[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.172.195.82. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]

FDA Approval and Regulation of Pharmaceuticals, 1983-2018

Educational Objective
To understand how drugs are approved for labeling and marketing in the United States.
1 Credit CME
Key Points

Question  How has the regulation of prescription drugs evolved from the 1980s to 2018, and what trends have occurred in drug approvals?

Findings  Approvals of new generic drugs have increased over time, leading to greater competition. Technological advances have been reflected in increased approvals of biologics over time. The number of expedited development and approval programs has expanded greatly since 1983, reducing the amount of evidence available at the time of approval and increasing uncertainty about the existence or amount of clinical benefit. These regulatory innovations have not clearly led to an increase in new drug approvals or to reduced total development times.

Meaning  While retaining policies that encourage efficient review, Congress and other government officials should also consider the implications of less rigorous clinical outcome requirements and whether the current complex array of regulatory programs should be simplified.

Abstract

Importance  US law requires testing of new drugs before approval to ensure that they provide a well-defined benefit that is commensurate with their risks. A major challenge for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to achieve an appropriate balance between rigorous testing and the need for timely approval of drugs that have benefits that outweigh their risks.

Objective  To describe the evolution of laws and standards affecting drug testing, the use of new approval programs and standards, expansions of the role and authority of the FDA, and changes in the number of drugs approved from the 1980s to 2018.

Evidence  Sources of evidence included principal federal laws and FDA regulations (1962-2018) and FDA databases of approved new drugs (1984-2018), generic drugs (1970-2018), biologics (1984-2018), and vaccines (1998-2018); special development and approval programs (Orphan drug [1984-2018], Fast-Track [1988-2018], Priority Review and its predecessors [1984-2018], Accelerated Approval [1992-2018], and Breakthrough Therapy [2012-2018]); expanded access (2010-2017) and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (2008-2018); and user fees paid to the FDA by industry (1993-2018).

Findings  From 1983 to 2018, legislation and regulatory initiatives have substantially changed drug approval at the FDA. The mean annual number of new drug approvals, including biologics, was 34 from 1990-1999, 25 from 2000-2009, and 41 from 2010-2018. New biologic product approvals increased from a median of 2.5 from 1990-1999, to 5 from 2000-2013, to 12 from 2014-2018. The median annual number of generic drugs approved was 136 from 1970 to the enactment of the Hatch-Waxman Act in 1984; 284 from 1985 to the enactment of the Generic Drug User Fee Act in 2012; and 588 from 2013-2018. Prescription drug user fee funding expanded from new drugs and biologics in 1992 to generic and biosimilar drugs in 2012. The amount of Prescription Drug User Fee Act fees collected from industry increased from an annual mean of $66 million in 1993-1997 to $820 million in 2013-2017, and in 2018, user fees accounted for approximately 80% of the salaries of review personnel responsible for the approval of new drugs. The proportion of drugs approved with an Orphan Drug Act designation increased from 18% (55/304) in 1984-1995, to 22% (82/379) in 1996-2007, to 41% (154/380) in 2008-2018. Use of Accelerated Approval, Fast-Track, and Priority Review for new drugs has increased over time, with 81% (48/59) of new drugs benefiting from at least 1 such expedited program in 2018. The proportion of new approvals supported by at least 2 pivotal trials decreased from 80.6% in 1995-1997 to 52.8% in 2015-2017, based on 124 and 106 approvals, respectively, while the median number of patients studied did not change significantly (774 vs 816). FDA drug review times declined from more than 3 years in 1983 to less than 1 year in 2017, but total time from the authorization of clinical testing to approval has remained at approximately 8 years over that period.

Conclusions and Relevance  Over the last 4 decades, the approval and regulation processes for pharmaceutical agents have evolved and increased in complexity as special programs have been added and as the use of surrogate measures has been encouraged. The FDA funding needed to implement and manage these programs has been addressed by expanding industry-paid user fees. The FDA has increasingly accepted less data and more surrogate measures, and has shortened its review times.

Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates

Buy This Activity

JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 CME Credit™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC

Article Information

Corresponding Author: Jonathan J. Darrow, SJD, JD, MBA, Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont St, Ste 3030, Boston, MA 02120 (jjdarrow@bwh.harvard.edu).

