Dose Determinations at Drug Approval Reviews: FDA-Approved Drugs in Past 5 Years.

IF 6.3 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Sachiko Mita, Shunsuke Ono
{"title":"Dose Determinations at Drug Approval Reviews: FDA-Approved Drugs in Past 5 Years.","authors":"Sachiko Mita, Shunsuke Ono","doi":"10.1002/cpt.3611","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Drug dose appropriateness is one of the most discussed issues in regulatory reviews. We analyzed dose determinations during Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug reviews to determine whether there were changes between the proposed and approved doses of new molecular entities (NMEs), including cases where postmarketing dose-finding studies were requested, and explored the factors associated with these decisions. Of the 218 eligible NMEs approved between 2018 and 2022, 28 drugs (13%) had modifications to the proposed dose or requested additional postmarketing assessments, 20 of which were to a lower dose (\"downward,\" 9.2%) and five were to a higher dose (\"upward,\" 2.3%). Multinomial logistic regression analysis suggested that products that used the Accelerated Approval program were more likely to undergo downward modification (relative risk ratio (RRR) = 5.73). In addition, the fact that a dose/exposure-response relationship was observed for safety, but not efficacy, was associated with an increased probability of downward modifications (RRR: 4.27). In contrast, the use of pharmacodynamic biomarkers for dose setting and designation of Priority Review was associated with decreased probabilities of downward change (RRR: 0.405 and 0.195, respectively). Infectious disease drugs went through more upward modifications than those in the other therapeutic categories. This study revealed that dose \"optimization\" occurs during the FDA's review for drug approval and that not only product characteristics but also factors related to the drug review and approval process are associated with the decisions to modify or question the dose, suggesting considerations for the presence of compelling evidence and restrictions in data availabilities.</p>","PeriodicalId":153,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.3611","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Drug dose appropriateness is one of the most discussed issues in regulatory reviews. We analyzed dose determinations during Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug reviews to determine whether there were changes between the proposed and approved doses of new molecular entities (NMEs), including cases where postmarketing dose-finding studies were requested, and explored the factors associated with these decisions. Of the 218 eligible NMEs approved between 2018 and 2022, 28 drugs (13%) had modifications to the proposed dose or requested additional postmarketing assessments, 20 of which were to a lower dose ("downward," 9.2%) and five were to a higher dose ("upward," 2.3%). Multinomial logistic regression analysis suggested that products that used the Accelerated Approval program were more likely to undergo downward modification (relative risk ratio (RRR) = 5.73). In addition, the fact that a dose/exposure-response relationship was observed for safety, but not efficacy, was associated with an increased probability of downward modifications (RRR: 4.27). In contrast, the use of pharmacodynamic biomarkers for dose setting and designation of Priority Review was associated with decreased probabilities of downward change (RRR: 0.405 and 0.195, respectively). Infectious disease drugs went through more upward modifications than those in the other therapeutic categories. This study revealed that dose "optimization" occurs during the FDA's review for drug approval and that not only product characteristics but also factors related to the drug review and approval process are associated with the decisions to modify or question the dose, suggesting considerations for the presence of compelling evidence and restrictions in data availabilities.

药物批准审查中的剂量确定:过去5年fda批准的药物。
药物剂量适宜性是监管审查中讨论最多的问题之一。我们分析了美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)药物审查期间的剂量测定,以确定新分子实体(NMEs)的建议剂量和批准剂量之间是否存在变化,包括要求进行上市后剂量发现研究的情况,并探讨了与这些决定相关的因素。在2018年至2022年批准的218个符合条件的NMEs中,28种药物(13%)对建议剂量进行了修改或要求额外的上市后评估,其中20种药物的剂量较低(“下降”,9.2%),5种药物的剂量较高(“上升”,2.3%)。多项逻辑回归分析表明,使用加速审批程序的产品更有可能进行向下修改(相对风险比(RRR) = 5.73)。此外,在安全性而非有效性方面观察到剂量/暴露-反应关系,这一事实与向下修改的可能性增加有关(RRR: 4.27)。相比之下,使用药效学生物标志物来设定剂量和指定优先审查与降低下降变化的可能性相关(RRR分别为0.405和0.195)。与其他治疗类别的药物相比,传染病药物的价格上涨幅度更大。该研究表明,剂量“优化”发生在FDA的药物批准审查过程中,不仅产品特性,而且与药物审查和批准过程相关的因素都与修改或质疑剂量的决定有关,这表明需要考虑存在令人信服的证据和数据可用性的限制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
7.50%
发文量
290
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (CPT) is the authoritative cross-disciplinary journal in experimental and clinical medicine devoted to publishing advances in the nature, action, efficacy, and evaluation of therapeutics. CPT welcomes original Articles in the emerging areas of translational, predictive and personalized medicine; new therapeutic modalities including gene and cell therapies; pharmacogenomics, proteomics and metabolomics; bioinformation and applied systems biology complementing areas of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, human investigation and clinical trials, pharmacovigilence, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacometrics, and population pharmacology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信