Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development

About: Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Drug development & Clinical trial. The organization has 78 authors who have published 258 publications receiving 16047 citations.

Oncology Drug Development and Approval of Systemic Anticancer Therapy by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration

Abstract: Background. Regulatory approval of oncology drugs is the cornerstone of the development process and approval characteristics shape eventual utilization. Approval trends and characteristics provide valuable information for drug developers and regulators and ultimately affect clinicians and patients.

The new drug approvals of 1993, 1994, and 1995: trends in drug development.

Abstract: Growing concern within Congress, the pharmaceutical industry, and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the excessive time and cost required to develop new drugs and bring them to market has led to several initiatives designed to speed the drug development process, e.g., the Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992 and recent efforts at legislative reform of the agency. To assess the impact of these initiatives, it is useful to examine recent trends in new drug development and review. This report is the fourth in a series in which we analyze new chemical entities (NCEs) recently approved by the FDA. In 1993, 1994, and 1995, the FDA approved 75 new drugs, 67 of which met the Tufts Center's definition of an NCE. Of the 67, 31 (46%) received priority review, 13 (19%) had orphan drug status, and 5 (7%) were approved under the accelerated approval regulations. For the 67 NCEs, the mean length of the clinical phase (investigational new drug filing to new drug application submission) was 7.1 years, and the approval phase (new drug application submission to approval) was 2.0 years. The mean approval phase for the 31 priority NCEs (1.5 years) was 38% shorter than that for the 36 standard NCEs (2.5 years). Compared with similar values for the previous 3-year period, the mean clinical phase for all NCEs increased by 16%, whereas the mean approval phase decreased by 23%. Of the 66 NCEs for which foreign marketing data were available, 34 (52%) were available in foreign markets one or more years prior to U.S. approval, with a mean of 7.7 years of earlier foreign marketing.

Quantifying the magnitude and cost of collecting extraneous protocol data.

Abstract: Although most research professionals believe that protocol designs contain a growing number of unnecessary and redundant procedures generating unused data, incurring high cost, and jeopardizing study success, there are no published studies systematically examining this issue. Between November 2011 and May 2012, Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development conducted a study among a working group of 15 pharmaceutical companies in which a total of 25,103 individual protocol procedures were evaluated and classified using clinical study reports and analysis plans. The results show that the typical later-stage protocol had an average of 7 objectives and 13 end points of which 53.8% are supplementary. One (24.7%) of every 4 procedures performed per phase-III protocol and 17.7% of all phase-II procedures per protocol were classified as "Noncore" in that they supported supplemental secondary, tertiary, and exploratory end points. For phase-III protocols, 23.6% of all procedures supported regulatory compliance requirements and 15.9% supported those for phase-II protocols. The study also found that on average, $1.7 million (18.5% of the total) is spent in direct costs to administer Noncore procedures per phase-III protocol and $0.3 million (13.1% of the total) in direct costs are spent on Noncore procedures for each phase-II protocol. Based on the results of this study, the total direct cost to perform Noncore procedures for all active annual phase-II and phase-III protocols is conservatively estimated at $3.7 billion annually, not including the indirect costs associated with collecting and managing Noncore procedure data and the ethical costs of exposing study volunteers to unnecessary risks associated with conducting extraneous procedures.