Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Drug Treatment , Drug Approval/legislation & jurisprudence , Receptors, Interleukin-6/antagonists & inhibitors , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislation & jurisprudence , Antibodies, Monoclonal, Humanized/pharmacokinetics , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Clinical Trials as Topic/methods , Humans , Receptors, Interleukin-6/immunology , United States/epidemiologyABSTRACT
Although the pharmaceutical industry will remember 2020 as the year of COVID-19, it is important to highlight that this year has been the second-best-together with 1996-in terms of the number of drugs accepted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Each of these two years witnessed the authorization of 53 drugs-a number surpassed only in 2018 with 59 pharmaceutical agents. The 53 approvals in 2020 are divided between 40 new chemical entities and 13 biologic drugs (biologics). Of note, ten monoclonal antibodies, two antibody-drug conjugates, three peptides, and two oligonucleotides have been approved in 2020. Close inspection of the so-called small molecules reveals the significant presence of fluorine atoms and/or nitrogen aromatic heterocycles. This report analyzes the 53 new drugs of the 2020 harvest from a strictly chemical perspective, as it did for those authorized in the previous four years. On the basis of chemical structure alone, the drugs that received approval in 2020 are classified as the following: biologics (antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, and proteins); TIDES (peptide and oligonucleotides); natural products; fluorine-containing molecules; nitrogen aromatic heterocycles; and other small molecules.
Subject(s)
Drug Approval/legislation & jurisprudence , Drug Industry , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislation & jurisprudence , History, 21st Century , United StatesABSTRACT
Vaccines have changed modern medicine, and are a mainstay in reducing morbidity and mortality from infections. Our research group recently published a study in which we found that vaccines approved by the US Food and Drugs Administration were safe with few clinically important post-approval adverse effects. The current COVID-19 pandemic presents regulators with the unprecedented challenge of balancing a public demand for the rapid development and approval of a safe and effective SARS-CoV-2 vaccine without compromising the strict pre-marketing requirements used for previous vaccines. Here, we review the approval process and safety profiles of FDA approved vaccines and discuss some of the challenges currently facing the FDA regarding the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine approval.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , Patient Safety , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19 Vaccines/adverse effects , Drug Approval/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United States , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislation & jurisprudenceSubject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Environmental Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Federal Government , Politics , Public Health/legislation & jurisprudence , Science/legislation & jurisprudence , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./ethics , Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S./legislation & jurisprudence , China , Democracy , Emigration and Immigration/legislation & jurisprudence , Foreign Professional Personnel/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Pandemics , Research Personnel/legislation & jurisprudence , Time Factors , United States/epidemiology , United States Environmental Protection Agency/ethics , United States Environmental Protection Agency/legislation & jurisprudence , United States Food and Drug Administration/ethics , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislation & jurisprudenceSubject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/economics , COVID-19 Vaccines/supply & distribution , COVID-19/immunology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Aged , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/transmission , COVID-19 Vaccines/immunology , COVID-19 Vaccines/standards , Health Education , Humans , International Cooperation , Risk Assessment , United States , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislation & jurisprudenceSubject(s)
Drugs, Investigational/adverse effects , Regenerative Medicine/methods , Betacoronavirus , COVID-19 , Coronavirus Infections/complications , Drug-Related Side Effects and Adverse Reactions , Humans , Pandemics , Pneumonia, Viral/complications , Regenerative Medicine/standards , Risk , SARS-CoV-2 , Therapeutic Human Experimentation , United States , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislation & jurisprudenceSubject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic , Coronavirus Infections/immunology , Pneumonia, Viral/immunology , Viral Vaccines/immunology , Adolescent , Adult , B-Lymphocytes/immunology , Betacoronavirus/immunology , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Vaccines , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Humans , Middle Aged , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , SARS-CoV-2 , T-Lymphocytes/immunology , United States , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislation & jurisprudence , Vaccination , Viral Vaccines/administration & dosage , Viral Vaccines/adverse effects , Young AdultSubject(s)
