An accompanying editorial describes the current regulatory process as “a thicket of special programs, flexible review criteria, and generous incentives,” and suggests starting points for reforms, including improving access to biosimilars.
An article published Tuesday in JAMA raises concerns that special and accelerated drug approval programs at the FDA in recent decades may have resulted in a process that approves drugs based on weaker data, without reducing overall drug development time.
An accompanying editorial describes the current regulatory process as “a thicket of special programs, flexible review criteria, and generous incentives,” and suggests starting points for reforms, including improving access to biosimilars.
In the article, Darrow et al. describe the evolution of FDA’s approach to drug approval from 1983 to 2018 based on federal laws, FDA regulations, drug approval records, and user fee records.
FDA must balance rigorous testing of new drugs to clearly define benefits and risks against timely approval for drug makers and access for patients. Special development, protection from generic competition, and expedited approval programs, such as Orphan Drug, Fast-Track, Accelerated Approval, Priority Review, and Breakthrough Therapy, were instituted by FDA to support drug development, especially for rare and serious diseases. However, in 2018, 81% of all new drugs won regulatory approval through one or more of the expedited programs, the article noted.
Special approval programs have increased administrative costs at FDA (paid for mostly by user fees), and postponements of generic competition have been costly to the US healthcare system, the authors noted.
Over the time period analyzed by the authors, FDA has accepted more surrogate measures, and as a result harder and more relevant clinical endpoints are studied less often. In 1995-1997, 80.6% of drug approvals were supported by at least 2 pivotal trials, compared to 52.8% in 2015-2017. The authors caution that reliance on surrogate measures may accelerate the approval of drugs that pose significant risk but have little clinical value.
The article reports that although FDA shortened its review times from more than 3 years in 1983 to less than 1 year in 2017, overall drug development time (from beginning human studies to approval) has not changed: approximately 8 years. The rate of new drug approvals (other than generics and biologics) has not increased substantially since 1983.
On the other hand, the authors acknowledge some positive outcomes. The median number of generics has increased following legislation to incentivize and accelerate generic drug development. Plus, biologic approvals are increasing over time, reflecting technological advancement. Although drugs are now supported by fewer studies before approval, the number of patients in these studies has not declined.
In the accompanying editorial, Joshua M. Sharfstein, MD, the former principal deputy commissioner of the FDA, suggests 4 starting points for reforms:
References
1. Darrow JJ, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS. FDA approval and regulation of pharmaceuticals, 1983-2018. JAMA. 2020;323(2):164-176. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.20288.
2. Sharfstein JM. Reform at the FDA—In need of reform. JAMA. 2020;323(2):123-124. doi:10.1001/jama.2019.20288.
Eye on Pharma: Sandoz Files Antitrust Suit; Yuflyma Interchangeability; Costco’s Ustekinumab Pick
April 22nd 2025Sandoz's antitrust suit against Amgen, the FDA’s interchangeability designation for Celltrion’s adalimumab biosimilar, and the inclusion of an ustekinumab biosimilar in Costco’s prescription program highlight growing momentum to expand biosimilar access and affordability for patients with chronic inflammatory diseases.
Will the FTC Be More PBM-Friendly Under a Second Trump Administration?
February 23rd 2025On this episode of Not So Different, we explore the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) second interim report on pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) with Joe Wisniewski from Turquoise Health, discussing key issues like preferential reimbursement, drug pricing transparency, biosimilars, shifting regulations, and how a second Trump administration could reshape PBM practices.
President Trump Signs Executive Order to Bring Down Drug Prices
April 16th 2025To help bring down sky-high drug prices, President Donald Trump signed an executive order pushing for faster biosimilar development, more transparency, and tougher rules on pharmacy benefit managers—aiming to save billions and make meds more affordable for everyone.
Biosimilars Policy Roundup for September 2024—Podcast Edition
October 6th 2024On this episode of Not So Different, we discuss the FDA's approval of a new biosimilar for treating retinal conditions, which took place in September 2024 alongside other major industry developments, including ongoing legal disputes and broader trends in market dynamics and regulatory challenges.
Experts Pressure Congress to Remove Roadblocks for Biosimilars
April 12th 2025Lawmakers and expert witnesses emphasized the potential of biosimilars to lower health care costs by overcoming barriers like pharmacy benefit manager practices, limited awareness, and regulatory delays to improve access and competition in chronic disease management during a recent congressional hearing.