Search

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE The discussion about health equity in the United States frequently involves concerns over racial and ethnic minority under-representation in clinical trials and particularly in trials conducted in support of product approvals. The FDA has long worked to encourage diverse participation in clinical trials and through its Drug Trials Snapshots (DTS) program, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has moved to make trial demographic data more accessible and transparent. We conducted a demographic study of U.S. participants in clinical trials for FDA-approved new drugs (new molecular entities [NMEs], and original Biologics License Applications [BLAs]) from 2015 to 2019, as reported in DTS database with a purpose of understanding the extent to which U.S.-based trials used to support product approvals represent the racial and ethnic diversity of the U.S. population by therapeutic area. METHODS Participant-level trial data were collected by accessing the FDA electronic common technical document (eCTD), for the applications used to publish each Snapshot. The therapeutic area (TA) for each drug was determined by review division assignment. The demographic data were analysed and compared to U.S. census data. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION We examined 102,596 U.S. participants in trials of new drugs that were approved and presented in Drug Trials Snapshots between 2015 and 2019. White participation ranged from 51% in psychiatric trials to 90% in cardiovascular (CV) trials; Black or African American participation ranged from 5% in medical imaging to 45% in psychiatric trials; Asian participation ranged from 0.75% in CV to 4% in dermatologic trials; and Hispanic or Latino participation ranged from 1% in medical imaging to 22% in infectious diseases and gastroenterology trials. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION Our data showed variable representation of racial and ethnic minorities across therapeutic areas at the U.S. sites. Blacks or African Americans were represented at or above U.S. census estimates across most therapeutic areas, while Asians and American Indian or Alaska Natives were consistently underrepresented. Hispanic or Latino participation across most therapeutic areas was below U.S. census estimates, however, more variable, and a sizable proportion of data was missing. The next step is a comparison of trial participation based on disease prevalence and epidemiology, which is a more accurate assessment of trial diversity.

Responding to concerns about the potential for increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, specifically myocardial infarction, associated with certain glucose-lowering therapies, the US Food and Drug Administration and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency issued guidance to the pharmaceutical industry in 2008. Glucose-lowering therapies were granted regulatory approval primarily from smaller studies that have demonstrated reductions in glycated hemoglobin concentration. Such studies were overall underpowered and of insufficient duration to show any effect on cardiovascular outcomes. The 2008 guidance aimed to ensure the cardiovascular safety of new glucose-lowering therapies to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This resulted in a plethora of new cardiovascular outcome trials, most designed primarily as placebo-controlled noninferiority trials, but with many also powered for superiority. Several of these outcome trials demonstrated cardiovascular benefits of the newer agents, resulting in the first-ever cardiovascular protection indications for glucose-lowering therapies. Determining whether the guidance continues to have value in its current form is critically important as we move forward after the first decade of implementation. In February 2018, a think tank comprising representatives from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies convened to consider the guidance in light of the findings of the completed cardiovascular outcome trials. The group made several recommendations for future regulatory guidance and for cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering therapies. These recommendations include requiring only the 1.3 noninferiority margin for regulatory approval, conducting trials for longer durations, considering studying glucose-lowering therapies as first-line management of type 2 diabetes mellitus, considering heart failure or kidney outcomes within the primary outcome, considering head-to-head active comparator trials, increasing the diversity of patients enrolled, evaluating strategies to streamline registries and the study of unselected populations, and identifying ways to improve translation of trial results to general practice.

Esketamine for Treatment-Resistant Depression The FDA has approved esketamine, the first antidepressant in a new class, for treatment-resistant depression. The agency weighed the drug’s rapid onset...

Background: The US Food and Drug Administration’s Sentinel Initiative is well positioned to support pragmatic clinical trials. FDA-Catalyst combines direct contact with health plan members and/or providers with data in the Sentinel infrastructure. Here, we describe the rationale, feasibility analyses, and lessons learned from the planning phase of the first large pragmatic trial conducted using the Sentinel Initiative’s delivery system capabilities—IMplementation of a randomized controlled trial to imProve treatment with oral AntiCoagulanTs in patients with Atrial Fibrillation (the IMPACT-AFib trial). Methods: During the planning phase, we convened representatives from five commercial health plans, FDA, study coordinating centers, and a patient representative for protocol development, institutional review board preparation, and other activities. Administrative claims data from the plans were included in a retrospective cohort analysis to assess sample size for the trial. Members ≥30 years old with ≥365 days of medical/pharmacy coverage, ≥2 diagnosis codes for atrial fibrillation, a guideline-based indication for oral anticoagulant use for stroke prevention, and no evidence of oral anticoagulant use in the 365 days prior to the index atrial fibrillation diagnosis in 2013 were included. Exclusions for the analysis included other conditions requiring anticoagulation, history of intracranial hemorrhage, and gastrointestinal bleed. We calculated rates of oral anticoagulant use, transient ischemic attack or stroke, and bleeding in the 365 days following the index atrial fibrillation diagnosis. Results: A total of 44,786 members with atrial fibrillation with no evidence of recent oral anticoagulant use were identified. In total, 87% (n = 38,759) were classified as having a guideline-based indication for oral anticoagulants. Of those, 33% (n = 12,867) had a new oral anticoagulant dispensed during the following year, 15% (n = 5917) were hospitalized for stroke or transient ischemic attack, and 9% (n = 3469) for bleeding events. This information was used to develop the trial protocol including sample size, power calculations, and level of randomization. Conclusion: Sentinel infrastructure generated preliminary data that supported planning and implementation of a large pragmatic trial embedded in health plans. This planning identified unanticipated challenges that must be addressed in similar trials.