Correction: This article was corrected on January 15, 2020, for a missing legend in Figure 2.

Accepted for Publication: November 20, 2019.

Author Contributions: Dr Darrow had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Concept and design: All authors.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Darrow.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Darrow.

Obtained funding: Kesselheim.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Avorn, Kesselheim.

Supervision: Avorn, Kesselheim.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: None reported.

Funding/Support: This work was supported by Arnold Ventures and by grant support from the Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science and the Engelberg Foundation.

Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

References
1.
IQVIA. Medicine use and spending in the U.S. (Exhibit 32). IQVIA website. https://www.iqvia.com/insights/the-iqvia-institute/reports/medicine-use-and-spending-in-the-us-a-review-of-2018-and-outlook-to-2023. May 2019. Accessed December 3, 2019.
2.
Yu  NL, Atteberry  P, Bach  PB. Spending on prescription drugs in the US: where does all the money go? Health Affairs Blog. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20180726.670593/full/. Published July 31, 2018. Accessed December 16, 2019.
3.
Woloshin  S, Schwartz  LM, White  B, Moore  TJ.  The fate of FDA postapproval studies.  N Engl J Med. 2017;377(12):1114-1117. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1705800PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Approved Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS). FDA website. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/rems/index.cfm?event=RemsData.page. Accessed December 3, 2019.
5.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Executive Summary: Fiscal Year 2018 Budget. FDA website. https://www.fda.gov/media/106215/download. Published 2018. Accessed December 10, 2019.
6.
US Department of health and Human Services, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Justification of Estimates for Appropriations Committees, Fiscal Year 2019. FDA website. https://www.fda.gov/media/112611/download. Published 2019. Accessed December 3, 2019.
7.
Darrow  JJ, Avorn  J, Kesselheim  AS.  Speed, safety, and industry funding—from PDUFA I to PDUFA VI.  N Engl J Med. 2017;377(23):2278-2286. doi:10.1056/NEJMhle1710706PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992, Pub L No. 102–571, 106 Stat 4491 (1992).
9.
Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, Pub L No. 105-115, 111 Stat 2296 (1997).
10.
Carpenter  D, Zucker  EJ, Avorn  J.  Drug-review deadlines and safety problems.  N Engl J Med. 2008;358(13):1354-1361. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa0706341PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Applications for FDA approval to market a new drug: complete response letter to the applicant, 21 CFR §314.110 (2018).
12.
Frey  P, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). CDER New Drug Program: 2017 Update. FDA website. https://www.fda.gov/media/109516/download. Published December 5, 2017. Accessed December 16, 2019.
13.
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(24):2284-2293. doi:10.1056/NEJMsa1200223PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Investigational New Drug Application: IND content and format, 21 CFR §312.23 (2018).
15.
 Procedural and interpretive regulations: investigational use.  Fed Regist. 1963;28:179-183.Google Scholar
16.
Investigational new drug application: phases of an investigation, 21 CFR §312.21 (2018).
17.
Applications for FDA approval to market a new drug: content and format of an NDA, 21 CFR §314.50 (2018).
18.
Applications for FDA approval to market a new drug: refusal to approve an NDA, 21 CFR §314.125 (2018).
19.
Zhang  AD, Puthumana  J, Downing  NS, Shah  ND, Krumholz  H, Ross  JS. Clinical trial evidence supporting FDA approval of novel therapeutic agents over three decades, 1995-2017: cross-sectional analysis. medRxiv website. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/19007047v1. Published September 23, 2019. Accessed December 3, 2019.
20.
Darrow  JJ, Sarpatwari  A, Avorn  J, Kesselheim  AS.  Practical, legal, and ethical issues in expanded access to investigational drugs.  N Engl J Med. 2015;372(3):279-286. doi:10.1056/NEJMhle1409465PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Expanded access (compassionate use) submission data archive. FDA website. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/expanded-access/expanded-access-compassionate-use-submission-data-archive. Updated April 18, 2019. Accessed December 3, 2019.
