DOCSLIB.ORG

Clinical Reviewer: Ann T Schwartz STN: 125563/0

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Clinical Reviewer: Ann T Schwartz STN: 125563/0 Individuals using assistive technology may not be able to fully access the information contained in this file. For assistance, please send an e-mail to: [email protected] and include 508 Accommodation and the title of the document in the subject line of your e-mail. Clinical Reviewer: Ann T Schwartz STN: 125563/0 Application Type Original Application STN 125563/0 CBER Received Date August 12, 2014 PDUFA Goal Date August 12, 2015 Complete Response Letter November 01, 2015 Resubmission Action Due Date December 29, 2018 Division / Office DVRPA /OVRR Priority Review No Reviewer Name(s) Ann Schwartz, M.D. Review Completion Date / Stamped Date Supervisory Concurrence R. Douglas Pratt, MD MPH Associate Director for Medical Affairs Concurrence Date / Stamped Date Applicant MCM Vaccine Co. [partnership between Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (a subsidiary of Merck and Co., Inc.) and Sanofi Pasteur Inc.] Established Name Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Adsorbed, Inactivated Poliovirus, Haemophilus b Conjugate [Meningococcal Protein Conjugate] and Hepatitis B [Recombinant] Vaccine (Proposed) Trade Name VAXELIS Pharmacologic Class Vaccine Formulation(s), including Adjuvants Suspension for injection, each 0.5 mL dose contains: PT 20 μg FHA 20 μg FIM 5 μg PRN 3 μg Diphtheria 15 Lf Tetanus 5 Lf Vero-derived IPV-Type 1: 29 D-antigen Units Vero-derived IPV-Type 2: 7 D-antigen Units Vero-derived IPV-Type 3: 26 D-antigen Units HBsAg 10 μg PRP-OMPC 3 μg Aluminum (b) (4) μg Dosing Regimen Single intramuscular dose at 2,4 and 6 months of age Indication(s) and Intended Active immunization against diphtheria, tetanus, Population(s) pertussis, poliomyelitis (caused by poliovirus Types 1, 2, and 3), against invasive disease caused by Haemophilus influenzae type b and infection caused by all known subtypes of hepatitis B virus in children 6 weeks through 4 years of age. Orphan Designated (Yes/No) No Page i Clinical Reviewer: Ann T Schwartz STN: 125563/0 TABLE OF CONTENTS GLOSSARY ...................................................................................................................................... 1 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................ 3 2. CLINICAL AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND .............................................................................. 6 2.1 Disease to be Prevented and Available Interventions .................................................... 6 2.2 Currently Available, Pharmacologically Unrelated Treatment(s)/Intervention(s) for the Proposed Indication(s) ............................................................................................... 8 2.3 Safety and Efficacy of Pharmacologically Related Products ........................................ 9 2.4 Previous Human Experience with the Product (Including Foreign Experience) ...... 10 2.5 Summary of Pre- and Post-submission Regulatory Activity Related to the Submission ...................................................................................................................... 10 2.6 Other Relevant Background Information .................................................................... 13 3. SUBMISSION QUALITY AND GOOD CLINICAL PRACTICES ......................................................... 14 3.1 Submission Quality and Completeness ......................................................................... 14 3.2 Compliance with Good Clinical Practices and Submission Integrity ........................ 14 3.3 Financial Disclosures ...................................................................................................... 15 4. SIGNIFICANT EFFICACY/SAFETY ISSUES RELATED TO OTHER REVIEW DISCIPLINES ............... 16 4.1 Chemistry, Manufacturing, and Controls .................................................................... 16 4.2 Assay Validation.............................................................................................................. 16 4.3 Nonclinical Pharmacology/Toxicology .......................................................................... 17 4.4 Clinical Pharmacology .................................................................................................... 17 4.4.1 Mechanism of Action ..................................................................................................... 17 4.5 Statistical .......................................................................................................................... 17 4.6 Pharmacovigilance .......................................................................................................... 17 5. SOURCES OF CLINICAL DATA AND OTHER INFORMATION CONSIDERED IN THE REVIEW ......... 18 5.1 Review Strategy ............................................................................................................... 18 5.2 BLA/IND Documents That Serve as the Basis for the Clinical Review ..................... 18 5.3 Table of Studies/Clinical Trials ..................................................................................... 19 5.4 Consultations ................................................................................................................... 20 5.4.1 Advisory Committee Meeting (if applicable) ................................................................ 20 5.5 References ........................................................................................................................ 20 6. DISCUSSION OF INDIVIDUAL STUDIES/CLINICAL TRIALS .......................................................... 20 6.1 Study V419-005 (PR505): Phase 3 study to evaluate Safety and Immunogenicity ... 21 6.1.1 Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 21 6.1.2 Design Overview ........................................................................................................... 22 6.1.3 Population ...................................................................................................................... 25 6.1.4 Study Treatments or Agents Mandated by the Protocol ................................................ 26 6.1.5 Treatments ..................................................................................................................... 28 6.1.6 Sites and Centers ............................................................................................................ 