Clinical Trials as Topic , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Drug Approval/legislation & jurisprudence , Drug Industry , Pandemics/prevention & control , Pneumonia, Viral/prevention & control , Politics , Research Personnel , Safety , Viral Vaccines/adverse effects , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Vaccines , Clinical Trial Protocols as Topic , Clinical Trials as Topic/ethics , Clinical Trials as Topic/methods , Clinical Trials as Topic/standards , Coronavirus Infections/epidemiology , Disclosure , Drug Industry/ethics , Drug Industry/legislation & jurisprudence , Drug Industry/standards , Humans , Myelitis, Transverse/etiology , Pneumonia, Viral/epidemiology , Public Opinion , Research Personnel/psychology , Sample Size , United Kingdom , United States , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislation & jurisprudence , Viral Vaccines/standardsSubject(s)
Politics , United States Food and Drug Administration/ethics , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislation & jurisprudence , Advisory Committees/ethics , Advisory Committees/organization & administration , COVID-19 Vaccines , Coronavirus Infections/prevention & control , Humans , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/legislation & jurisprudence , Trust , United States , Viral Vaccines/standardsABSTRACT
PURPOSE OF THE REVIEW: Laboratory-developed tests (LDTs) are essential for the clinical care of immunocompromised individuals. These patients often require specialized testing not available from commercial manufacturers and are therefore dependent on the laboratory to create, validate, and perform these assays. Recent paradigm-shifting legislation could alter the way that LDTs are operationalized and regulated. RECENT FINDINGS: On March 5th, 2020 the Verifying Accurate and Leading-Edge In-Vitro Clinical Tests Development Act (VALID) was introduced in the US Congress. This statute would overhaul existing regulatory framework by unifying the oversight of LDTs and commercial in-vitro diagnostic tests (IVDs) through the FDA. If enacted, LDTs would be subject to regulatory requirements like those found in commercial submissions for market review. Stakeholders continue to discuss the details and scope of the proposed legislation in the setting of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 pandemic, where LDTs are integral to the national COVID-19 response. SUMMARY: Congressional lawmakers have introduced legislation to alter the regulatory framework governing LDTs. Moving forward, a balance must be struck to ensure the availability of safe and accurate testing without delays or overregulation that could be harmful to patients. The downstream implications of how VALID and other legislation will impact laboratories, clinicians, and patients warrant close examination.
Subject(s)
Clinical Laboratory Services/legislation & jurisprudence , Clinical Laboratory Techniques , Coronavirus Infections/diagnosis , Immunocompromised Host , Laboratories, Hospital/legislation & jurisprudence , Pneumonia, Viral/diagnosis , Uncertainty , United States Food and Drug Administration/legislation & jurisprudence , Betacoronavirus/pathogenicity , COVID-19 , COVID-19 Testing , Congresses as Topic , Health Services Research/legislation & jurisprudence , Humans , Pandemics , Quality Assurance, Health Care , SARS-CoV-2 , United StatesABSTRACT
Against the backdrop of the COVID pandemic, the scientific and medical communities are working with all deliberate speed with state-of-the-art technologies to develop diagnostic and therapeutic products that can identify, treat, and prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2. These activities may only be legally conducted with the necessary statutes and regulations in place to facilitate the timely development, manufacturing, evaluation, and distribution of products that meet quality standards. The present regulatory landscape for medicinal and medical products for human use has been shaped by nearly 12 decades of statutory history that followed in reaction to disasters and tragedies. Five distinct, closely woven threads of statutory history have led to the regulatory infrastructure we have in place: (1) standardized processes for routine development of medicinal and medical device products for human use; (2) processes for expedited development to shorten time frames and expand patient populations; (3) mechanisms of Expanded Access to make medicinal products available to patients prior to approval of the US Food and Drug Administration; (4) Emergency Use Authorization during public health emergencies; and (5) the development of pathways for bringing generic drugs and biosimilar biologics to market. These mechanisms are being brought to bear to facilitate the defeat of infection with SARS-CoV-2.