22.
Jarow  JP, Moscicki  R.  Impact of expanded access on FDA regulatory action and product labeling.  Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2017;51(6):787-789. doi:10.1177/2168479017707800PubMedGoogle Scholar
23.
McKee  AE, Markon  AO, Chan-Tack  KM, Lurie  P.  How often are drugs made available under the Food and Drug Administration’s expanded access process approved?  J Clin Pharmacol. 2017;57(S10)(suppl 10):S136-S142. doi:10.1002/jcph.960PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
HR Rep No. 97-840(I), 1982 USCCAN 3577 (September 17, 1982).
25.
Kesselheim  AS, Myers  JA, Avorn  J.  Characteristics of clinical trials to support approval of orphan vs nonorphan drugs for cancer.  JAMA. 2011;305(22):2320-2326. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.769PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Orphan Drug Act, Pub L No. 97-414, 96 Stat 2049 (1983).
27.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA guidance for industry: expedited programs for serious conditions—drugs and biologics. FDA website. https://www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/Expedited-Programs-for-Serious-Conditions-Drugs-and-Biologics.pdf. Published May 2014. Accessed December 3, 2019.
28.
Kesselheim  AS, Avorn  J.  New “21st Century Cures” legislation: speed and ease versus science.  N Engl J Med. 2017;317(6):581-582. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.20640Google Scholar
29.
Darrow  JJ, Avorn  J, Kesselheim  AS.  The FDA breakthrough drug designation—four years of experience.  N Engl J Med. 2018;378(15):1444-1453. doi:10.1056/NEJMhpr1713338PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Hwang  TJ, Darrow  JJ, Kesselheim  AS.  The FDA’s expedited programs and clinical development times for novel therapeutics, 2012–2016.  JAMA. 2017;318(21):2137-2138. doi:10.1001/jama.2017.14896PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Kesselheim  AS, Woloshin  S, Eddings  W, Franklin  JM, Ross  KM, Schwartz  LM.  Physicians’ knowledge about FDA approval standards and perceptions of the “Breakthrough Therapy” designation.  JAMA. 2016;315(14):1516-1518. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.16984PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
32.
Hwang  TJ, Franklin  JM, Chen  CT,  et al.  Efficacy, safety, and regulatory approval of Food and Drug Administration–designated breakthrough and nonbreakthrough cancer medicines.  J Clin Oncol. 2018;36(18):1805-1812. doi:10.1200/JCO.2017.77.1592PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
33.
 New drugs: abbreviated applications.  Fed Regist. 1969;34:2673.Google Scholar
34.
Darrow  JJ, He  M, Stefanini  K.  The 505(b)(2) drug approval pathway.  Food Drug Law J. 2019;74(3):403-439.Google Scholar
35.
HR Rep No. 98-857(I), 1984 USCCAN 2647 (1984).
36.
Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act, Pub L No. 98-417, 98 Stat 1585 (1984).
37.
Bioavailability and bioequivalence requirements: definitions, 21 CFR §320.1(e) (2016).
38.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Guidance for Industry: Statistical Approaches to Establishing Bioequivalence. FDA website. https://www.fda.gov/media/70958/download. Published January 2001. Accessed December 3, 2019.
39.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations: Preface to the 39th Edition. FDA website. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-approval-process-drugs/orange-book-preface. Published February 5, 2018. Accessed December 3, 2019.
40.
 Abbreviated applications.  Fed Regist. 1970;35:6574-6575.Google Scholar
41.
Darrow  JJ, Kesselheim  AS.  Drug development and FDA approval, 1938-2013.  N Engl J Med. 2014;370(26):e39. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1402114PubMedGoogle Scholar
42.
Kesselheim  AS, Wang  B, Franklin  J, Darrow  JJ.  Trends in utilization of FDA expedited drug development and approval programs, 1987-2014: cohort study.  BMJ. 2015;351:h4633. doi:10.1136/bmj.h4633PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
43.
 Therapeutically equivalent drugs.  Fed Regist. 1979;44:2932-2953.Google Scholar
44.
Kesselheim  AS, Darrow  JJ.  Hatch-Waxman turns 30: do we need a re-designed approach for the modern era?  Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics. 2015;15(2):293-347.PubMedGoogle Scholar
45.
Generic Drug Access and Savings in the U.S. Access in Jeopardy. Association for Accessible Medicines website. https://accessiblemeds.org/sites/default/files/2018_aam_generic_drug_access_and_savings_report.pdf. Published 2018. Accessed December 3, 2019.