29 6.1.7 Surveillance/Monitoring ................................................................................................ 29 6.1.8 Endpoints and Criteria for Study Success ...................................................................... 33 6.1.9 Statistical Considerations & Statistical Analysis Plan ................................................... 36 6.1.10 Study Population and Disposition ................................................................................ 39 6.1.11 Immunogenicity Analyses ........................................................................................... 46 6.1.12 Safety Analyses ............................................................................................................ 61 Page ii Clinical Reviewer: Ann T Schwartz STN: 125563/0 6.1.13 Study V419-005 Summary and Conclusions ............................................................... 75 6.2 Study V419-006 (PR506): Phase 3 Lot Consistency Study .......................................... 76 6.2.1 Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 77 6.2.2 Design Overview ........................................................................................................... 77 6.2.3 Population ...................................................................................................................... 79 6.2.4 Study Treatments or Agents Mandated by the Protocol ................................................ 81 6.2.5 Directions for Use .......................................................................................................... 82 6.2.6 Sites and Centers ............................................................................................................ 82 6.2.7 Surveillance/Monitoring ................................................................................................ 82 6.2.8 Endpoints and Criteria for Study Success ...................................................................... 87 6.2.9 Statistical Considerations & Statistical Analysis Plan ................................................... 87 6.2.10 Study Population and Disposition ................................................................................ 92 6.2.11 Primary Immunogenicity Analyses ............................................................................ 108 6.2.12 Safety Analyses .......................................................................................................... 116 6.2.13 Study Summary and Conclusions .............................................................................. 130 6.3 Study V419-003 (PR503): Supportive Phase 2 Trial (Dose/Formulation Finding) . 131 6.3.1 Objectives .................................................................................................................... 132 6.3.2 Design Overview ......................................................................................................... 132 6.3.3 Population ...................................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Hexavalent Dtap/IPV/Hib/Hepb Combination Vaccine: Information for Healthcare Practitioners About the Neonatal Selective
    The hexavalent DTaP/IPV/Hib/HepB combination vaccine Information for healthcare practitioners about the neonatal selective immunisation programme for babies at risk of hepatitis B The Hexavalent DTaP/IPV/Hib/HepB combination vaccine: Information for Healthcare Practitioners (selective programme) About Public Health England Public Health England exists to protect and improve the nation’s health and wellbeing, and reduce health inequalities. We do this through world-leading science, research, knowledge and intelligence, advocacy, partnerships and the delivery of specialist public health services. We are an executive agency of the Department of Health and Social Care, and a distinct delivery organisation with operational autonomy. We provide government, local government, the NHS, Parliament, industry and the public with evidence-based professional, scientific and delivery expertise and support. Public Health England Wellington House 133-155 Waterloo Road London SE1 8UG Tel: 020 7654 8000 www.gov.uk/phe Twitter: @PHE_uk Facebook: www.facebook.com/PublicHealthEngland For queries relating to this document, please contact: [email protected] © Crown copyright 2020 You may re-use this information (excluding logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence v3.0. To view this licence, visit OGL. Where we have identified any third party copyright information you will need to obtain permission from the copyright holders concerned. First published November 2017 This updated version published February
    [Show full text]
  • Download File (Pdf)
    2021 FORUM REPORT COVID-19 in Africa one year on: Impact and Prospects MO IBRAHIM FOUNDATION 2021 FORUM REPORT COVID-19 in Africa one year on: Impact and Prospects MO IBRAHIM FOUNDATION Foreword by Mo Ibrahim Notwithstanding these measures, on current projections Founder and Chair of the Mo Ibrahim Africa might not be adequately covered before 2023. Foundation (MIF) Vaccinating Africa is an urgent matter of global security and all the generous commitments made by Africa’s partners must now be delivered. Looking ahead - and inevitably there will be future pandemics - Africa needs to significantly enhance its Over a year ago, the emergence and the spread of COVID-19 homegrown vaccine manufacturing capacity. shook the world and changed life as we knew it. Planes were Africa’s progress towards its development agendas was off grounded, borders were closed, cities were shut down and course even before COVID-19 hit and recent events have people were told to stay at home. Other regions were hit created new setbacks for human development. With very earlier and harder, but Africa has not been spared from the limited access to remote learning, Africa’s youth missed out pandemic and its impact. on seven months of schooling. Women and girls especially The 2021 Ibrahim Forum Report provides a comprehensive are facing increased vulnerabilities, including rising gender- analysis of this impact from the perspectives of health, based violence. society, politics, and economics. Informed by the latest data, The strong economic and social impacts of the pandemic it sets out the challenges exposed by the pandemic and the are likely to create new triggers for instability and insecurity.
