Dataset Information

Rethinking the Food and Drug Administration's 2013 guidance on developing drugs for early-stage Alzheimer's disease.

ABSTRACT: The February 2013 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) draft guidance for developing drugs for early-stage Alzheimer's disease (AD) creates certain challenges as they guide toward the use of one cognitive outcome to gain accelerated marketing approval for preclinical AD drugs, and a composite clinical scale - the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale in particular - for the primary outcome for prodromal AD clinical trials. In light of the developing knowledge regarding early stage diagnoses and clinical trials outcomes, we recommend that FDA describe its requirements for validating preclinical AD diagnoses for drug development purposes, maintain the principle for requiring coprimary outcomes, and encourage the advancement of outcomes for early stage AD trials. The principles for drug development for early stage AD should not differ from those for clinical AD, especially as the diagnoses of prodromal and early AD impinge on each other. The FDA should not recommend that a composite scale be used as a sole primary efficacy outcome to support a marketing claim unless it requires that the cognitive and functional components of such a scale are demonstrated to be individually meaningful. The current draft guidelines may inadvertently constrain efforts to better assess the clinical effects of new drugs and inhibit innovation in an area where evidence-based clinical research practices are still evolving.

SUBMITTER: Schneider LS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3979530 | biostudies-literature | 2014 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Rethinking the Food and Drug Administration's 2013 guidance on developing drugs for early-stage Alzheimer's disease.

Schneider Lon S LS

Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association 20140301 2

The February 2013 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) draft guidance for developing drugs for early-stage Alzheimer's disease (AD) creates certain challenges as they guide toward the use of one cognitive outcome to gain accelerated marketing approval for preclinical AD drugs, and a composite clinical scale - the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale in particular - for the primary outcome for prodromal AD clinical trials. In light of the developing knowledge regarding early stage diagnoses and clinical ...[more]

PMID: 24698029

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOncology drugs are frequently approved on the basis of surrogate outcomes that require further trials to confirm the benefits, but at times these trials fail and regulators need to decide whether to withdraw approval for the indication and/or to remove the drug from the market. This study compares decisions by the Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada about oncology drugs that were approved using either Accelerated Approval (FDA) or Notice of Compliance with conditions (NOC/c, Health Canada) and that failed confirmatory trials.MethodsDrug/indications approved by the FDA through its Accelerated Approval Pathway and that later failed confirmatory studies were identified from a published study and additional information on these drugs was collected from Drugs@FDA. Health Canada websites were searched on September 11, 2021 for the same group of drugs to determine if they were approved in Canada under the NOC/c pathway for the same indication as in the US. Information from both the FDA and Health Canada about these products was entered into an Excel spreadsheet. Decisions about whether to withdraw the drugs or remove the failed indication for the drug and requirements for confirmatory studies were compared. In addition, the dates of decisions by the two agencies were compared.ResultsTen drug/indications were available for comparison. Regulatory decisions were similar in 4 cases, different in 1 case and could not be determined in the remaining 5, in 1 case because decisions were pending in both countries and in the other 4, because the NOC/c had not been fulfilled in Canada. The requirements for the confirmatory studies were similar in both countries. Decisions were made earlier in the United States.ConclusionsThis study shows that decisions made by Health Canada and the FDA about whether to withdraw a drug or remove a failed indication when drug/indications fail a confirmatory trial are usually similar, although the sample size on which this conclusion is made is small. The clinical implications of these similarities and differences should be explored.

Project description:The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issues drug safety communications (DSCs) to health care professionals, patients, and the public when safety issues emerge related to FDA-approved drug products. These safety messages are disseminated through social media to ensure broad uptake.The objective of this study was to assess the social media dissemination of 2 DSCs released in 2013 for the sleep aid zolpidem.We used the MedWatcher Social program and the DataSift historic query tool to aggregate Twitter and Facebook posts from October 1, 2012 through August 31, 2013, a period beginning approximately 3 months before the first DSC and ending 3 months after the second. Posts were categorized as (1) junk, (2) mention, and (3) adverse event (AE) based on a score between -0.2 (completely unrelated) to 1 (perfectly related). We also looked at Google Trends data and Wikipedia edits for the same time period. Google Trends search volume is scaled on a range of 0 to 100 and includes "Related queries" during the relevant time periods. An interrupted time series (ITS) analysis assessed the impact of DSCs on the counts of posts with specific mention of zolpidem-containing products. Chow tests for known structural breaks were conducted on data from Twitter, Facebook, and Google Trends. Finally, Wikipedia edits were pulled from the website's editorial history, which lists all revisions to a given page and the editor's identity.In total, 174,286 Twitter posts and 59,641 Facebook posts met entry criteria. Of those, 16.63% (28,989/174,286) of Twitter posts and 25.91% (15,453/59,641) of Facebook posts were labeled as junk and excluded. AEs and mentions represented 9.21% (16,051/174,286) and 74.16% (129,246/174,286) of Twitter posts and 5.11% (3,050/59,641) and 68.98% (41,138/59,641) of Facebook posts, respectively. Total daily counts of posts about zolpidem-containing products increased on Twitter and Facebook on the day of the first DSC; Google searches increased on the week of the first DSC. ITS analyses demonstrated variability but pointed to an increase in interest around the first DSC. Chow tests were significant (P<.0001) for both DSCs on Facebook and Twitter, but only the first DSC on Google Trends. Wikipedia edits occurred soon after each DSC release, citing news articles rather than the DSC itself and presenting content that needed subsequent revisions for accuracy.Social media offers challenges and opportunities for dissemination of the DSC messages. The FDA could consider strategies for more actively disseminating DSC safety information through social media platforms, particularly when announcements require updating. The FDA may also benefit from directly contributing content to websites like Wikipedia that are frequently accessed for drug-related information.

Project description:BackgroundThe United States Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) consists of adverse event (AE) reports linked to approved drugs. The database is widely used to support post-marketing safety surveillance programs. Sometimes cited as a limitation to the usefulness of FAERS, however, is the 'Weber effect,' which is often summarized by stating that AE reporting peaks at the end of the second year after a regulatory authority approves a drug. Weber described this effect in 1984 based upon a single class of medications prescribed in the United Kingdom. Since that time, the FDA has made a concerted effort to improve both reporting and the database itself. Both volume and quality of AE reporting has dramatically improved since Weber's report, with an estimated 800,000 yearly reports now being logged into FAERS.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine if current FAERS reporting follows the trend described by Weber.MethodsSixty-two drugs approved by the FDA between 2006 and 2010 were included in this analysis. Publicly available FAERS data were used to assess the 'primary suspect' AE reporting pattern for up to a 4-year period following each drug's approval date.ResultsA total of 334,984 AE reports were logged into FAERS for the 62 drugs analyzed here. While a few of the drugs demonstrated what could be considered 'Weber effect' curves, a majority of the drugs showed little evidence for the effect. In fact, the general AE reporting pattern observed in this study appears to consist simply of increasing case counts over the first three quarters after approval followed by relatively constant counts thereafter.ConclusionsOur results suggest that most of the modern adverse event reporting into FAERS does not follow the pattern described by Weber. Factors that may have contributed to this finding include large increases in the volume of AE reports since the Weber effect was described, as well as a concerted effort by the FDA to increase awareness regarding the utility of post-marketing AE reporting.

Dataset Information

Rethinking the Food and Drug Administration's 2013 guidance on developing drugs for early-stage Alzheimer's disease.

Publications

Rethinking the Food and Drug Administration's 2013 guidance on developing drugs for early-stage Alzheimer's disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets