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

IF 6.3 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics Pub Date : 2025-02-25 DOI:10.1002/cpt.3611
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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
A Joint Pharmacometric Model of Iohexol and Creatinine Administered through a Meat Meal to Assess GFR and Renal OCT2/MATE Activity. Dose Determinations at Drug Approval Reviews: FDA-Approved Drugs in Past 5 Years. The Unrealized Potential of Advanced Modeling Methods to Inform Early Strategic Planning for Payer Reimbursement. Opportunities and Challenges of Hepatic Impairment Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling in Drug Development-An IQ Perspective. Impact of Regulatory Post-Market Safety Advisories on Prescribing Practices: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1