    [Show full text]
  • Treating Rare and Neglected Pediatric Diseases: Promoting the Development of New Treatments and Cures
    S. HRG. 111–1147 TREATING RARE AND NEGLECTED PEDIATRIC DISEASES: PROMOTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW TREATMENTS AND CURES HEARING OF THE COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ON EXAMINING TREATING RARE AND NEGLECTED PEDIATRIC DISEASES, FOCUSING ON PROMOTING THE DEVELOPMENT OF NEW TREAT- MENTS AND CURES JULY 21, 2010 Printed for the use of the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions ( Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 76–592 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800 Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001 COMMITTEE ON HEALTH, EDUCATION, LABOR, AND PENSIONS TOM HARKIN, Iowa, Chairman CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming BARBARA A. MIKULSKI, Maryland JUDD GREGG, New Hampshire JEFF BINGAMAN, New Mexico LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee PATTY MURRAY, Washington RICHARD BURR, North Carolina JACK REED, Rhode Island JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia BERNARD SANDERS (I), Vermont JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona SHERROD BROWN, Ohio ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah ROBERT P. CASEY, JR., Pennsylvania LISA MURKOWSKI, Alaska KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina TOM COBURN, M.D., Oklahoma JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon PAT ROBERTS, Kansas AL FRANKEN, Minnesota MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado DANIEL SMITH, Staff Director PAMELA SMITH, Deputy Staff Director FRANK MACCHIAROLA, Republican Staff Director and Chief Counsel (II) CONTENTS STATEMENTS WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2010 Page Harkin, Hon. Tom, Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, opening statement ..............................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • UNICEF Pentavalent-Hexa 2021+ Pre-Tender Industry Consultation
    UNICEF Pentavalent-Hexa 2021+ Pre-Tender Industry Consultation 19th SEPTEMBER 2019 1 Presentation Outline 1. Context ▪ Gavi Board decision ▪ Hexa strategic alignment ▪ Value Based Assessment 2. Demand scenarios and assumptions 3. Pentavalent Tender: ▪ Objectives ▪ Scope ▪ Duration ▪ Modality 4. Summary of feedback and response to questionnaire 5. Timelines 1. CONTEXT Gavi Board decision Hexa strategic alignment Value Based Assessment 3 Gavi Board November 2018 – Decisions IPV Post-2020 DTP booster VIS 2018 VIS 2018 + Hexavalent as immunisation option • Approved support for D, T & P vaccines (Td, DTwP, pentavalent) to be used as booster doses beginning in 2021 • Approved support for inactivated poliovirus vaccine (IPV), with country financing arrangements subject to alignment with the final parameter setting for Gavi 5.0 at the June 2019 Board meeting* • Approved in principle support of wP-Hexavalent vaccine, subject to a vaccine being licenced, recommended for use by WHO, WHO pre-qualified and that market attributes support the successful implementation of Hexavalent The development of capacity for standalone IPV remains the main priority for Gavi Alliance as part of the effort to eradicate polio All Gavi Board decisions are “subject to the availability of funding for the 2021-2025 period and alignment with the final parameter setting for Gavi 5.0 at the June 2019 Board meeting.” *Gavi's Board approved IPV co-financing arrangements post-2020 in its June 2019 session 4 Conditions to open a funding window for Hexavalent Condition 1: Hexavalent vaccines that are candidates for Gavi support should achieve IPV immunogenicity targets as per WHO’s SAGE recommendations. Condition 2: Hexavalent vaccines are priced in line with value-based principles.
