Special FDA designations for drug development: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy

Abstract

Background Over the past decades, US Congress enabled the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to facilitate and expedite drug development for serious conditions filling unmet medical needs with five special designations and review pathways: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy. Objectives This study reviews the FDA’s five special designations for drug development regarding their safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, clinical trials, innovation, economic incentives, development timelines, and price. Methods We conducted a keyword search to identify studies analyzing the impact of the FDA's special designations (orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy) on the safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, trials, innovativeness, economic incentives, development times, and pricing of new drugs. Results were summarized in a narrative overview. Results Expedited approval reduces new drugs’ time to market. However, faster drug development and regulatory review are associated with more unrecognized adverse events and post-marketing safety revisions. Clinical trials supporting special FDA approvals frequently use small, non-randomized, open-label designs. Required post-approval trials to monitor unknown adverse events are often delayed or not even initiated. Evidence suggests that drugs approved under special review pathways, marketed as “breakthroughs”, are more innovative and deliver a higher clinical benefit than those receiving standard FDA approval. Special designations are an economically viable strategy for investors and pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for rare diseases with unmet medical needs, due to financial incentives, expedited development timelines, higher clinical trial success rates, alongside greater prices. Nonetheless, patients, physicians, and insurers are concerned about spending money on drugs without a proven benefit or even on drugs that turn out to be ineffective. While European countries established performance- and financial-based managed entry agreements to account for this uncertainty in clinical trial evidence and cost-effectiveness, the pricing and reimbursement of these drugs remain largely unregulated in the US. Conclusion Special FDA designations shorten clinical development and FDA approval times for new drugs treating rare and severe diseases with unmet medical needs. Special-designated drugs offer a greater clinical benefit to patients. However, physicians, patients, and insurers must be aware that special-designated drugs are often approved based on non-robust trials, associated with more unrecognized side effects, and sold for higher prices.

The impact of willingness-to-pay threshold on price reduction recommendations for oncology drugs: a review of assessments conducted by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health

“…Also, another aspect to be considered regarding quicker access to new cancer drugs is the expedited approval by regulatory agencies. Michaeli et al , in their review noted that drugs with expedited approvals from FDA using ‘orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy’ shorten the clinical development, and these kind of breakthrough drugs with special designations offer greater clinical benefit, however, these drugs cost more [ 109 ].…”

Regulatory histories of recently withdrawn ovarian cancer treatment indications of 3 PARP inhibitors in the US and Europe: lessons for the accelerated approval pathway

“…Regulation of pharmaceutical products aims to balance timely patient access to novel therapies with the need to generate robust evidence of clinical efficacy and safety. Over the past three decades, in response to pressures to expedite the development and approval of drugs, regulatory authorities have implemented pathways that lower the regulatory bar for evidence of efficacy at the time of approval in service of earlier market access (Davis & Abraham, 2011 ; FDA, 2022 ; Michaeli et al, 2023 ). As a direct consequence, the likelihood of approval of ineffective or even harmful medications has increased, leading to a higher risk of withdrawals of drugs from the market.…”

Are We Losing the Final Fight against Cancer?

“…For patients, post-marketing studies are essential, and it is paramount that patient actions are enforced by regulatory authorities [28]. Regulators may follow Europe's example, as 4444 medicines approved under conditional marketing authorization must renew their approval annually and meet specific requirements to receive full approval [29]. You may also have questions about how drugs are approved and how they affect your operating system and quality of life.…”