Advances in our understanding of the molecular underpinnings of disease have spurred the development of targeted therapies and the use of precision medicine approaches in patient care. While targeted therapies have improved our capability to provide effective treatments to patients, they also present additional challenges to drug development and benefit-risk assessment such as identifying the subset(s) of patients likely to respond to the drug, assessing heterogeneity in response across molecular subsets of a disease, and developing diagnostic tests to identify patients for treatment. These challenges are particularly difficult to address when targeted therapies are developed to treat diseases with multiple molecular subtypes that occur at low frequencies. To help address these challenges, the US Food and Drug Administration recently published a draft guidance entitled "Developing Targeted Therapies in Low-Frequency Molecular Subsets of a Disease." Here we provide additional information on specific aspects of targeted therapy development in diseases with low-frequency molecular subsets.

The United States FDA has received over 800 botanical investigational new drug applications (IND) and pre-IND meeting requests (PIND) in the years preceding 2018. The current data show that indications for submitted INDs cover nearly every review division of the FDA. Despite increasing global interest in the investigation of botanical mixtures as drug products, only two botanical new drug applications (NDA) have been approved in the U.S.: Veregen in 2006 and Fulyzaq (also known as Mytesi) in 2012. Given botanicals' chemical and biological complexity, efforts in characterizing their pharmacology, demonstrating therapeutic efficacy, and ensuring quality consistency remain scientific and regulatory challenges. The FDA published a revised

Heart failure (HF) patients experience a high burden of symptoms and functional limitations, and morbidity and mortality remain high despite successful therapies. The majority of HF drugs in the United States are approved for reducing hospitalization and mortality, while only a few have indications for improving quality of life, physical function, or symptoms. Patient-reported outcomes that directly measure patient's perception of health status (symptoms, physical function, or quality of life) are potentially approvable endpoints in drug development. This paper summarizes the history of endpoints used for HF drug approvals in the United States and reviews endpoints that measure symptoms, physical function, or quality of life in HF patients.

Importance Before reviewing drug applications, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) conducts “filing reviews” to assess whether they are complete enough for full review. If the applications are incomplete, the FDA issues refuse-to-file (RTF) letters identifying deficiencies. The FDA does not make these RTF letters public at the time of issuance. Why the FDA issues RTF letters and how often the letters and their contents are made publicly available are unknown. Objectives To quantitatively analyze the FDA’s reasons for issuing RTF letters and assess the public transparency of RTF letters and their contents. Design and Setting This cross-sectional study analyzes RTF letters issued in response to new drug applications and efficacy supplements (applications for new indications or patient populations for already approved drugs) submitted to the FDA between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2017. Statistical analysis was conducted in July 2019. Main Outcomes and Measures Two types of information were extracted and cataloged from RTF letters: (1) the reasons why the FDA refused to file applications and (2) the FDA comments that, while not a basis for RTF letters, conveyed important information to applicants. The extent to which applicants publicly disclosed the FDA’s refusal reasons were also assessed. Results The study included 103 RTF letters containing a total of 644 identified FDA refusal reasons. Among the 2475 applications that the FDA received during the study time frame, 98 (4.0%) received RTF letters. Overall, 84.5% (544 of 644) of the refusal reasons were for scientific deficiencies; most reasons were related to drug efficacy and safety (196 [30.4%]) and drug quality (125 [19.4%]). The remaining 15.5% of refusal reasons (100 of 644) were for application organization deficiencies or legal issues. A total of 26.2% of the RTF letters (27 of 103) identified presubmission advice from the FDA that applicants did not follow; the most frequently ignored advice was related to clinical trial design (33.3% [9 of 27]), followed by product chemistry and manufacturing (25.9% [7 of 27]). Applicants publicly disclosed the existence of 16 of 103 RTF letters (15.5%); however, only 5.4% of applicant-disclosed reasons (35 of 644) matched the refusal reasons that the FDA had provided in the RTF letters. Conclusions and Relevance This cross-sectional study found that the FDA refused to file applications for substantive reasons related to quality, safety, and efficacy, and applicants’ disclosure of those reasons was incomplete. This work sheds light on the FDA’s regulatory decision-making processes and the RTF reasons that could delay availability of therapies to patients.