46.
Association for Accessible Medicines (AAM). The Case for Competition: 2019 Generic Drug and Biosimilars Access and Savings in the U.S. Report. AAM website. https://accessiblemeds.org/resources/blog/2019-generic-drug-and-biosimilars-access-savings-us-report. Published 2019. Accessed December 3, 2019.
47.
 Abbreviated new drug application regulations.  Fed Regist. 1992;57(82):17950-18001.Google Scholar
48.
IQVIA. Medicine Use and Spending in the U.S.: A Review of 2017 and Outlook to 2022. IQVIA website. https://www.iqvia.com/insights/the-iqvia-institute/reports/medicine-use-and-spending-in-the-us-review-of-2017-outlook-to-2022. Published 2018. Accessed December 10, 2019.
49.
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub L No. 111-148, 124 Stat 119 (2010).
50.
Engelberg  AB, Kesselheim  AS, Avorn  J.  Balancing innovation, access, and profits—market exclusivity for biologics.  N Engl J Med. 2009;361(20):1917-1919. doi:10.1056/NEJMp0908496PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
51.
Darrow  JJ. Biosimilar approvals and the BPCIA: too soon to give up. Health Affairs Blog. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190718.722161/full/. Published July 19, 2019. Accessed December 3, 2019.
52.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FDA-Approved Biosimilar Products. FDA website. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/biosimilars/biosimilar-product-information. Updated March 14, 2019. Accessed December 3, 2019.
53.
 Drug and biological product consolidation.  Fed Regist. 2003;68(123):38067-38068.Google Scholar
54.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Summary of NDA Approvals & Receipts, 1938 to the Present. FDA website. https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/histories-product-regulation/summary-nda-approvals-receipts-1938-present. Updated January 31, 2018. Accessed March 24, 2019.
55.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Biological Approvals by Year. FDA website. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/development-approval-process-cber/biological-approvals-year. Updated March 28, 2019. Accessed December 10, 2019.
56.
Patent Act of 1790, Ch. 7, 1 Stat 109 (1790).
57.
Darrow  JJ.  Pharmaceutical efficacy: the illusory legal standard.  Wash Lee Law Rev. 2013;70:2073-2136.Google Scholar
58.
Darrow  JJ.  Pharmaceutical gatekeepers.  Indiana Law Rev. 2014;47:363-420.Google Scholar
59.
Darrow  JJ, Kesselheim  AS. Prescription drug pricing: promoting competition to address pharmaceutical prices. Health Affairs website. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hpb20180116.967310/full/HPP_2018_CMWF_02_W.pdf. Published March 15, 2018. Accessed December 3, 2019.
60.
Grabowski  HG, Vernon  JM.  Substitution laws and innovation in the pharmaceutical industry.  J Law Contemporary Problems. 1979;43(1):43-66.Google Scholar
61.
US Department of Commerce.  Advisory Committee on Industrial Innovation: Final Report. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office; 1979.
62.
Food and drugs: new drugs, 21 USC §355 (2019).
63.
Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act, Pub L No. 112-144, 126 Stat 993 (2012).
64.
Grabowski  H, Long  G, Mortimer  R, Boyo  A.  Updated trends in US brand-name and generic drug competition.  J Med Econ. 2016;19(9):836-844. doi:10.1080/13696998.2016.1176578PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
65.
Egilman  AC, Zhang  AD, Wallach  JD, Ross  JS.  Medicare Part D spending on single-enantiomer drugs versus their racemic precursors  [published online August 13, 2019].  Ann Intern Med. 2019. doi:10.7326/M19-1085PubMedGoogle Scholar
66.
Darrow  JJ.  The patentability of enantiomers: implications for the pharmaceutical industry.  Stanf Technol Law Rev. 2007;2:1-19.Google Scholar
67.
Sacks  CA, Lee  CC, Kesselheim  AS, Avorn  J.  Medicare spending on brand-name combination medications vs their generic constituents.  JAMA. 2018;320(7):650-656. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.11439PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
68.
Feldman  WB, Avorn  J, Kesselheim  AS.  Potential Medicare savings on inhaler prescriptions through the use of negotiated prices and a defined formulary  [published online December 2, 2019].  JAMA Intern Med. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.5337PubMedGoogle Scholar
69.
