
Should FDA Stand for Fast Drug Approvals?
Study finds the FDA is quicker at approving cancer drugs than its European counterpart.
This article published with permission from
The biopharmaceutical industry has increasingly criticized the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for being too slow to approve new drugs. In fact, companies have said that they are turning to Europe and other markets as a place to bring new drugs and devices to market first because of regulatory uncertainty and growing risk aversion at the agency. But a new report challenges that perception, at least when it comes to cancer drugs.
The study, published in
The European regulator acted faster than the FDA on only three of the drugs. However, for all of the 23 drugs approved by both agencies, they were available to patients in the United States before they were available to patients in Europe.
The authors only considered the period of time from the filing of an application to approval. They say they did not take into account difficulties drug developers may have encountered trying to communicate with the agencies prior to submission or in planning or conducting clinical trials.
“Contrary to repeated public assertions, we found that new oncology medicines are consistently available in the United States before they are in Europe, and they are more likely to be approved by the FDA than by the EMA,” write the study’s authors, all of whom are associated with the Friends of Cancer Research, a Washington, D.C.-based research and advocacy group. “Moreover, the median time for approval in the United States was just six months.”
The authors say the greater speed with which the FDA approved these drugs is not surprising. It reflects policies intended to provide faster reviews of drugs with greater therapeutic potential. They also say that the speed with which the FDA reviews drugs has improved as a result of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act. First approved in 1992, the law allowed the agency to collect fees from industry for the review of products. Known as PDUFA, the act is up for reauthorization in September 2012.
Despite the findings, the authors of the study say innovative trial designs and development pathways are needed to translate advances in basic science.
Copyright 2011 Burrill & Company. For more life sciences news and information, visit
Newsletter
Stay informed and empowered with Medical Economics enewsletter, delivering expert insights, financial strategies, practice management tips and technology trends — tailored for today’s physicians.



