The FDA is developing guidance on the use of “real-world evidence” — health care information from atypical sources, including electronic health records, billing databases, and product and disease registries — to assess the safety and effectiveness of drugs and devices.

Objective To summarize the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) review of the safety and effectiveness for pimavanserin, an atypical antipsychotic, for the treatment of hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson's disease psychosis. We describe the regulatory and clinical issues important to the FDA's approval of this New Drug Application, with special focus on the risk-benefit balance. We also describe a new labeling feature that presents additional efficacy data to clinicians. Data sources Data sets for all relevant clinical trials of pimavanserin and the Applicant's and FDA's analyses of these data were considered in this review. Data were available from 616 patients with Parkinson's disease with hallucinations and delusions who received at least 1 dose of pimavanserin, with a total exposure of 825 patient-years in the Parkinson's disease psychosis population. Results Pimavanserin 34 mg/d was effective in treating hallucinations and delusions associated with Parkinson's disease. In the Applicant's single pivotal trial, 80.5% of pimavanserin patients experienced at least some improvement in symptoms compared to 58.1% of patients taking placebo. Pimavanserin did not worsen motor function, an adverse effect commonly observed with other antipsychotics, probably because of a lack of consequential dopamine binding. Conclusions Pimavanserin is the only FDA-approved treatment for the hallucinations and delusions seen in patients with psychosis of Parkinson's disease. Although pimavanserin appears to have a pharmacologic mechanism that is different from other atypical antipsychotics, concern remained that the increased risk of death seen with antipsychotic use in elderly demented patients, and described in all approved antipsychotic labels, would also occur with pimavanserin. Pimavanserin bears the same boxed warning about the risk of death associated with antipsychotic use in elderly patients with dementia.

At the request of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and with its funding, the Panel on the Handling of Missing Data in Clinical Trials was created by the National Research Council's Committee on National Statistics. This panel recently published a report(1) with recommendations that will be of use not only to the FDA but also to the entire clinical trial community so that the latter can take measures to improve the conduct and analysis of clinical trials.

Objective Vilazodone was recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD). The purpose of this review is to summarize the FDA's approach to its review of the clinical pharmacology and the clinical efficacy and safety data for this new drug application, important issues in its decision-making, and its conclusions. Data sources The data sources for this review were the original raw data sets for all clinical trials included in the development program for vilazodone, as well as the sponsor's original analyses of these data. Study selection Data were available from 24 human trials involving vilazodone, and included a total of 2,898 human subjects exposed to 1 or more doses of this drug. Data extraction The FDA had access to original raw data sets for these trials. Results Vilazodone is effective in treating MDD at a dose of 40 mg/d, but it needs to be incrementally adjusted to this dose to minimize gastrointestinal symptoms. It needs to be taken with food to ensure adequate plasma concentrations. Vilazodone's profile of adverse events is similar to that seen with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors. No dose adjustment is needed based on age, gender, or renal or hepatic impairment. It is recommended that the vilazodone dose be reduced to 20 mg when it is taken with strong cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 inhibitors, eg, ketoconazole. Vilazodone is not expected to have important effects on the clearance of other drugs that are cytochrome P450 substrates. Conclusions Vilazodone is a new treatment for MDD, but it is unknown whether it has any advantages compared to other drugs in the antidepressant class.

Many intrinsic and extrinsic factors can affect an individual patient's drug exposure and response. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published a number of guidances that recommend how and when to evaluate these factors during drug development. The most recent FDA draft guidance on drug interactions provides advice for in vitro and in vivo drug interaction studies, including suggestions for study design, dosing strategies and analysis, and interpretation of data for medical product labels. The draft guidance updated the FDA's recommendations on the evaluation of important cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme- and transporter-based drug interactions during drug development.

To optimize drug therapy for individuals, it is critical to understand how various intrinsic (e.g., age, gender, race, genetics, organ impairment) and extrinsic factors (e.g., diet, smoking, concomitantly administered drugs) affect drug exposure and response.(1) Up to now, it has been far easier to discover effects on exposure caused by these factors, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has published several guidance documents with recommendations on how to evaluate these factors during drug development.

Although new botanical drugs pose many challenges for both industry and the FDA, approval of the first botanical prescription drug shows they can be successfully met.

