Advertisement

Pharmaceutical Medicine

, Volume 29, Issue 4, pp 203–209 | Cite as

An Analysis of US Food and Drug Administration Clinical Hold Orders for Drugs and Biologics: A Prospective Study Between 2008 and 2014

  • Pol F. BoudesEmail author
Original Research Article

Abstract

Introduction

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) may issue a clinical hold order during drug development, notably for an unreasonable risk for participating subjects. Holds are important events; however, to date, there has not been a comprehensive study of this topic. The aim of this research was to prospectively analyze clinical hold orders of drugs and biologics between 2008 and 2014.

Methods

A prospective analysis of Yahoo Finance: industry center—biotechnology and Yahoo Finance: drug manufacturers—major was conducted from August 2008 to August 2014. The literature was searched from 2000 to August 2014. After identifying a clinical hold for a drug or biologic, additional searches for information were conducted on the sponsor’s and the FDA’s websites. Finally, an additional targeted literature search with the name of the drug or biologic was performed. For any drug/biologic on clinical hold the following was collected: name, sponsor(s), indication, mechanism of action, stage of development or commercialization, partial or full hold, hold reason, hold duration, actions taken, and outcome.

Results

Twenty-nine drugs were ordered on hold, 18 small molecules and 11 biologics, covering 37 indications. Oncology drugs were subjected to eight holds and hepatitis C drugs to seven. Twenty-four drugs were in development and all phases were represented. Five drugs were on the market. The hold was complete in 17 cases, partial in ten and undetermined in two. In most cases, hold orders were motivated by a clinical safety issue. For 23 holds, the safety issue was documented with data, but in three cases, it was only a potential risk. In five cases, the safety concern was preclinical. The most frequent safety issue (seven holds) was unexpected death(s). The second most frequent was that an organ for which the drug was prescribed was actually further damaged (liver toxicity five, osteoarthritis three, myopathy one). The median duration of holds was 8 months (range 1–48). Overall, 12 programs were discontinued and six were probably discontinued. After a successful lift of the hold, 11 drugs were still in development.

Conclusions

An FDA hold order is a significant risk for a subsequent clinical development failure. There was no association between the stage of development at which the order was issued and subsequent failure. The longer the hold lasted the higher the risk of discontinuation. Hold orders had significant impacts on drug development timelines. Hold orders were not always synonymous with development failure, as for 11 of 29 drugs, the order was lifted.

Keywords

Spinal Muscular Atrophy Cinacalcet Pompe Disease Hereditary Angioedema Spinal Muscular Atrophy Type 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to thank Ms. Rebecca Fazzina, M.Ed., for her editorial assistance.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Funding

No funding was received for the conduct or publication of this study.

Conflicts of interest

The author reports no conflicts of interest that are relevant to this study.

References

  1. 1.
    Miller DL, Ross JJ. Vaccine INDs: review of clinical holds. Vaccine. 2005;23:1099–101.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wonnacott K, Lavoie D, Fiorentino R, McIntyre M, Huang Y, Hirschfeld S. Investigational new drugs submitted to the Food and Drug Administration that are placed on clinical hold: the experience of the Office of Cellular. Tissue and Gene Therapy. Cytotherapy. 2008;10:312–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Food and Drug Administration. Investigational new drug applications; clinical holds-FDA. Direct final rule. Fed Regist. 1998;63:68676–8.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wilson LG. The crime of saving lives. The FDA, John Najarian, and Minnesota ALG. Arch Surg. 1995;130:1035–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ciment J. Gene therapy experiments put on “clinical hold”. BMJ. 2000;320:336.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Evans CH, Ghivizzani SC, Robbins PD. Arthritis gene therapy’s first death. Arthritis Res Ther. 2008;10:110.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fox JL. FDA seeks “comfort factors” before removing hold on porcine xenotransplantation trials. Nat Biotechnol. 1998;16:224.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Anonymous. Hepatitis vaccine on hold. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2008;22:350.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Anonymous. Hopeful CMV drug stalled. Proj Inf Perspect. 1997;22:13.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Keijzers GB. Aviptadil (Senatek). Curr Opin Investig Drugs. 2001;2:545–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Durkalski V, Silbergleit R, Lowenstein D. Challenges in the design and analysis of non-inferiority trials: a case study. Clin Trials. 2011;8:601–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    O’Day SJ, Eggermont AM, Chiarion-Sileni V, et al. Final results of phase III SYMMETRY study: randomized, double-blind trial of elesclomol plus paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone as treatment for chemotherapy-naive patients with advanced melanoma. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31:1211–8.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Butts C, Socinski MA, Mitchell PL, et al. Tecemotide (L-BLP25) versus placebo after chemoradiotherapy for stage III non-small-cell lung cancer (START): a randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2014;15:59–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Brown MT, Herrmann DN, Goldstein M, Burr AM, Smith MD, West CR, Verburg KM, Dyck PJ. Nerve safety of tanezumab, a nerve growth factor inhibitor for pain treatment. J Neurol Sci. 2014;345:139–47.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lane NE, Schnitzer TJ, Birbara CA, et al. Tanezumab for the treatment of pain from osteoarthritis of the knee. N Engl J Med. 2010;363:1521–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sanga P, Katz N, Polverejan E, et al. Efficacy, safety, and tolerability of fulranumab, an anti-nerve growth factor antibody, in the treatment of patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis pain. Pain. 2013;154:1910–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lebkowski J. GRNOPC1: the world’s first embryonic stem cell-derived therapy. Interview with Jane Lebkowski. Regen Med. 2011;6(Suppl):11–3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cohen D. FDA puts rosiglitazone post-marketing trial on hold. BMJ. 2010;341:4017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Munos B. Lessons from 60 years of pharmaceutical innovation. Nature Rev Drugs Disc. 2009;8:959–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Sembera S, Lammert C, Talwalkar JA, et al. Frequency, clinical presentation, and outcomes of drug-induced liver injury after liver transplantation. Liver Transpl. 2012;18:803–10.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Plavina T, Subramanyam M, Bloomgren G, et al. Anti-JC virus antibody levels in serum or plasma further define risk of natalizumab-associated progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy. Ann Neurol. 2014;76:802–12.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Boudes P. What are current main obstacles to reach drug approval? In: Schuler P, Buckley B, editors. Re-engineering clinical trials. Best practices for streamlining drug development. London: Elsevier; 2015.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cymabay Therapeutics, Inc.NewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations