The Food and Drug Administration advisory committees and panels: how they are applied to the drug regulatory process.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory panels and committees play a critical role in advising the FDA on the safety and efficacy of medical devices and drugs marketed in the US. Advisory panel recommendations are used by the FDA to make decisions regarding medical products. Currently, the FDA utilizes over 50 advisory panels that serve the three major FDA centers, including the Centers for Biologics, Drugs and Device Products. Members of an advisory panel typically include academicians, clinicians, consumers, patients, and industry representatives. The FDA establishes the schedules for advisory panel meetings on an annual basis and a panel usually meets several times a year for two consecutive days in Washington, DC. Typically, the advisory panel discusses issues highlighted by the FDA and is then asked to vote a response to the questions posed in advance by the FDA. Advisory panel recommendations have a strong influence on FDA's decision to approve a product, as evidenced by the 214 Advisory Panels FDA convened between January 2008 to November 2012, during which advisory panel members voted to approve the product (or use of the product) ∼74% of the time, with FDA ultimately approving the medical product (or use of the product) ∼79% of the time. The ACG membership are encouraged to consider serving the public's interest by participating in an FDA advisory panel utilizing their expertise for the evaluation of a new drug or medical device, and providing advice about whether the product should be sold in the US.

How drugs are developed and approved by the FDA: current process and future directions.

OBJECTIVES: This article provides an overview of FDA's regulatory processes for drug development and approval, and the estimated costs associated with the development of a drug, and also examines the issues and challenges facing the FDA in the near future. METHODS: A literature search was performed using MEDLINE to summarize the current FDA drug approval processes and future directions. MEDLINE was further utilized to search for all cost analysis studies performed to evaluate the pharmaceutical industry R&D productivity and drug development cost estimates. RESULTS: While the drug approval process remains at high risk and spans over multiple years, the FDA drug review and approval process has improved, with the median approval time for new molecular drugs been reduced from 19 months to 10 months. The overall cost to development of a drug remains quite high and has been estimated to range from $868M to $1,241M USD. Several new laws have been enacted, including the FDA Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) of 2013, which is designed to improve the drug approval process and enhance access to new medicines. CONCLUSIONS: The FDA's improved processes for drug approval and post-market surveillance have achieved the goal of providing patients with timely access to effective drugs while minimizing the risk of drug-related harm. The FDA drug approval process is not without controversy, as a number of well-known gastroenterology drugs have been withdrawn from the US market over the past few years. With the approval of the new FDASIA law, the FDA will continue to improve their processes and, working together with the ACG through the FDA-Related Matters Committee, continue to develop safe and effective drugs for our patients.

Control of nocturnal gastric acidity: a role for low dose bedtime ranitidine to supplement daily omeprazole.

In some patients, proton pump inhibitors do not abolish nocturnal gastric acidity and additional evening antisecretory medication may be required. In 16 subjects with chronic heartburn, 24-hr gastric and esophageal pH were measured at baseline and again after six days of 20 mg omeprazole alone at 08:00 hr followed by placebo, 75 mg ranitidine, or 20 mg omeprazole at 22:00 hr. Integrated acidity was calculated from the cumulative, time-weighted mean acid concentrations (derived from pH values for each second). Baseline integrated gastric acidity increased progressively over 24 hr, whereas integrated esophageal acidity increased only until 22:00 hr. Morning omeprazole nearly abolished 24-hr esophageal acidity and significantly decreased overall gastric acidity but did not abolish nocturnal gastric acidity. Adding evening ranitidine or omeprazole nearly eliminated the nocturnal increase in gastric acidity. Integrated acidity was more sensitive than time pH < 4 in assessing gastric and esophageal acidity as well as their inhibition by omeprazole and ranitidine. In conclusion, integrated acidity provides novel information regarding the synergy of omeprazole plus ranitidine. Adding low-dose ranitidine helps control nocturnal gastric acidity that can occur with conventional omeprazole administration. Although the heartburn patients in the present study had nocturnal gastric acidity without accompanying nocturnal esophageal acid reflux, other patients who do have nocturnal esophageal reflux might profit from addition of bedtime ranitidine or another gastric antisecretory agent.

Measurement of meal-stimulated gastric acid secretion by in vivo gastric autotitration.

Measurement of meal- stimulated gastric acid secretion using manual intragastric titration is demanding in terms of personnel and specialized equipment. In the present study, we used a new method, in vivo gastric autotitration, to determine meal-stimulated gastric acid secretion. Gastric pH was measured every 4 s before, during, and after ingestion of a standard meal in 24 healthy subjects. Placebo, ranitidine (150 mg), ranitidine (75 mg), or famotidine (10 mg) was given 1 h after the beginning of the meal. Meal-stimulated gastric acid secretion was calculated from the amount of HCl required to titrate the homogenized standard meal to pH 2 in vitro (119 mmol) and the time required for the pH of the ingested meal to decrease to pH 2 in vivo. Values for pH were also converted to acid concentration (mM), and integrated acidity was calculated from the cumulative, time-weighted means of the acid concentrations for every fourth second of the postprandial recording period. Control meal-stimulated gastric acid secretion was 60 (40-71) mmol/h (median; interquartile range), and each histamine H(2)-receptor antagonist significantly decreased secretion by approximately 50%. Meal-stimulated acid secretion correlated directly with postprandial integrated gastric acidity (r = 0.72; P = 0.0001). Thus intragastric autotitration is a convenient, reproducible method for measuring gastric acid secretion after ingestion of a solid meal and offers several advantages over manual intragastric titration.