Darrow  JJ, Kesselheim  AS. Nearly one-third of new drugs are no better than older drugs, and some are worse. Health Affairs Blog. https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20171021.268271/full/. Published October 6, 2017. Accessed December 20, 2019.
70.
Beall  RF, Darrow  JJ, Kesselheim  AS.  Patent term restoration for top-selling drugs in the United States.  Drug Discov Today. 2019;24(1):20-25. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2018.07.006PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
71.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now: Required by Section 805 of the FDA Safety and Innovation Act: Report to Congress. FDA website. https://www.fda.gov/media/110982/download. Published 2018. Accessed December 20, 2019.
72.
Bourgeois  FT, Kesselheim  AS.  Promoting pediatric drug research and labeling—outcomes of legislation.  N Engl J Med. 2019;381(9):875-881. doi:10.1056/NEJMhle1901265PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
73.
Sinha  MS, Najafzadeh  M, Rajasingh  EK, Love  J, Kesselheim  AS.  Labeling changes and costs for clinical trials performed under the US Food and Drug Administration Pediatric Exclusivity Extension, 2007 to 2012.  JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(11):1458-1466. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3933PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
74.
Applications for FDA approval to market a new drug: approval based on a surrogate endpoint or on an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity, 21 CFR §314.510 (2019) (drugs).
75.
Licensing: approval based on a surrogate endpoint or on an effect on a clinical endpoint other than survival or irreversible morbidity, 21 CFR §601.41 (2019) (biologics).
76.
Pediatric Research Equity Act, Pub L No. 108-155, 117 Stat 1936 (2003).
77.
Investigational New Drug Application: phase 4 studies, 21 CFR §312.85 (2019).
78.
Applications for FDA approval to market a new drug: other postmarketing reports, 21 CFR §314.81 (2019).
79.
 Report on the performance of drug and biologics firms in conducting postmarketing requirements and commitments: availability.  Fed Regist. 2017;82(235):57996-58003.Google Scholar
80.
Woloshin  S, Schwartz  LM, White  B, Moore  TJ.  The fate of FDA postapproval studies.  N Engl J Med. 2017;377(12):1114-1117. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1705800PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
81.
FDA Amendments Act of 2007, Pub L No. 110-85, 121 Stat 823, 931 (2007).
82.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Development of a Shared System REMS: Draft Guidance for Industry. FDA website. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/development-shared-system-rems-guidance-industry. Published June 2018. Accessed December 3, 2019.
83.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Waivers of the Single, Shared System REMS Requirement: Draft Guidance for Industry. FDA website. https://www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/Waivers-of-the-Single--Shared-System-REMS--Requirement--Draft-Guidance-for-Industry.pdf. Published June 2018. Accessed December 3, 2019.
84.
Sarpatwari  A, Franklin  JM, Avorn  J, Seeger  JD, Landon  JE, Kesselheim  AS.  Are risk evaluation and mitigation strategies associated with less off-label use of medications? the case of immune thrombocytopenia.  Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015;97(2):186-193. doi:10.1002/cpt.17PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
85.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Statement from FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, M.D., on new steps to strengthen agency’s safety requirements aimed at mitigating risks associated with transmucosal immediate-release fentanyl products. FDA website. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/statement-fda-commissioner-scott-gottlieb-md-new-steps-strengthen-agencys-safety-requirements-aimed. March 27, 2019. Accessed December 3, 2019.
86.
Rollman  JE, Heyward  J, Olson  L, Lurie  P, Sharfstein  J, Alexander  GC.  Assessment of the FDA Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy for transmucosal immediate-release fentanyl products.  JAMA. 2019;321(7):676-685. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.0235PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
87.
Black  JC, Bau  GE, Rosen  T,  et al.  Changes in mortality involving extended-release and long-acting opioids after implementation of a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy  [published online March 16, 2019].  Pain Med. 2019;pnz031. doi:10.1093/pm/pnz031PubMedGoogle Scholar
88.
