate safety and efficacy of their product. A sponsor may propose alternative approaches to addressing these points to the Agency. The ability to pursue these alternative approaches will depend on the robustness of the proposed approach and the other data collected on the drug.

Secondly, science is an ever moving target and our understanding of things can change drastically with just one new piece of information. This may be reflected at the scale of an individual program or a whole class of drugs. It can even change how to treat a disease (e.g. the discovery that AIDS is caused by a retrovirus). Asking the question “Is this study necessary, given what we now know about X?” is very helpful in creating a streamlined development strategy.

Finally, everyone is human. It is very possible that an explanation was not clear and led to a misunderstanding of the underlying dataset. It is also possible that not all of the information was available for review. If you believe that you have already collected data that addresses a specific request, you should find a tactful way to direct the reviewer to the pertinent piece of information so that they can consider and possibly refine their recommendations.

Posted by Theresa Allio, Senior Consultant. For more information, please contact Theresa at theresa.allio@weinberggroup.com.

Posts by Date

February 2012
M T W T F S S
« Jan   Mar »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
272829  

Recent Comments