FDA的药物开发工具认证程序改善了药物开发吗?

IF 2 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Felix Yang, Imein Bousnina, Anne Madej, Rasika Kalamegham
{"title":"FDA的药物开发工具认证程序改善了药物开发吗?","authors":"Felix Yang, Imein Bousnina, Anne Madej, Rasika Kalamegham","doi":"10.1007/s43441-025-00790-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Drug Development Tools (DDTs) Qualification program creates a pathway to evaluate Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) that capture a specific concept of interest (COI) in a specified Context of Use (COU). If successfully qualified, a COA can be relied upon to measure a COI that has an application in drug development and regulatory decision-making. Thus, qualified COAs are important DDTs. This analysis aims to assess the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) performance reviewing applications in the COA Qualification Program, as well as the uptake of qualified COAs in drug development to date.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In order to assess the use of qualified COAs in drug development, we analyzed the Summary Basis of Approvals (SBA) retrieved from Drugs@FDA and the COA compendium. The submission and review dates for the Letter of Intent (LOI), Qualification Plan (QP), and Full Qualification Package (FQP) steps were retrieved from Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) & Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research's (CBER) database, as well as the FDA COA Qualification Program website.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analysis showed that 86 COAs were listed on the FDA COA website, with a majority of them being Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO). Completeness Assessment (CA) for each portion of submission, as well as review times for the LOI, QP, and FQP steps vary widely, with 46.7% of submissions having a review time exceeding the published targets. To date, 7 COAs (8.1%) have achieved qualification, and one (1.1%) has been denied after undergoing all steps for qualification. On average, it takes 6 years for a COA to be qualified. Our analysis of FDA's approval documents shows that the Agency has relied on qualified COAs to support benefit-risk assessment of 11 medicines. Only three of the seven qualified COAs have been used to support benefit-risk assessment of medicines. The three qualified COAs that have been used are KCCQ, E-RS, and EXACT. Each of these has been used to support multiple indication claims. KCCQ - cardiomyopathy for 2 medicines, heart failure for 6 medicines; E-RS - chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) for 1 medicine; and EXACT - COPD for 3 medicines. Note: E-RS and EXACT were both used in aclidinium bromide/formoterol/fumarate. In each case they were used as secondary or exploratory endpoints, none as primary endpoints. Only 1 qualified COA was included in drug labels.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The lengthy and unpredictable nature of the COA Qualification Program review timelines poses a risk for tool developers and sponsors intending to qualify a new COA, to use an existing COA or sponsors intending to qualify and use a new COA in the drug development process. Our findings show that, to date, the DDT Qualification Program has not significantly improved the inclusion of qualified COAs in clinical development plans to support regulatory decision-making and label claims, and therefore the impact of the pathway to facilitate the use of innovative tools has been limited. To improve the utility of this program, FDA should publicly share the timelines so participants can be better prepared to integrate into their development programs. Furthermore, FDA should clearly articulate how and when COAs can be used in drug development.</p>","PeriodicalId":23084,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Has FDA's Drug Development Tools Qualification Program Improved Drug Development?\",\"authors\":\"Felix Yang, Imein Bousnina, Anne Madej, Rasika Kalamegham\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s43441-025-00790-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The Drug Development Tools (DDTs) Qualification program creates a pathway to evaluate Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) that capture a specific concept of interest (COI) in a specified Context of Use (COU). If successfully qualified, a COA can be relied upon to measure a COI that has an application in drug development and regulatory decision-making. Thus, qualified COAs are important DDTs. This analysis aims to assess the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) performance reviewing applications in the COA Qualification Program, as well as the uptake of qualified COAs in drug development to date.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In order to assess the use of qualified COAs in drug development, we analyzed the Summary Basis of Approvals (SBA) retrieved from Drugs@FDA and the COA compendium. The submission and review dates for the Letter of Intent (LOI), Qualification Plan (QP), and Full Qualification Package (FQP) steps were retrieved from Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) & Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research's (CBER) database, as well as the FDA COA Qualification Program website.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analysis showed that 86 COAs were listed on the FDA COA website, with a majority of them being Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO). Completeness Assessment (CA) for each portion of submission, as well as review times for the LOI, QP, and FQP steps vary widely, with 46.7% of submissions having a review time exceeding the published targets. To date, 7 COAs (8.1%) have achieved qualification, and one (1.1%) has been denied after undergoing all steps for qualification. On average, it takes 6 years for a COA to be qualified. Our analysis of FDA's approval documents shows that the Agency has relied on qualified COAs to support benefit-risk assessment of 11 medicines. Only three of the seven qualified COAs have been used to support benefit-risk assessment of medicines. The three qualified COAs that have been used are KCCQ, E-RS, and EXACT. Each of these has been used to support multiple indication claims. KCCQ - cardiomyopathy for 2 medicines, heart failure for 6 medicines; E-RS - chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) for 1 medicine; and EXACT - COPD for 3 medicines. Note: E-RS and EXACT were both used in aclidinium bromide/formoterol/fumarate. In each case they were used as secondary or exploratory endpoints, none as primary endpoints. Only 1 qualified COA was included in drug labels.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The lengthy and unpredictable nature of the COA Qualification Program review timelines poses a risk for tool developers and sponsors intending to qualify a new COA, to use an existing COA or sponsors intending to qualify and use a new COA in the drug development process. Our findings show that, to date, the DDT Qualification Program has not significantly improved the inclusion of qualified COAs in clinical development plans to support regulatory decision-making and label claims, and therefore the impact of the pathway to facilitate the use of innovative tools has been limited. To improve the utility of this program, FDA should publicly share the timelines so participants can be better prepared to integrate into their development programs. Furthermore, FDA should clearly articulate how and when COAs can be used in drug development.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23084,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-025-00790-2\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL INFORMATICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-025-00790-2","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:药物开发工具(DDTs)资格认证程序创建了一个评估临床结果评估(coa)的途径,该评估可以在特定的使用环境(COU)中捕获特定的兴趣概念(COI)。如果成功合格,COA可以用来衡量在药物开发和监管决策中应用的COI。因此,合格的coa是重要的ddt。本分析旨在评估美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)在COA资格认证程序中的绩效审查申请,以及迄今为止药物开发中合格COA的吸收情况。方法:为了评估合格COA在药物开发中的使用,我们分析了从Drugs@FDA和COA纲要检索到的批准摘要基础(SBA)。意向书(LOI)、鉴定计划(QP)和完整鉴定包(FQP)步骤的提交和审查日期从药物评价和研究中心(CDER)和生物制品评价和研究中心(CBER)数据库以及FDA COA鉴定程序网站检索。结果:我们的分析显示,FDA COA网站上列出了86个COA,其中大多数是患者报告的结果(PRO)。提交的每个部分的完整性评估(CA),以及LOI、QP和FQP步骤的审查时间差异很大,46.7%的提交的审查时间超过了公布的目标。迄今为止,有7个coa(8.1%)获得了资格,一个coa(1.1%)在经历了所有资格步骤后被拒绝。平均来说,COA获得资格需要6年的时间。我们对FDA批准文件的分析显示,该机构依赖于合格的coa来支持11种药物的收益-风险评估。在7个合格的coa中,只有3个用于支持药物的获益-风险评估。目前使用的三个合格coa分别是KCCQ、E-RS和EXACT。这些都被用来支持多重适应症声明。KCCQ -心肌病用2药,心力衰竭用6药;E-RS - 1种药物的慢性阻塞性肺疾病(COPD);和EXACT - COPD的3种药物。注:E-RS和EXACT均用于溴化吖啶醇/福莫特罗/富马酸酯。在每种情况下,它们都被用作次要或探索性终点,没有一个作为主要终点。药品标签中仅包含1种合格COA。结论:COA鉴定程序审查时间表的冗长和不可预测的性质给工具开发人员和打算鉴定新COA的申办者,使用现有COA或打算在药物开发过程中鉴定和使用新COA的申办者带来了风险。我们的研究结果表明,迄今为止,滴滴涕资格认证计划并没有显著改善临床开发计划中合格coa的纳入,以支持监管决策和标签声明,因此,促进创新工具使用的途径的影响有限。为了提高该计划的效用,FDA应公开分享时间表,以便参与者能够更好地准备融入他们的开发计划。此外,FDA应明确说明coa如何以及何时可用于药物开发。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Has FDA's Drug Development Tools Qualification Program Improved Drug Development?