    [Show full text]
  • Case Studies Controversies in Vaccination
    European Review, Vol. 21, No. S1, S56–S61 r 2013 Academia Europæa. The online version of this article is published within an Open Access environment subject to the conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license ,http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/.. doi:10.1017/S1062798713000227 Session 3 – Case Studies Controversies in Vaccination ROMAN PRYMULA University Hospital Hradec Kralove, Sokolska 581, 500 05 Hradec Kralove, Czech Republic. E-mail: [email protected] Infectious diseases still jeopardize human health and even lives. In spite of the variety of advanced treatment methods, prevention is considered to be the most effective way to fight infections, and vaccination, no doubt, is one of the most effective preventive measures in the history of mankind. The vaccine controversy is based on a dispute over morality, ethics, effectiveness, and/or safety. There is no 100% safe or effective vaccine; however, benefits clearly overweigh risks. Ironically, as the numbers of cases of vaccine- preventable infectious diseases are falling, the controversies relating to vaccine safety are growing. Vaccines are generally victims of their own success. Controversies can afflict the positive acceptance of immunization, decrease the coverage and uptake and finally threaten the health of children and adults. The advent of vaccination has proven to be one of the most effective preventive measures in the history of medicine. Vaccines play a significant role in the prevention of debili- tating and, in many cases, life-threatening infectious diseases. Vaccines also provide important benefits in terms of reducing or avoiding costs associated with illness, both direct and indirect. In spite of the absence of any kind of ideal global healthcare system and lack of resources, the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) were able, in 1974, to establish a major global project called the Expanded Programme on Immunization (EPI).
    [Show full text]
  • Private Equity Guide to Life Sciences Investing Under the Trump Administration: Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Developments
    Debevoise In Depth Private Equity Guide to Life Sciences Investing Under the Trump Administration: Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Developments March 15, 2018 Overview As the Trump administration enters its second year, it is an ideal time for private equity funds and investors active in the life sciences arena to reflect on the impact of the new administration—and a new commissioner—on the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). Of all the potential Trump nominees to head the agency, Dr. Scott Gottlieb, a physician, was clearly the most mainstream choice. Commissioner Gottlieb previously served as FDA’s Deputy Commissioner for Medical and Scientific Affairs and, before that, as a senior advisor to the FDA Commissioner. As a cancer survivor, he also had first-hand experience as a patient— perhaps informing some of the regulatory strategies he has pursued. Those strategies have been significant. While many other federal regulatory agencies have been marginalized or victims of regulatory paralysis, FDA, under Scott Gottlieb’s leadership, has forged ahead with sweeping initiatives intended to accelerate drug and device approvals and clearances, embrace innovation and new technologies, lower regulatory burdens, and enhance therapeutic opportunities.1 This fast-moving regulatory landscape, combined with robust innovation in the life sciences sector, creates both opportunities and challenges for private equity sponsors. In recent years, private equity sponsors have continued to prioritize investments in both the healthcare and life sciences industries and 1 When Gottlieb took the reins at FDA, the agency was already focused on a number of ongoing initiatives such as the implementation of the 21st Century Cures Act, enacted at the end of 2016, and the passage of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 (“FDARA”).
    [Show full text]
  • Immunogenicity and Safety of a Fully Liquid Dtap-IPV-Hep B-PRP-T
    ccines & a V f V a o c l c i a n n a Lanata et al., J Vaccines Vaccin 2012, 3:1 r t u i o o n J Journal of Vaccines & Vaccination DOI: 10.4172/2157-7560.1000128 ISSN: 2157-7560 Research Article Open Access Immunogenicity and Safety of a Fully Liquid DTaP-IPV-Hep B-PRP-T Vaccine at 2-4-6 Months of Age in Peru Claudio Lanata1, Betzana Zambrano2, Lucie Ecker1, Isabel Amemiya1, Ana Gil1 and Eduardo Santos Lima3* 1Instituto de Investigación Nutricional, Lima, Peru 2Sanofi Pasteur, Montevideo, Uruguay 3Clinical Development, Sanofi Pasteur, Lyon, France Abstract Objectives: To assess the immunogenicity and safety of a new candidate, fully liquid, hexavalent DTaP-IPV- Hep B-PRP-T vaccine (Hexaxim™, an AcXim family vaccine) compared to a licensed hexavalent DTaP-IPV-Hep B// PRP-T vaccine (Infanrix hexa®) in Peru. Methods: Infants born to HBsAg seronegative mothers and who had not received a hepatitis B vaccine prior to entry into the study were randomized to receive either Hexaxim™ (Group 1) or Infanrix hexa® (Group 2) at 2, 4, 6 months of age. Seroprotection (SP) rate for hepatitis B (anti-HBs antibody concentration ≥10 mIU/mL) was analysed for non-inferiority (Group 1 minus Group 2) 1 month post-primary series. Anti-diphtheria and anti-polyrosil ribitol phosphate (PRP) antibody responses were analysed descriptively. Safety was analysed from parental reports. Results: Seroprotection rate for anti-HBs antibody titers ≥10 mIU/mL was high in both groups (≥99.2%) and non-inferiority was demonstrated (lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference was -4.17, above the pre-defined delta [-10%]).
