Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Clinical Development of Therapeutic Medicines: A Biopharmaceutical Versus Pharmaceutical Product Comparison

  • Published:
Drug information journal : DIJ / Drug Information Association Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The clinical development of therapeutic medicines is a time-consuming and resource intensive process. The published literature documents the length of clinical phases, but there are few published reports on the number of clinical studies and the number of human subjects involved in the development of therapeutic medicines. In this Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development investigation, clinical study data for 12 new biophar-maceutical products approved in 1994 through 2000 were analyzed and compared to the results of published clinical study data for new molecular entities (NMEs) and new active substances (NASs) approved during the same time period. We found that, on average, development of the biopharmaceuticals involved significantly fewer studies per application compared with the studies of NASs (11.8 studies vs. 37 studies) and also fewer subjects per application compared with the studies of either NMEs or NASs (1014 subjects vs. 5697 subjects for NMEs approved in 1998, 4980 subjects for NMEs approved in 1999, or 4478 subjects for NASs). A possible reason for this finding is that many of the biopharmaceuticals included in the analysis were treatments for diseases that affect a potentially small number of subjects, that is, rare, serious, or life-threatening diseases.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Mathieu M. New drug development: a regulatory overview. 4th edition. Waltham MA: Parexel, 1997: 10–13.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Travis L. How to work with the FDA approval system to accelerate drug development. Regul Aff Focus. 2000; Feb;5(2): 17–22.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Priority review policy. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Manual of Policies and Procedures. Food and Drug Administration [http://www.fda.gov/cder/mapp/6020-3.pfd].

  4. Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997. US Public Law 105–115 (Nov 21, 1997); 21 USC 355a; 111 Stat 2296.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Reichert JM. New biopharmaceuticals in the US: trends in development and marketing approvals 1995–1999. Trends Biotechnol. 2000 Sep;18(9): 364–369.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Kaitin KI, Healy EM. The new drug approvals of 1996, 1997, and 1998: drug development trends in the user fee era. Drug Inf J. 2000;34(1):1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Reichert JM, Chee J, Kotzampaltiris C. The effect of PDUFA and FDAMA on the development and approval of therapeutic medicines. Drug Inf J. 2001; 35(1).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Peck CC. Drug development: improving the process. Food Drug Law J. 1997;52(2):163–167.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Emerging clinical trial enrollment benchmarks: trial size statistics for new drugs approved in 1998. In: Parexel’s Pharmaceutical R&D Statistical Sourcebook 2000. Waltham MA: Parexel, 2000:76.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Emerging clinical trial enrollment benchmarks: trial size statistics for new drugs approved in 1999. In: Parexel’s Pharmaceutical R&D Statistical Sourcebook 2000. Waltham MA: Parexel, 2000:75.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Describing dossiers: characterising clinical dossiers for global registration. CMR International R&D Briefing [http://www.cmr.org/25.pdf].

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Janice M. Reichert PhD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reichert, J.M. Clinical Development of Therapeutic Medicines: A Biopharmaceutical Versus Pharmaceutical Product Comparison. Ther Innov Regul Sci 35, 337–346 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150103500203

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150103500203

Key Words

Navigation