Over the past decade, personalized medicine has received considerable attention from researchers, drug developers, and regulatory agencies. Personalized medicine includes identifying patients most likely to benefit and those most likely to experience adverse reactions in response to a drug, and tailoring therapy based on pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamic response, as well. Perhaps most exciting is finding ways to identify likely responders through genetic, proteomic, or other tests, so that only likely responders will be treated. However, less precise methods such as identifying historical, demographic, or other indicators of increased or reduced responsiveness are also important aspects of personalized medicine. The cardiovascular field has not used many genetic or proteomic markers, but has regularly used prognostic variables to identify likely responders. The development of biomarker-based approaches to personalized medicine in cardiovascular disease has been challenging, in part, because most cardiovascular therapies treat acquired syndromes, such as acute coronary syndrome and heart failure, which develop over many decades and represent the end result of several pathophysiological mechanisms. More precise disease classification and greater understanding of individual variations in disease pathology could drive the development of targeted therapeutics. Success in designing clinical trials for personalized medicine will require the selection of patient populations with attributes that can be targeted or that predict outcome, and the use of appropriate enrichment strategies once such attributes are identified. Here, we describe examples of personalized medicine in cardiovascular disease, discuss its impact on clinical trial design, and provide insight into the future of personalized cardiovascular medicine from a regulatory perspective.

OBJECTIVE To test the current U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) bioequivalence standard in a comparison of generic and brand-name drug pharmacokinetic (PK) performance in "generic-brittle" patients with epilepsy under clinical use conditions. METHODS This randomized, double-blind, multiple-dose, steady-state, fully replicated bioequivalence study compared generic lamotrigine to brand-name Lamictal in "generic-brittle" patients with epilepsy (n = 34) who were already taking lamotrigine. Patients were repeatedly switched between masked Lamictal and generic lamotrigine. Intensive PK blood sampling at the end of each 2-week treatment period yielded two 12-h PK profiles for brand-name and generic forms for each patient. Steady-state area under the curve (AUC), peak plasma concentration (Cmax ), and minimum plasma concentration (Cmin ) data were subjected to conventional average bioequivalence (ABE) analysis, reference-scaled ABE analysis, and within-subject variability (WSV) comparisons. In addition, generic-versus-brand comparisons in individual patients were performed. Secondary clinical outcomes included seizure frequency and adverse events. RESULTS Generic demonstrated bioequivalence to brand. The 90% confidence intervals of the mean for steady-state AUC, Cmax , and Cmin for generic-versus-brand were 97.2-101.6%, 98.8-104.5%, and 93.4-101.0%, respectively. The WSV of generic and brand were also similar. Individual patient PK ratios for generic-versus-brand were similar but not identical, in part because brand-versus-brand profiles were not identical, even though subjects were rechallenged with the same product. Few subjects had seizure exacerbations or tolerability issues with product switching. One subject, however, reported 267 focal motor seizures, primarily on generic, although his brand and generic PK profiles were practically identical. SIGNIFICANCE Some neurologists question whether bioequivalence in healthy volunteers ensures therapeutic equivalence of brand and generic antiepileptic drugs in patients with epilepsy, who may be at increased risk for problems with brand-to-generic switching. Bioequivalence results in "generic-brittle" patients with epilepsy under clinical conditions support the soundness of the FDA bioequivalence standards. Adverse events on generic were not related to the small, allowable PK differences between generic and brand.

Over the years FDA has seen a variety of 'adaptive' approaches, including repeated calculation of p-values. More recently there has been interest in adjusting sample sizes based on event rates, easy if the treatment group rates remain blinded but possible even with unblinded analysis. In large trials, group sequential analytic approaches are routine. Early stopping however, can reduce available data and in cardiac trials we have generally urged use of only survival as the basis for stopping, even if the primary endpoint is a composite (death, new AMI, etc). Other possibilities include adaptive randomization and starting additional dose groups. Enrichment designs focus on populations with a higher event rate or on populations more likely to respond. They can reduce sample sizes and target therapy toward people most likely to benefit.

New chemical entities developed by the pharmaceutical industry as potentially useful drugs undergo extensive preclinical evaluation followed by clinical trials to evaluate efficacy and safety in human subjects. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is charged with evaluating requests from pharmaceutical sponsors for approval to market new drugs or to expand indications for marketed drugs. Some of these decisions are relatively straightforward. Thus, a new drug that shows clear efficacy and little actual or theoretical risk for serious adverse effects and that represents a significant addition to the therapeutic armamentarium does not present a major problem for FDA regulators. Conversely, approval will not be granted for a new drug the efficacy of which cannot be demonstrated, a drug with serious adverse effects that are not shared by alternative treatments, and a drug that does not add importantly to available treatment in at least some patients. In many cases, however, efficacy may not be so clear-cut, risks may be (or may appear to be) more than minimal, and the pharmaceutical sponsor and the FDA may differ in their evaluation of each of these issues. In such cases, the FDA through its Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) has since 1972 been able to call on panels of experts to provide advice. For cardiovascular drugs, this advice is offered by the Cardiovascular and Renal Drugs Advisory Committee (CRAC). The goal of this article is to summarize how the deliberations of this committee have affected not only individual new drug submissions but also more generally the way in which new drugs are developed and evaluated. Advisory committees do not actually “decide” whether drugs should be approved; rather, they provide advice to the FDA, where the final decisions with regard to drug approval rest. The FDA is not obliged …

