Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evolution of Drug Development and Its Regulatory Process: Henry J.Malinowski and Agnes M.Westelinck
Evolution of Drug Development and Its Regulatory Process: Henry J.Malinowski and Agnes M.Westelinck
The history of clinical pharmacology over the past 100 years may be thought
of as a gradual progression from the use of potions and other sometimes
dubious concoctions to the complex drug development process seen today
[1]. The future of clinical pharmacology has been described as academia,
industry, and government working together to advance science, develop new
drugs, and improve the quality of life of mankind [2]. Efforts such as the
International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) have promoted unification
of regulatory policies, including those related to clinical pharmacology. More
than 35 harmonized ICH Guidelines are available [3] and the recently
harmonized Common Technical Document provides for a common format
for new drug and biological regulatory submissions. Following are
perspectives from Europe and the United States on the progress of clinical
pharmacology over the years, in these two major regions of the world.
* Current affiliation: Barrier Therapeutics, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A.
13
Copyright 2004 by Marcel Dekker, Inc.
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
At the end, drug development should contribute to the use of the most
appropriate drug to the right patient in an optimal dosage schedule with the
right information and at a reasonable cost.
Considerations on Study Design
During the 1990s, the importance of properly designed early trials (Phase I
and II) has led to dramatic changes in their design. These changes have
included both proper randomized, double blinded designs and increased
sample sizes. Although there are different opinions on how best to use data
from Phase II in the present process, there is little doubt concerning the high
level of information likely to be available at the end of Phase II and the
conduct of too many Phase III and IV trials may be considered redundant or
unethical [18].
There are global concerns that activities carried out during the later
stages of clinical trials are balancing on the edge of inappropriate activities.
Regulatory authorities in Europe have in a sense addressed these issues by
their request, in specific situations, for comparative trials of marketed drugs.
As the goal of these trials is often to show equivalence, they, however, tend
to be more difficult to conduct and to require larger number of patients.
Occasionally, global pharmaceutical companies have sought approval on
the basis of placebo-controlled trials in the United States and have added
active control comparative trials to register in Europe [18].
Problem Solving by the Entire Community
Mistakes in the design of a drug trial are usually reported as drug failure
rather than insufficient expertise, marketing influence, inadequate
regulatory management, or improper patient enrolment and follow up. The
assumption has been made that these are problems for the pharmaceutical
companies to solve. The regulatory role is simply to identify them and reject
the failed studies. This might be considered false. It might be considered a
problem created by the process of clinical trials, which should be solved by
the entire healthcare community [18]. To address this and to reinforce the
success of the European Agency, specific changes have been proposed to the
European Commission to enlarge the scope of the Agencys activities beyond
the evaluation of medicinal products, by strengthening its role as a scientific
adviser.
New Safe Medicines Faster in Europe
Competitiveness of the Industry
Pharmaceutical companies based in Europe have traditionally played a
leading role in developing new drugs, the industry making a significant
22
23
24
since 1995. It has revealed that there is a broad level of satisfaction about
the system from ministries, patient and professional associations, regulatory
authorities, and industry, although improvements can be made and new
challenges exist.
There is a general feeling that the system has contributed to the creation
of a harmonized EU market for medicinal products and that it provides a
strong foundation for an efficient regulatory environment. There is also a
general perception that assessment of products to date has provided a high
degree of protection to the public health. This is despite the fact that there
have been withdrawals from the market of products already authorized.
This is considered consistent with increasingly effective pharmacovigilance
procedures and the bias toward products developed on the leading edge of
science.
Comparative Observations
From the same consultation in Europe, comparative observations upon the
regulatory frameworks in the EU and United States have revealed a
perception that the EU is taking a more risk-adverse approach to assessment
as compared with the FDAs policy of risk management. Specific instances
would exist where products were removed, or threatened with removal,
from the EU market because of perceived safety concerns, while the same
products were dealt within the United States by the imposition of specific
warnings in the label [21]. Comments were made about a similar level of
conservatism in the EU in the approach to the review of products in
specialist areas such as oncology and a greater willingness to embrace new
therapies in the United States [21].
Analysis of Outcomes
An analysis of outcomes of applications in the Central Procedure from 1995
to 1999, published by the EMEA [21], has shown 72% (97/135) positive
outcomes, i.e., drug approvals. For applications with a negative outcome,
methodological concerns over study design, choice of endpoint, comparator,
and selected population were raised more frequently than over those with a
positive outcome. FDA had authorized 13 (34%) of the 38 applications that
had a negative outcome in the EU. This may be explained by a different
attitude toward data requirements e.g., requirements for controlled data, by
the availability to FDA of additional regulatory tools, e.g., conditional
approvals, and by the limited use of EMEA scientific advice (11%) prior to
submission [22].
It is expected that the Reform of EU Pharmaceutical Legislation,
proposed in 2001, will influence the regulatory environment
significantly [23].
25
While the original focus was on in vivo studies in healthy subjects, this has
expanded to include plasma sampling in patients as part of population
pharmacokinetic studies, exposure response studies and pharmacokinetic/
pharmacodynamic studies.
26
27
28
29
30
31
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Dr. A.Cohen, Center for Human Drug Research, Leiden, The Netherlands
and Dr. P.Neels, Member of the Commission for Proprietary Medicinal
Products, Brussels, Belgium.