    [Show full text]
  • Bioversys Announces First Subjects Dosed in Phase 1 Clinical Trial Of
    PRESS RELEASE BioVersys Announces First Subjects Dosed in Phase 1 Clinical Trial of BVL-GSK098 BVL-GSK098 IS BEING DEVELOPED FOR THE TREATMENT OF MULTIDRUG- RESISTANT TUBERCULOSIS INFECTIONS Basel, Switzerland. January, 12th 2021. 09:00 CET BioVersys has reached another major milestone by moving a second program into clinical development with the start of Phase 1 testing for BVL-GSK098 in healthy volunteers. BioVersys AG, a privately owned, multi-asset Swiss phArmAceuticAl compAny focused on developing small molecules for multidrug-resistant bActeriAl infections with ApplicAtions in Anti- MicrobiAl ResistAnce (AMR) And tArgeted microbiome modulAtion, todAy Announced thAt the first heAlthy volunteers hAve received BVL-GSK098 in A PhAse 1 clinicAl trial designed to evaluate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of BVL-GSK098 in heAlthy humAn volunteers through Single Ascending Dose (SAD) and Multiple Ascending Dose (MAD) studies. • BVL-GSK098 is a novel compound potentiating and overcoming the resistAnce AgAinst ethionAmide (Eto) or prothionamide (Pto) for the treAtment of tuberculosis (TB). BVL- GSK098 tArgets bActeriAl trAnscriptionAl regulAtors, A groundbreAking ApproAch thAt is being assessed globally for the first time in a clinical trial. BVL-GSK098 is developed in combinAtion with Eto or Pto for the treAtment of TB in collaboration with GSK. The program is supported by the IMI2 AMR AccelerAtor from the EU (TRIC-TB Project). The progrAm originAtes from BioVersys And its pArtners At the University of Lille And Pasteur Institute Lille, FrAnce. • BVL-GSK098 has completed GLP toxicology studies and shown excellent in vitro And in vivo efficAcy in AnimAl models against multidrug-resistant TB (MDR-TB), including overcoming pre-existing resistance mechanisms in Mycobacterium tuberculosis by employing novel bioactivAtion pAthwAys for Eto.
    [Show full text]
  • Material Threat MCM PRV Guidance
    Material threat medical countermeasure priority review voucher guidance issued | FDA & DoD launch program January 17, 2018 Take our email survey Material Threat MCM PRV Guidance FDA takes steps to spur development of medical products needed to protect, prepare for national security threats The 21st Century Cures Act established a new priority review voucher (PRV) program to encourage development of certain drug and biologic material threat medical countermeasures (MCMs). MCMs are FDA- regulated products that can be used to diagnose, prevent, protect from, or treat conditions associated with chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear threats, or emerging infectious diseases. Today FDA issued a draft guidance, Material Threat Medical Countermeasure Priority Review Vouchers (PDF, 174 KB), which explains how FDA intends to implement the material threat MCM PRV program. To ensure that your comments are considered before FDA begins work on the final version of the guidance, submit comments by March 20, 2018. Related links: FDA In Brief: FDA takes steps to spur development of medical countermeasures needed to protect, prepare for emerging threats to public health and national security More about the material threat MCM PRV program Federal Register notice What are medical countermeasures? Image: Pill bottles, representing medical countermeasures (Shutterstock) FDA and DoD launch program to expedite availability of medical products for the emergency care of American military personnel On January 16, 2018, FDA and the Department of Defense (DoD) announced the launch of a joint program to prioritize the efficient development of safe and effective medical products intended for deployed American military personnel. The framework for the program was put in place through H.R.4374, which authorized DoD to request, and FDA to provide, assistance to expedite development and the FDA’s review of products to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions facing American military personnel.