Although radical changes in drug regulation are rare (e.g., the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act of 1938 and the 1962 amendment to the Act creating an effectiveness requirement), regulations and guidance do evolve significantly in the face of new problems and accumulating experience. Recent changes have been driven by the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act (FDAMA), user fee legislation, the International Conference on Harmonization, recent safety related drug withdrawals, and concerns about trial ethics and investigator conflict of interest. FDAMA and guidance developed in response to it has helped circumstances in which FDA would rely on a single study to support effectiveness and the circumstances in which surrogate endpoints could support approval. An ICH Document 'Choice of control group and related design issues in clinical trials' focussed attention on the ethics of placebo controls (acceptable, even if there is existing therapy, when the placebo-treated patient will suffer no irreversible injury) and the design of 'equivalence' or 'non-inferiority' trials. There has been greatly increased attention to obtaining good dose-response information and to assessing need for modifying treatment in demographic (age, gender, race) and concomitant disease (renal or hepatic function abnormalities) subgroups, and in assessing drug-drug interactions. Other important trends are increasing reliance on non-U.S. data, increasing numbers of FDA-industry meetings during drug development, and new focus on risk assessment and risk management.

Last fall, the FDA approved dabigatran, in a 150-mg dose only, for reducing risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation. A 110-mg regimen was also effective, but the agency believes that patients should receive the higher dose.

Objective Sexual dysfunction is a significant treatment-emergent adverse reaction to the serotonergic antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors [SSRIs] and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors [SNRIs]). However, the rate of sexual dysfunction is often underestimated in registration trials, which have relied on unsolicited reports. We conducted a literature search to examine the rates of sexual dysfunction with SSRIs/SNRIs when these rates were ascertained by structured questionnaires or standardized instruments. Additionally, we conducted exploratory analyses of major depressive disorder (MDD) registration trial data. Data sources For the literature search, we used the PubMed and EMBASE databases, with a cutoff date of April 1, 2011. We included all the SSRIs and SNRIs that at the time had been approved for the treatment of MDD. For each of these drugs, a search was conducted with the following terms: sexual dysfunction, SD, sexual adverse effects, desire, arousal, excitement, and orgasm. For the exploratory analyses of US Food and Drug Administration in-house trial data, we searched our database for short-term (6-8 weeks), randomized, placebo-controlled MDD monotherapy trials of approved drugs included in New Drug Application submissions that used a standardized instrument to assess sexual function. Study selection For the literature search, we initially found a total of 123 nonduplicate articles, some of which included multiple studies. After screening based on our inclusion/exclusion criteria (and to remove duplicate trial-level data), we were left with 7 articles representing 11 unique studies in which sexual dysfunction was assessed with direct questioning or standardized instruments. The Changes in Sexual Functioning Questionnaire-Short-Form (CSFQ-14) and Arizona Sexual Experiences Scale (ASEX) were the only instruments represented. For the exploratory analyses of in-house MDD trial data, we found controlled studies using either the CSFQ-14 (6 trials) or ASEX (5 trials). Data extraction For the literature search, we were able to pool the results for the studies that included direct questioning. For the studies that used standardized instruments to assess sexual function, we simply describe our findings. For the exploratory analyses of in-house MDD trial data, we constructed a dataset containing all subject-level CSFQ-14 or ASEX item scores for each of the trials as well as demographic and other relevant variables. For each treatment or placebo group, analyses were performed on pooled data, including multiple studies, and on individual studies. Results For our literature search, regardless of which method was used to assess sexual function, the data from these articles were informative and showed the expected effects on sexual function with SSRIs/SNRIs. However, for our exploratory analyses, no trend was observed in CSFQ-14 or ASEX results for individual drugs or drug classes. Conclusions These results raise the question as to why the CSFQ-14 and ASEX appeared to perform well in the published studies but not in our exploratory analyses of in-house MDD trial data. We discuss possible reasons and solutions.

