Viewpoint: FDA ‘accelerated’ drug approvals offer relief for critically ill patients. But more could be done.

| July 18, 2019
This article or excerpt is included in the GLP’s daily curated selection of ideologically diverse news, opinion and analysis of biotechnology innovation.

The obstacles to developing and getting a new drug to market are daunting. The process can take upwards of a decade, and in 2014 was estimated on average to cost $2.55 billion. It’s likely to be significantly more now.

Because those time and cost barriers can spell the difference between life and death for patients suffering from diseases without good therapeutic options, the FDA’s “accelerated approval” regulatory pathway is critically important. This “quick-on, quick-off the market” mechanism for medicines to reach the marketplace can work to the advantage of drug companies and desperate patients alike.

Introduced in 1992 and modified in 2012, accelerated approval allows the FDA to base approval of drugs for “serious conditions that fill an unmet medical need on whether the drug has an effect on a surrogate or an intermediate clinical endpoint.” In other words, marketing approval can be based on clinical trials that do not yet show an improvement of a definitive endpoint such as increased longevity, reduction in the incidence of heart attacks or healing of an infection.

FDA approved stamp

A “surrogate endpoint” is a marker of some kind — a laboratory test, radiographic image, physical sign or other finding — thought to correlate with definitive clinical benefit. Examples include the lowering of blood pressure or improvement in a laboratory value such as “good” cholesterol. Similarly, an intermediate endpoint is “a measure of a therapeutic effect that is considered reasonably likely to predict the clinical benefit of a drug,” such as the shrinkage of a tumor.

After accelerated approval, the drug sponsor (company) must perform confirmatory trials to prove that the medicine is effective in meeting a definitive clinical endpoint, at which time the approval is converted to a standard, unconditional approval. If the studies fail to provide such confirmation, the FDA can pull the drug from the market.

The vast majority of drugs marketed after accelerated approval are found in subsequent studies to be safe and effective. And given that only medicines for serious conditions that address an unmet medical need are eligible for this pathway, accelerated approval offers significant benefits to patients by making important medicines available far earlier than would otherwise have been the case.

A journal article (G. Raghu et al; doi:10.1001/jama.2018.6129) by a large multinational team that reported a mid-stage (Phase 2 of the usual three) clinical trial of human pentraxin 2, a new drug for a serious lung disease called idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF), illustrates that the issues surrounding accelerated approval are not always straightforward.

Related article:  Genetically modified Arctic Fuji apple headed for grocery stores following FDA approval
Follow the latest news and policy debates on agricultural biotech and biomedicine? Subscribe to our newsletter.

IPF is marked by scarring, or fibrosis, of the lungs, the cause of which is unknown. Over time, the scarring gets worse and it becomes hard to take in deep breaths and the lungs cannot take in and transfer enough oxygen to the bloodstream.

During the past few years, the FDA has approved two other drugs on the basis of clinical data showing that they slowed the rate of deterioration of a surrogate endpoint — measurement of forced vital capacity (FVC) — the largest amount of air that a person can blow out after taking in the biggest breath possible. But neither of them convincingly enhances survival or quality of life.

The Raghu et al clinical trial, which involved 117 patients and compared pentraxin 2 to a placebo, found that the drug was superior in two ways: the rate of deterioration in FVC was slowed, and there was a marked effect on how far a patient could walk in six minutes: The distance achieved by patients in the drug-treatment group decreased less than two feet during the 24 weeks of the study, while the distance patients in the placebo group could walk decreased an average of 104.3 feet.

The improvement over placebo of these two endpoints — FVC and the six-minute walk – for a serious disease without good therapeutic alternatives would seem to make pentraxin 2 a good candidate for accelerated approval.

Even in the absence of definitive evidence of prolonged survival, the drug could make a big difference to the retention of lung function and mobility of the roughly 100,000 Americans who suffer from IPF. So, why not grant accelerated approval for pentraxin 2 now?

Henry I. Miller, a physician and molecular biologist, is a Senior Fellow at the Pacific Research Institute. He was an FDA medical reviewer and the founding director of the Agency’s Office of Biotechnology. Follow him on Twitter @henryimiller

A version of this article was originally published on Pundicity’s website asFDA’s ‘Accelerated Approvals’ Are Critical But Raise Thorny Issuesand has been republished here with permission. 

The GLP featured this article to reflect the diversity of news, opinion and analysis. The viewpoint is the author’s own. The GLP’s goal is to stimulate constructive discourse on challenging science issues.

Outbreak Daily Digest

podcasts GLP Podcasts More...
Biotech Facts & Fallacies
Talking Biotech
Genetics Unzipped

video Videos More...
stat hospitalai ink st x mod x

Meet STACI: STAT’s fascinating interactive guide to AI in healthcare

The Covid-19 pandemic underscores the importance of the technology in medicine: In the last few months, hospitals have used AI ...

bees and pollinators Bees & Pollinators More...
mag insects image superjumbo v

Disaster interrupted: Which farming system better preserves insect populations: Organic or conventional?

A three-year run of fragmentary Armageddon-like studies had primed the journalism pumps and settled the media framing about the future ...
dead bee desolate city

Are we facing an ‘Insect Apocalypse’ caused by ‘intensive, industrial’ farming and agricultural chemicals? The media say yes; Science says ‘no’

The media call it the “Insect Apocalypse”. In the past three years, the phrase has become an accepted truth of ...

infographics Infographics More...
breastfeeding bed x facebook x

Infographic: We know breastfeeding helps children. Now we know it helps mothers too

When a woman becomes pregnant, her risk of type 2 diabetes increases for the rest of her life, perhaps because ...

biotechnology worker x

Can GMOs rescue threatened plants and crops?

Some scientists and ecologists argue that humans are in the midst of an "extinction crisis" — the sixth wave of ...
food globe x

Are GMOs necessary to feed the world?

Experts estimate that agricultural production needs to roughly double in the coming decades. How can that be achieved? ...
eating gmo corn on the cob x

Are GMOs safe?

In 2015, 15 scientists and activists issued a statement, "No Scientific consensus on GMO safety," in the journal Environmental Sciences ...
glp profiles GLP Profiles More...
Screen Shot at PM

Charles Benbrook: Agricultural economist and consultant for the organic industry and anti-biotechnology advocacy groups

Independent scientists rip Benbrook's co-authored commentary in New England Journal calling for reassessment of dangers of all GMO crops and herbicides ...
Screen Shot at PM

ETC Group: ‘Extreme’ biotechnology critic campaigns against synthetic biology and other forms of ‘extreme genetic engineering’

The ETC Group is an international environmental non-governmental organization (NGO) based in Canada whose stated purpose is to monitor "the impact of emerging technologies and ...
report this ad report this ad report this ad


News on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.
Optional. Mail on special occasions.
Send this to a friend