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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Mathieu M. New drug development: a regulatory overview. 4th edition. Waltham MA: Parexel, 1997: 10–13.
Travis L. How to work with the FDA approval system to accelerate drug development. Regul Aff Focus. 2000; Feb;5(2): 17–22.
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].
Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997. US Public Law 105–115 (Nov 21, 1997); 21 USC 355a; 111 Stat 2296.
Reichert JM. New biopharmaceuticals in the US: trends in development and marketing approvals 1995–1999. Trends Biotechnol. 2000 Sep;18(9): 364–369.
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.
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).
Peck CC. Drug development: improving the process. Food Drug Law J. 1997;52(2):163–167.
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.
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.
Describing dossiers: characterising clinical dossiers for global registration. CMR International R&D Briefing [http://www.cmr.org/25.pdf].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights 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
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286150103500203