Precision medicines can benefit patients by increasing the probability of a successful treatment response in selected patient populations. The potential for more immediate signals of efficacy during clinical trials suggests such medicines will reach the market more rapidly than traditional drugs will. Using data from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), we examined the regulatory review and pivotal trial characteristics of precision medicines. We found that in the period January 2013-June 2017, precision medicines were developed and reviewed almost two years faster than nonprecision medicines. In addition, approximately 48 percent of the precision medicines in our study qualified for the FDA's breakthrough therapy designation. Precision medicines were also approved based on fewer pivotal trials with fewer patients, and the trials were less likely to be randomized, blinded, or controlled with either an active or placebo comparator.

No abstract

Recent development of a wide range of regulatory standards applicable to production and use of tissues, cells, and other biologics (or biologicals), as advanced therapies, indicates considerable interest in the regulation of these products. The objective of this study was to analyze and compare high-tier documents within the Australian, European, and U.S. biologic drug regulatory environments using qualitative methodology. Cohort 1 of the selected 18 high-tier regulatory documents from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) regulatory frameworks were subject to a manual documentary analysis. These documents were consistent with the legal requirements for manufacturing and use of biologic drugs in humans and fall into six different categories. Manual analysis included a terminology search. The occurrence, frequency, and interchangeable use of different terms and phrases were recorded in the manual documentary analysis. Despite obvious differences, manual documentary analysis revealed certain consistency in use of terminology across analyzed frameworks. Phrase search frequencies have shown less uniformity than the search of terms. Overall, the EMA framework's documents referred to "medicinal products" and "marketing authorization(s)," the FDA documents discussed "drug(s)" or "biologic(s)," and the TGA documents referred to "biological(s)." Although high-tier documents often use different terminology they share concepts and themes. Documents originating from the same source have more conjunction in their terminology although they belong to different frameworks (i.e., Good Clinical Practice requirements based on the Declaration of Helsinki, 1964). Automated (software-based) documentary analysis should be obtained for the conceptual and relational analysis. STEM CELLS TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE 2012;1:898 -908

A wide range of regulatory standards applicable to production and use of tissues, cells, and other biologics (or biologicals), as advanced therapies, indicates considerable interest in the regulation of these products. The objective of this study was to analyze and compare high-tier documents within the Australian, European, and U.S. biologic drug regulatory environments using qualitative methodology. Eighteen high-tier documents from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) regulatory frameworks were subject to automated text analysis. Selected documents were consistent with the legal requirements for manufacturing and use of biologic drugs in humans and fall into six different categories. Concepts, themes, and their co-occurrence were identified and compared. The most frequent concepts in TGA, FDA, and EMA frameworks were "biological," "product," and "medicinal," respectively. This was consistent with the previous manual terminology search. Good Manufacturing Practice documents, across frameworks, identified "quality" and "appropriate" as main concepts, whereas in Good Clinical Practice (GCP) documents it was "clinical," followed by "trial," "subjects," "sponsor," and "data." GCP documents displayed considerably higher concordance between different regulatory frameworks, as demonstrated by a smaller number of concepts, similar size, and similar distance between them. Although high-tier documents often use different terminology, they share concepts and themes. This paper may be a modest contribution to the recognition of similarities and differences between analyzed regulatory documents. It may also fill the literature gap and provide some foundation for future comparative research of biologic drug regulations on a global level. STEM CELLS TRANSLATIONAL MEDICINE 2012;1:909 -920

No abstract