Objective This article summarizes the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) review of the New Drug Application for vortioxetine, especially the clinical efficacy and safety data. It emphasizes the issues that were important to the FDA's approval decision, particularly the difference in the effective dose in domestic and foreign studies, and notes several new labeling features, specifically, description of time course of treatment response and detailed sexual dysfunction evaluation. Data sources The data sources were the original raw data sets for all clinical trials included in the development program for vortioxetine, as well as the sponsor's original analyses of these data. Data were available from 51 human trials involving vortioxetine, and included a total of 7,666 healthy volunteers and patients with a diagnosis of major depressive disorder (MDD) or generalized anxiety disorder who were exposed to at least 1 dose of vortioxetine for a total of 2,743 patient-years. Results Vortioxetine was effective in treating MDD in the United States at a dose of 20 mg/d. The recommended starting dose is 10 mg once daily without regard to food, with increase to 20 mg/d if the 10 mg/d dose is tolerated. For patients who do not tolerate 20 mg/d, 10 mg/d can be used and 5-mg/d dose can be considered. Vortioxetine can be discontinued abruptly, but it is recommended that doses of 15 mg/d or 20 mg/d be reduced to 10 mg/d for 1 week prior to full discontinuation to avoid potential withdrawal symptoms. Although the non-US maintenance study showed that maintenance doses of 5 to 10 mg/d were effective, a clinical judgment needs to be made to decide the maintenance dose in the United States. The applicant has agreed to conduct a US maintenance dose-response study covering the US-approved dose range. Vortioxetine's adverse event profile is similar to that of other selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). Nausea is the most common adverse event and is dose dependent. No dose adjustment is needed based on age, gender, or the presence of renal or mild to moderate hepatic impairment. The maximum recommended dose is 10 mg/d in known cytochrome P450 2D6 poor metabolizers. Conclusions Vortioxetine is a new treatment for MDD, and its adverse event profile is similar to that of other SSRIs.

Temporal changes in the rates of filling terfenadine prescriptions within 2 days of those for either oral erythromycin or oral ketoconazole were described with use of paid pharmacy claims data from 1988 through 1994 in state Medicaid programs from Michigan and Ohio and in a large health maintenance organization. There were rapid and significant declines in the rates of filling prescriptions for either erythromycin or ketoconazole within 2 days of prescriptions for terfenadine in all three databases that coincided with 1992 publicity about the cardiovascular risk of terfenadine. These findings suggest that the use of terfenadine with contraindicated medications has declined in response to relabeling and publicity concerning the safe use of terfenadine. Further study is necessary to estimate the absolute level of concurrent use of terfenadine with contraindicated medications.

Because of new findings about next-day somnolence and sex differences in zolpidem clearance, the FDA has recommended lower doses of the drug, particularly for women, and emphasizes the greater risk of impairment with modified-release than with immediate-release formulations.

OBJECTIVE The maintenance efficacy of antidepressants is usually assessed in postmarketing studies with a randomized withdrawal design. This report explores differences in relapse rates, trial characteristics, and success rates in maintenance efficacy studies submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over a 25-year period. DATA SOURCES Clinical data from all maintenance trials with antidepressants submitted to FDA between 1987 and 2012. STUDY SELECTION Efficacy data were compiled from 15 maintenance clinical trials in adults diagnosed with major depressive disorder according to DSM-III or DSM-IV criteria. DATA EXTRACTION Trial characteristics, relapse rates, and time to relapse in each study were examined. RESULTS Relapse rates were significantly lower (P < .05) in the drug arm than in the placebo arm in every study, with a mean relapse rate difference of 18% and an average percent reduction in relapse rate of 52% compared to placebo. Only 6% of the relapse events occurred in the first 2 weeks of the double-blind phase. The separation between treatment arms continued to increase throughout the double-blind phase only in the trial with longest response stabilization period. CONCLUSIONS Antidepressant maintenance trials have a high rate of success, indicating a benefit of continuing drug treatment after initial response to an antidepressant. This benefit appears to result mainly from a decreased rate of recurrent depression rather than from an effect of drug withdrawal in the placebo groups.

Globalization of clinical research has led to an increase in clinical trials conducted outside of the United States that are submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in new drug applications. This article discusses the FDA's experience with these submissions in specific therapeutic areas, including the extent of this practice, differences between the effectiveness and safety outcomes of studies conducted inside and outside the United States, and the FDA's approach to acceptance of these trials.

The FDA has established a new safety-reporting paradigm for drugs being studied in clinical trials. A new regulation provides guidance on causality assessments for adverse events and requires aggregate analysis prior to reporting for some events.

At the Drug Information Association (DIA) 49th annual meeting, for the first time regulators (Dr Francesca Cerreta, Dr Robert Temple and Dr Yasuko Asahina) from the three International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) co-sponsor regions came together in a forum to discuss their perspective on how the aging population impacts on drug development and on the design of clinical trials. In 2010, the ICH E7 Guideline (Studies in support of Special Populations: Geriatrics) was revised with the addition of a Questions and Answers document to take into account the rapidly changing world demographics. Regulators from the three ICH regions (Europe, USA and Japan) discuss here how they foresee the application of this guideline, and the impact that this might have on new drug development and clinical trial design. This article aims to summarize the discussions at the session for the benefit of a wider audience.