REFERENCES
1. Health, G.H.; Colburn, W.A. An Evolution of Drug Development and Clinical
Pharmacology during the 20th Century. J. Clin. Pharm. 2000, 40, 918929.
2. Lathers, C.M. Lessons Learned from the Past: A Guide for the Future of Clinical
Pharmacology in the 21st Century. J. Clin. Pharm. 2000, 40, 946966.
3. ICH Topics and Guidelines, http://www.ifpma.org/ich5.html.
4. Sitsen, J.M.A.Klinische Farmacologie: over mensen en geneesmiddelen.
Pharmaceutisch Weekblad 1990, 125 (49/50).
5. Breckenridge, A. Clinical Pharmacology and Drug Regulation. Br. J. Clin.
Pharmacol. 1999, 47, 1112.
6. Sjqvist, F. The Past, Present and Future of Clinical Pharmacology. Eur. J. Clin.
Pharmacol. 1999, 55, 553557.
7. Bateman, N.; Maxwell, S. Career Focus. Clinical Pharmacology. BMJ 1999, 319,
S27219.
8. Gambardella, A.; Orsenigo, L.; Pammoli, F. Global Competitiveness in
Pharmaceuticals. A European Perspective; Report Prepared for the Directorate
General Enterprise of the European Commission, November 2000, http://
pharmacos.eudra.org.
9. European Federation for Pharmaceutical Sciences; New Safe Medicines Faster
Workshop Report, July 1, 2000, http://www.eufeps.org.
10. Lesko, L.; Rowland, M.; Peck, C.; Blaschke, T. Optimizing the Science of Drug
Development: Opportunities for Better Candidate Selection and Accelerated
Evaluation in Humans. Conference Report. European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences 2000, 10, ivxiv.
11. European Federation for Pharmaceutical Sciences. Newsletter, December 2002,
http://www.eufeps.org.
12. Taylor, D. Fewer New Drugs from the Pharmaceutical Industry. Editorial. BMJ
2003, 326, 408409.
13. Rolan, P. The Contribution of Clinical Pharmacology Surrogates and Models to
Drug DevelopmentA Critical Appraisal. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 1997, 44, 219
225.
14. Senn, S. Letters. Drug Development means Economics in the End. BMJ 2001,
322, 675.
15. McCarthy, A. Pharmacogenetics. Editorial. BMJ 2001, 322, 10071008.
16. Grahame-Smith, D.G. How will Knowledge of the Human Genome Affect Drug
Therapy? Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 1999, 47, 710.
17. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products; Note for guidance on the
investigation of drug interactions, http://www.eudra.org.
32
18. Jones, C.T. Call for a New Approach to the Process of Clinical Trials and Drug
Registration. BMJ 2001, 322, 920923.
19. Soto, J. Efficiency-Based Pharmacotherapy: The New Paradigm for the 21st
Century in Medicine. Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 2000, 56, 525527.
20. Medicinal Product Agency, Sweden. About MPA http://www3.mpa.se.
21. Cameron McKenna, Andersen Consulting. Evaluation of the operation of
Community procedures for the authorization of medicinal products; Evaluation carried out on behalf of the European Commission, October 2000, http://
pharmacos.eudra.org.
22. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products; Applications in
the Centralised Procedure 1995 to July 1999an analysis of outcomes, March
15, 2000. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products, http://
www.emea.eu.int.
23. The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products; Reform of EU
Pharmaceutical Legislation; Memo/01/267, July 18, 2001, http://
www.emea.eu.int.
24. FDA GuidanceFormat and Content of the Human Pharmacokinetics and
Bioavailability Section of an Application, http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/
old071fn.pdf.
25. FDA GuidanceFood Effect Bioavailability and Bioequivalence Studies, http://
www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/1719dft.pdf.
26. FDA Guidancehttp://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/index.htm.
27. International Conference on Harmonization Guidelines, http://www.ifpma.org/
ich5.html.
28. FDA GuidanceStudy of Drugs Likely to Be used in the Elderly, http://
www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/old040fn.pdf.
29. Sheiner, L.B.; Benet, L.Z. Premarketing Observational Studies of Population
Pharmacokinetics of New Drugs. Clin. Pharm. Ther. 1985, 38, 481487.
30. FDA GuidancePopulation Pharmacokinetics, http://www.fda.gov/cder/
guidance/1852fnl.pdf.
31. http://www.socialaudit.org.uk/5111001.htm#Note1.
32. FDA GuidanceGuideline for the Study and Evaluation of Gender Differences
in the Clinical Evaluation of Drugs, http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/
old036fn.pdf.
33. FDA GuidancePharmacokinetics in Patients with Impaired Renal Function,
http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/1449fnl.pdf.
34. FDA GuidancePharmacokinetics in Patients With Impaired Hepatic Function:
Study Design, Data Analysis, and Impact on Dosing and Labeling, http://
www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/2629dft.pdf.
35. FDA Integration of Pharmacokinetics. Pharmacodynamics and Toxicokinetics
in Rational Drug Development, Yacobi A. et al., Eds.; Plenum Press: New York,
1993.
36. Hirayama, Y. Changing the Review Process; The View of the Japanese Ministry
of Health and Welfare. Drug Information Journal 1998, 32, 111117.
37. http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00841.html.
38. FDA GuidanceDrug Metabolism/Drug Interaction Studies in the Drug
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
33