Background: The Drug Development Tools (DDTs) Qualification program creates a pathway to evaluate Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs) that capture a specific concept of interest (COI) in a specified Context of Use (COU). If successfully qualified, a COA can be relied upon to measure a COI that has an application in drug development and regulatory decision-making. Thus, qualified COAs are important DDTs. This analysis aims to assess the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) performance reviewing applications in the COA Qualification Program, as well as the uptake of qualified COAs in drug development to date.

Methods: In order to assess the use of qualified COAs in drug development, we analyzed the Summary Basis of Approvals (SBA) retrieved from Drugs@FDA and the COA compendium. The submission and review dates for the Letter of Intent (LOI), Qualification Plan (QP), and Full Qualification Package (FQP) steps were retrieved from Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) & Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research's (CBER) database, as well as the FDA COA Qualification Program website.

Results: Our analysis showed that 86 COAs were listed on the FDA COA website, with a majority of them being Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO). Completeness Assessment (CA) for each portion of submission, as well as review times for the LOI, QP, and FQP steps vary widely, with 46.7% of submissions having a review time exceeding the published targets. To date, 7 COAs (8.1%) have achieved qualification, and one (1.1%) has been denied after undergoing all steps for qualification. On average, it takes 6 years for a COA to be qualified. Our analysis of FDA's approval documents shows that the Agency has relied on qualified COAs to support benefit-risk assessment of 11 medicines. Only three of the seven qualified COAs have been used to support benefit-risk assessment of medicines. The three qualified COAs that have been used are KCCQ, E-RS, and EXACT. Each of these has been used to support multiple indication claims. KCCQ - cardiomyopathy for 2 medicines, heart failure for 6 medicines; E-RS - chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) for 1 medicine; and EXACT - COPD for 3 medicines. Note: E-RS and EXACT were both used in aclidinium bromide/formoterol/fumarate. In each case they were used as secondary or exploratory endpoints, none as primary endpoints. Only 1 qualified COA was included in drug labels.

Conclusion: The lengthy and unpredictable nature of the COA Qualification Program review timelines poses a risk for tool developers and sponsors intending to qualify a new COA, to use an existing COA or sponsors intending to qualify and use a new COA in the drug development process. Our findings show that, to date, the DDT Qualification Program has not significantly improved the inclusion of qualified COAs in clinical development plans to support regulatory decision-making and label claims, and therefore the impact of the pathway to facilitate the use of innovative tools has been limited. To improve the utility of this program, FDA should publicly share the timelines so participants can be better prepared to integrate into their development programs. Furthermore, FDA should clearly articulate how and when COAs can be used in drug development.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science MEDICAL INFORMATICS-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.30%
发文量
127
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (TIRS) is the official scientific journal of DIA that strives to advance medical product discovery, development, regulation, and use through the publication of peer-reviewed original and review articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor across the spectrum of converting biomedical science into practical solutions to advance human health. The focus areas of the journal are as follows: Biostatistics Clinical Trials Product Development and Innovation Global Perspectives Policy Regulatory Science Product Safety Special Populations
×
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