    [Show full text]
  • Speed, Safety, and Industry Funding — from PDUFA I to PDUFA VI
    The new england journal of medicine Health Law, Ethics, and Human Rights Mary Beth Hamel, M.D., M.P.H., Editor Speed, Safety, and Industry Funding — From PDUFA I to PDUFA VI Jonathan J. Darrow, S.J.D., J.D., M.B.A., Jerry Avorn, M.D., and Aaron S. Kesselheim, M.D., J.D., M.P.H. In August, President Donald Trump signed into of user-fee legislation on FDA operations and the law the sixth version of key legislation for the legislative process. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), known as the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA VI). Expanding Fees and FDA The legislation continues a policy that authorizes Commitments, Shrinking the agency to collect user fees from pharmaceuti- Review Times cal companies, providing funds that the FDA uses to hire additional staff to review new drug prod- Starting in 1962, the FDA required that manu- ucts and thereby reduce approval times. PDUFA VI facturers conduct clinical trials to demonstrate is part of the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017 the efficacy and safety of an investigational drug (FDARA),1 which also renewed similar user-fee before its approval6,7 — a major new require- programs for medical devices, generic drugs, and ment created in the wake of the thalidomide biosimilars. disaster. As Congress increased the oversight User fees emerged after the growing AIDS crisis responsibilities of the FDA without commensu- of the 1980s and early 1990s, when concern rate increases in funding,8,9 the average time it mounted that regulatory delays — caused in large took the FDA to review a new drug application part by inadequate public funding that did not swelled from 14 months in 1963 to more than allow the FDA to hire sufficient personnel — were 35 months by 1979.10,11 Complaints from the phar- slowing the approval of promising new treatments.
    [Show full text]
  • September 1, 2021 Janet Woodcock, M.D. Acting Commissioner U.S
    September 1, 2021 Janet Woodcock, M.D. Acting Commissioner U.S. Food and Drug Administration 10903 New Hampshire Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20993 Dear Acting Commissioner Woodcock: Pursuant to Rules X and XI of the U.S. House of Representatives, the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Oversight and Reform request information from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding the review and accelerated approval of Biogen’s Alzheimer’s drug, Aduhelm (aducanumab). More than six million Americans suffer from Alzheimer’s disease.1 Women and people of color are disproportionately impacted by Alzheimer’s. Nearly two-thirds of people living with Alzheimer’s in the United States are women.2 Black people are twice as likely, and those who are Hispanic are one-and-one-half times as likely, as white people to develop Alzheimer’s.3 The number of people living with Alzheimer’s in the United States is projected to increase to as many as 14 million people by 2060, affecting people of color the most.4 We applaud efforts to advance brain health equity and make strides toward eradicating Alzheimer’s and we share in the hope for new advancements to treat this debilitating and costly disease. However, it is critical that these treatments be safe, effective, and accessible. We are concerned by apparent anomalies in FDA’s processes surrounding its review of Aduhelm. FDA granted accelerated approval for the drug despite concerns raised by experts— including the agency’s own staff and members of FDA’s Peripheral and Central Nervous Systems Drugs Advisory Committee (PCNS Advisory Committee)—about the drug’s clinical benefit and the use of the accelerated approval pathway for Aduhelm.
    [Show full text]
  • The US Food and Drug Administration's Expedited Approval
    Joshua D. Wallach, Joseph S. Ross and Huseyin Naci The US Food and Drug Administration’s expedited approval programs: addressing premarket flexibility with enhanced postmarket evidence generation Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Wallach, Joshua D. and Ross, Joseph S. and Naci, Huseyin (2018) The US Food and Drug Administration’s expedited approval programs: addressing premarket flexibility with enhanced postmarket evidence generation. Clinical Trials, 15 (3). pp. 243-246. ISSN 1740-7745 DOI: 10.1177/1740774518770657 © 2018 the Author(s) This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/88673/ Available in LSE Research Online: June 2018 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. FDA’s expedited approval programs: addressing premarket flexibility
    [Show full text]