All medications currently approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus are indicated to improve glycemic control. Since 1995, FDA has used HbA1c as the primary basis for approval of these therapies because a reduction in blood glucose lessens the symptoms of hyperglycemia and lowering of HbA1c has been shown to reduce the risk for some of the chronic complications of diabetes. Despite evidence of clinical benefit with therapies that reduce HbA1c, concerns have been raised that some diabetes medications may increase cardiovascular risk in a patient population that is already vulnerable to cardiovascular disease. Therefore, FDA convened a public advisory committee meeting to discuss the role of cardiovascular assessment in the pre-approval and post-approval settings for medications developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. After considering the advisory panel’s recommendations and other data, FDA published a guidance document requesting evidence showing that new treatments for type 2 diabetes do not result in an unacceptable increase in cardiovascular risk. This review article begins by summarizing the events leading up to publication of this guidance. Subsequent sections discuss the guidance itself as well as general considerations for implementing the new cardiovascular recommendations. The new approach to developing medications for the treatment of type 2 diabetes will lead to evaluation in patients more representative of those who will use these therapies, if approved, and will help healthcare providers make informed decisions when choosing a medication within the growing treatment armamentarium for type 2 diabetes.

Objective To examine the risk of suicidal behaviour within clinical trials of antidepressants in adults. Design Meta-analysis of 372 double blind randomised placebo controlled trials. Setting Drug development programmes for any indication in adults. Participants 99 231 adults assigned to antidepressants or placebo. Median age was 42 and 63.1% were women. Indications for treatment were major depression (45.6%), other depression (4.6%), other psychiatric disorders (27.6%), and non-psychiatric disorders (22.2%). Main outcome measures Suicidal behaviour (completed suicide, attempted suicide, or preparatory acts) and ideation. Results For participants with non-psychiatric indications, suicidal behaviour and ideation were extremely rare. For those with psychiatric indications, risk was associated with age. For suicidal behaviour or ideation and for suicidal behaviour only, the respective odds ratios were 1.62 (95% confidence interval 0.97 to 2.71) and 2.30 (1.04 to 5.09) for participants aged

Predicting clinically significant drug interactions during drug development is a challenge for the pharmaceutical industry and regulatory agencies. Since the publication of the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) first in vitro and in vivo drug interaction guidance documents in 1997 and 1999, researchers and clinicians have gained a better understanding of drug interactions. This knowledge has enabled the FDA and the industry to progress and begin to overcome these challenges. The FDA has continued its efforts to evaluate methodologies to study drug interactions and communicate recommendations regarding the conduct of drug interaction studies, particularly for CYP-based and transporter-based drug interactions, to the pharmaceutical industry. A drug interaction Web site was established to document the FDA's current understanding of drug interactions (http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/drugInteractions/default.htm). This report provides an overview of the evolution of the drug interaction guidances, includes a synopsis of the steps taken by the FDA to revise the original drug interaction guidance documents, and summarizes and highlights updated sections in the current guidance document, Drug Interaction Studies-Study Design, Data Analysis, and Implications for Dosing and Labeling.

The scientific and regulatory issues that are associated with the possible introduction of 'follow-on' versions of protein drug products are the topic of considerable debate at present. Because of the differences between protein drug products and small-molecule drugs, the development of follow-on versions of protein products presents more complex scientific challenges than those presented by the development of generic versions of small-molecule drugs. Here, with a view to illustrating the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) scientific reasoning and experience in this area, we discuss past examples of the FDA's actions involving the evaluation of various types of follow-on and second-generation protein products and within-product manufacturing changes. The FDA believes its evaluation of the safety and effectiveness of follow-on protein products will evolve as scientific and technological advances in product characterization and manufacturing continue to reduce some of the complexity and uncertainty that are inherent in the manufacturing of protein products.

As clinical trials have emerged as the major research method for evaluating new interventions, the process for monitoring intervention safety and benefit has also evolved. The Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) has become the standard approach to implement this responsibility for many Phase III trials. Recent draft guidelines on the operation of DMCs by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have raised issues that need further clarification or discussion, especially for industry sponsored trials. These include, the time when DMCs are needed, the role of the independent statistician to support the DMC, and sponsor participation at DMC meetings. This paper provides an overview of these issues, based on the discussions at the January, 2003 workshop sponsored by Duke Clinical Research Institute.

Jasti C h o u d a r y , P h D , Joseph F. Con t re ra , P h D , Alber t DeFelice, P h D , Joseph J. DeGeorge , P h D , a James G. Farrelly, P h D , a Glenna Fi tzgerald, P h D , M. A n w a r Gohee r , P h D , A b b y Jacobs, P h D , Alexander Jo rdan , P h D , Lara ine Meyers , P h D , R o b e r t Os te rbe rg , P h D , Charles Re.snick, P h D , C. Joseph Sun, P h D , and R o b e r t J. Temple , M D Rockville, Md.