Bombardier  C, Laine  L, Reicin  A,  et al; VIGOR Study Group.  Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis.  N Engl J Med. 2000;343(21):1520-1528. doi:10.1056/NEJM200011233432103PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
89.
Jüni  P, Nartey  L, Reichenbach  S, Sterchi  R, Dieppe  PA, Egger  M.  Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis.  Lancet. 2004;364(9450):2021-2029. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(04)17514-4PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
90.
Solomon  DH, Schneeweiss  S, Glynn  RJ,  et al.  Relationship between selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors and acute myocardial infarction in older adults.  Circulation. 2004;109(17):2068-2073. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000127578.21885.3EPubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
91.
FDA Amendments Act, Pub L No. 110-85, 121 Stat 823 (2007).
92.
Platt  R, Brown  JS, Robb  M,  et al.  The FDA Sentinel Initiative—an evolving national resource.  N Engl J Med. 2018;379(22):2091-2093. doi:10.1056/NEJMp1809643PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
93.
Woodcock  J.  Drug development in serious diseases: the new “breakthrough therapy” designation.  Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;95(5):483-485. doi:10.1038/clpt.2014.23PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
94.
Corrigan-Curay  J, McKee  AE, Stein  P.  Breakthrough-therapy designation—an FDA perspective.  N Engl J Med. 2018;378(15):1457-1458. doi:10.1056/NEJMc1801222PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
95.
Darrow  JJ, Avorn  J, Kesselheim  AS.  New FDA breakthrough-drug category—implications for patients.  N Engl J Med. 2014;370(13):1252-1258. doi:10.1056/NEJMhle1311493PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
96.
Downing  NS, Aminawung  JA, Shah  ND, Krumholz  HM, Ross  JS.  Clinical trial evidence supporting FDA approval of novel therapeutic agents, 2005-2012.  JAMA. 2014;311(4):368-377. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.282034PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
97.
Investigational new drug application: definitions and interpretations, 21 CFR §312.3(b) (2018).
98.
 New drug, antibiotic, and biological drug product regulations: accelerated approval.  Fed Regist. 1992;57(73):13234-13242.Google Scholar
99.
Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. Patent-to-launch time for rare disease drugs is 2.3 years longer vs. other drugs, according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. AP website. https://apnews.com/60220de1c3e7d0a0f8cad2021111f849. Published May 9, 2018. Accessed December 3, 2019.
100.
Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. CNS drugs take 20% longer to develop and 38% longer to approve vs. non-CNS drugs, according to the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development. West website. https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2018/09/11/1569156/0/en/CNS-Drugs-Take-20-Longer-to-Develop-and-38-Longer-to-Approve-vs-Non-CNS-Drugs-According-to-the-Tufts-Center-for-the-Study-of-Drug-Development.html. Published September 11, 2018. Accessed December 3, 2019.
101.
Chambers  JD, Thorat  T, Wilkinson  CL, Neumann  PJ.  Drugs cleared through the FDA’s expedited review offer greater gains than drugs approved by conventional process.  Health Aff (Millwood). 2017;36(8):1408-1415. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2016.1541PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
102.
Beaver  JA, Howie  LJ, Pelosof  L,  et al.  A 25-year experience of US Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of malignant hematology and oncology drugs and biologics: a review.  JAMA Oncol. 2018;4(6):849-856. doi:10.1001/jamaoncol.2017.5618PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
If you are not a JN Learning subscriber, you can either:
Subscribe to JN Learning for one year
Buy this activity
jn-learning_Modal_LoginSubscribe_Purchase
With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right

Name Your Search

Save Search
With a personal account, you can:
  • Track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
jn-learning_Modal_SaveSearch_NoAccess_Purchase

Lookup An Activity

or

My Saved Searches

You currently have no searches saved.

With a personal account, you can:
  • Access free activities and track your credits
  • Personalize content alerts
  • Customize your interests
  • Fully personalize your learning experience
Education Center Collection Sign In Modal Right
Topics
State Requirements