The global rise of multi-drug resistant bacteria has resulted in the notion that an "antibiotic apocalypse" is fast approaching. This has led to a number of well publicized calls for global funding initiatives to develop new antibacterial agents. The long clinical history of phage therapy in Eastern Europe, combined with more recent in vitro and in vivo success, demonstrates the potential for whole phage or phage based antibacterial agents. To date, no whole phage or phage derived products are approved for human therapeutic use in the EU or USA. There are at least three reasons for this: (i) phages possess different biological, physical, and pharmacological properties compared to conventional antibiotics. Phages need to replicate in order to achieve a viable antibacterial effect, resulting in complex pharmacodynamics/pharmacokinetics. (ii) The specificity of individual phages requires multiple phages to treat single species infections, often as part of complex cocktails. (iii) The current approval process for antibacterial agents has evolved with the development of chemically based drugs at its core, and is not suitable for phages. Due to similarities with conventional antibiotics, phage derived products such as endolysins are suitable for approval under current processes as biological therapeutic proteins. These criteria render the approval of phages for clinical use theoretically possible but not economically viable. In this review, pitfalls of the current approval process will be discussed for whole phage and phage derived products, in addition to the utilization of alternative approval pathways including adaptive licensing and "Right to try" legislation.

Florian Naudet and co-authors propose a pathway involving registered criteria for evaluation and approval of new drugs.

To encourage the development of drugs for rare diseases, orphan drug legislation has been introduced in the USA (1983) and in the EU (2000). Recent literature discusses factors that may influence the development of new orphan medicinal products in the EU. This study aims to identify predictors for successful marketing authorisation of potential orphan drugs in the EU.

Melanoma is recognized as the most dangerous type of skin cancer, with high mortality and resistance to currently used treatments. To overcome the limitations of the available therapeutic options, the discovery and development of new, more effective, and safer therapies is required. In this review, the different research steps involved in the process of antimelanoma drug evaluation and selection are explored, including information regarding in silico, in vitro, and in vivo experiments, as well as clinical trial phases. Details are given about the most used cell lines and assays to perform both two- and three-dimensional in vitro screening of drug candidates towards melanoma. For in vivo studies, murine models are, undoubtedly, the most widely used for assessing the therapeutic potential of new compounds and to study the underlying mechanisms of action. Here, the main melanoma murine models are described as well as other animal species. A section is dedicated to ongoing clinical studies, demonstrating the wide interest and successful efforts devoted to melanoma therapy, in particular at advanced stages of the disease, and a final section includes some considerations regarding approval for marketing by regulatory agencies. Overall, considerable commitment is being directed to the continuous development of optimized experimental models, important for the understanding of melanoma biology and for the evaluation and validation of novel therapeutic strategies.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants accelerated approval according to surrogate measures of numerous drug indications for serious or life-threatening illnesses such as infectious diseases and cancer. Investigators, including the FDA, have evaluated the program's regulatory and clinical consequences in oncology, but evaluation of nononcology drugs is lacking.

This retrospective review assesses the frequency of surrogate measures used for the first time vs subsequent times in a cancer setting and the surrogate’s strength of correlation with patient-centered outcomes.

The basic components of regulatory and supporting policies for orphan drug development appear similar between the United States and Japan, but drugs designated as orphan drugs have been different between the 2 countries. The probabilities of development success (ie, marketing approval) in designated orphan drugs have also been significantly different. In this study, we analyzed recent outcomes of development for orphan drugs designated from 1993 to 2017 in Japan, considering their development and approval status in the United States. Our analysis showed that success for orphan drug development in Japan was apparently associated with prior approval status in the United States. Company size, orphan development experience, and patient enrichment were also positively associated with successful marketing approval. Although similar designations and priority review systems for orphan drugs have been enacted, economic incentives and regulatory conditions provided by the systems seem to be different between the 2 countries, which may lead to varied performance in orphan designation and approval. We need to pay close attention to the impact of industrial global development strategies when comparing the outcomes and performance of different orphan drug promotion systems.

The development, review, and approval process of therapeutic biological products in the United States presents two primary challenges: time and cost. Advancing a biotherapeutic from concept to market may take an average of 12 years, with costs exceeding US $1 billion, and the product may still fail the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval process. Despite the FDA's practices to expedite the approval of new therapies, seeking FDA approval remains a long, costly, and risky process.

Federal regulatory agencies such as the United States Food and Drug Administration review pharmacological evidence to ensure the safety and efficacy of new and repurposed pharmaceuticals prior to market approval. The discussions, disagreements and procedural decisions contained within such reviews offer unique insight into a pharmaceutical's strengths, weaknesses and opportunities, yet are often overlooked as a significant source of pharmacological information for research and development. To highlight the value of such resources, we present a case study on Entresto, a first-in-class angiotensin receptor-neprilysin inhibitor for the treatment of heart failure with reduced ejection fraction, and explore the regulatory rationale underlying its market approval. Using information extracted from Entresto's online approval package at Drugs@FDA, we explore some of the procedural complexities underlying market approval of new pharmaceuticals, discuss the broad pharmacological implications contained within regulatory agency grey literature, and highlight opportunities for future therapeutic development.