Cancer causes premature death and significant, often devastating, symptoms. While prolongation of survival is an obvious end point for new cancer drug approval, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has also utilized end points that evaluate patient symptoms. In this article we discuss the end points, evidence, and analyses supporting cancer drug approvals based on evaluations of tumor-related signs and symptoms. With advice from the Oncologic Drug Advisory Committee (ODAC) in the late 1970s and early 1980s, FDA determined that acceptable end points for cancer drug approval were survival or an improvement in the quality of a patient's life, e.g., an improvement in tumor-related symptoms. This article summarizes 15 FDA cancer drug approvals based on patient symptom assessments and/or physical signs (thought to represent symptomatic improvement) as the primary evidence of effectiveness. These include painful bone events (three cases), cosmetic improvement in Kaposi's sarcoma and cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (six cases), the consequences (decreased transfusions, etc.) of long-duration responses in leukemias and lymphomas (two cases), relief of pulmonary or esophageal obstruction (two cases), and one case each of symptom benefit in pancreatic cancer (also associated with survival benefit) and pulmonary symptom benefit in lung cancer. An instructive example of an individual patient benefit end point is discussed, though it did not lead to a drug approval (the cisplatin-epinephrine gel application). Improved trial designs and analysis plans may allow greater reliance on morbidity assessments to support future cancer drug approvals. Drug sponsors are encouraged to include symptom assessments in cancer clinical trials and to perform further research to improve symptom-assessment methods. The FDA routinely meets with sponsors at End of Phase 2 Meetings to discuss drug development plans and the design of phase 3 trials. We encourage sponsors to request special protocol assessments (SPA) after meeting with the FDA to get written confirmation of the adequacy of plans for assessing cancer morbidity and quality of life, including protocols, end points, statistical analysis plans, and draft case report forms.

Randomized clinical trials remain the most reliable means of identifying the drugs, devices, and treatment strategies that will improve human health. There is increasing interest in the possibility that “personalized” medicine can be evaluated in much smaller trials because the average treatment effect is expected to be larger in highly selected cohorts. Smaller, biomarkerdriven trials can provide major insights into whom to treat and may be sufficient for selected disease states in which considerable treatment effects may be observed. However, a precise biological understanding of most chronic illnesses and biomarkers that might predict response has eluded investigators. Moreover, treatment effect sizes in chronic conditions are expected to be modest in most cases. As a result, determining the long-term balance of risk and benefit, particularly in comparative effectiveness trials, often requires large numbers of clinical events in representative populations. The conduct of large trials by government agencies, industry sponsors, academicians, and advocacy groups is limited by complexity and cost. As a result, many trials are too small to provide reliable estimates of the risk-benefit balance. Without adequate trials, clinicians will have insufficient guidance on how to meaningfully affect individual and population health. Achieving the “triple aim” (improving patient experience of care, improving health of populations, and reducing per

Critics of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of the fixed combination of hydralazine hydrochloride, 37.5 mg, and isosorbide dinitrate, 20 mg, for treating heart failure in black patients have suggested that data were insufficient to distinguish treatment effects in black and white people; that distinctions based on race, rather than pathophysiology, were scientifically unreasonable; and that a "race-based" approval could be a commercial ploy to avoid a more expensive and prolonged full evaluation of a drug. The criticisms acknowledge that data supporting the approval came from a well-designed clinical trial in which self-identified black patients with heart failure who took hydralazine hydrochloride-isosorbide dinitrate with standard therapy experienced a statistically significant 43% (95% CI, 11% to 63%) reduction in mortality compared with those who took only the standard therapy. The criticisms do not always recognize that the decision to conduct the trial in only black patients reflected careful analyses of 2 previous trials in racially mixed patient populations that compared hydralazine hydrochloride-isosorbide dinitrate with placebo or with enalapril. Both trials showed little or no overall effect of hydralazine hydrochloride-isosorbide dinitrate in the mostly white patient population but hinted at a substantial effect in subsets of black patients. Perhaps most critically, the criticisms do not appreciate the urgency of strong scientific evidence of a substantial survival benefit in black patients. A serious attempt to avoid race-based approval by mandating study of a mixed population to identify a possible white patient-responder subset, particularly without a plausible hypothesis as to what that subset might be, would have required years of work, many thousands of patients, and wholly unreasonable delay in approval of a treatment whose effectiveness had been well-documented in the group for which it was intended.

The design of clinical trials affects their usefulness in evaluating the effectiveness and safety of drugs. Problems associated with active control studies are described and methods are given for effective dose-finding. The importance of dose-finding and dose-interval determination is emphasized.

The Food and Drug Administration recently refused to approve a claim that sulfinpyrazone (Anturane) was effective in the prevention of sudden death during the first six months after myocardial infa...