Investigate if the recommendations by the Common Drug Review (CDR) and the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) to provincial, territorial and federal drug plans about whether to list non-oncology and oncology drug-indication combinations on their formularies are associated with whether the drug-indication combination was approved via the standard evidence pathway or the Notice of Compliance with conditions (NOC/c-limited evidence) pathway.

The current success rate of a drug candidate, from the beginning of the clinical trial to receiving marketing approval, is about 10%-20%, and it has not changed during the past few decades. Therefore, pharmaceutical companies are under pressure to select one compound, among many others, with a high probability of success. The differences in drug features affect their probabilities of approval success. In this study, we examined the approval success rates of drug candidates, developed in the United States, the European Union, or Japan, by focusing on four parameters ("drug target," "drug action," "drug modality," and "drug application") and their combinations, and identified factors that conditioned the outcome of the drug development process. We obtained a total success rate of 12.8%, after evaluating 3999 compounds. Moreover, after analyzing the combinations of these parameters, the approval success rates of drugs that corresponded to the following categories-a stimulant in drug action or an enzyme in drug target and biologics (excluding monoclonal antibody) in drug modality-were high (34.1% and 31.3%, respectively). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that stimulant in drug action, and "B" (blood and blood forming organs), "G" (genito-urinary system and sex), and "J" (anti-infectives for systemic use) in drug application were statistically associated with high approval success rates. We found several parameters and their combinations that affected drug approval success rates. Our results could assist pharmaceutical companies in evaluating the probability of success of their drug candidates and, thus, in efficiently conducting the clinical development process.

Poor translation between in vitro and clinical studies due to the cells/humans discrepancy in drug target perturbation effects leads to safety failures in clinical trials, thus increasing drug development costs and reducing patients' life quality. Therefore, developing a predictive model for drug approval considering the cells/humans discrepancy is needed to reduce drug attrition rates in clinical trials.

It has been suggested that the results from fragile trials are less likely to translate into benefit in routine clinical practice.

The magnitude of clinical benefit of solid cancer drugs can be standardly assessed via the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS) developed by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). We applied two ESMO-MCBS versions to the last 12 years of European cancer drug approval and compared two predefined marketing authorisation timeframes to identify potential score changes over time.

Research and development of pediatric drug faces many difficulties and pediatric clinical trials remain a challenge. Since 2011, a series of measures have been taken to encourage research, development of drugs for pediatric patients in China. In this study, we analyzed pediatric clinical trials conducted in China to provide reference for research and development of pediatric drugs and formulation of relevant policies.

Clinical trial evidence used to support drug approval is typically the only information on benefits and harms that patients and clinicians can use for decision-making when novel cancer therapies become available. Various evaluations have raised concern about the uncertainty surrounding these data, and a systematic investigation of the available information on treatment outcomes for cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warranted.

Despite controversy among experts regarding aducanumab's approval by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, little is known about public opinion on this matter.

Despite strong vetting for disease activity, only 10% of candidate new molecular entities in early stage clinical trials are eventually approved. Analyzing historical pipeline data, Nelson et al. 2015 (Nat. Genet.) concluded pipeline drug targets with human genetic evidence of disease association are twice as likely to lead to approved drugs. Taking advantage of recent clinical development advances and rapid growth in GWAS datasets, we extend the original work using updated data, test whether genetic evidence predicts future successes and introduce statistical models adjusting for target and indication-level properties. Our work confirms drugs with genetically supported targets were more likely to be successful in Phases II and III. When causal genes are clear (Mendelian traits and GWAS associations linked to coding variants), we find the use of human genetic evidence increases approval by greater than two-fold, and, for Mendelian associations, the positive association holds prospectively. Our findings suggest investments into genomics and genetics are likely to be beneficial to companies deploying this strategy.

This cross-sectional study provides a 5-year update on the status and availability of postmarket evidence for high-risk medical devices that received FDA premarket approval in 2010 and 2011.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) uses 510(k) clearance and premarket approval (PMA) pathways to ensure device safety before marketing. Premarket approval evaluates high-risk medical devices and requires clinical trials, whereas 510(k) clearance evaluates moderate-risk devices and relies on benchtop (nonclinical and biomechanical) and descriptive data. Existing literature suggests that the clinical trials required by PMA are associated with reduced risk of recall compared with devices granted 510(k) clearance. Several investigators have found weaknesses in pivotal PMA trials, raising safety concerns. Furthermore, methodological factors may have led to a previous underestimation of recall risk for devices with PMA.