J Clin Pharmacol
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by DiMasi, J.
Right arrow Articles by Lasagna, L
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by DiMasi, J.
Right arrow Articles by Lasagna, L
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Articles

New indications for already-approved drugs: an analysis of regulatory review times

JA DiMasi, KI Kaitin, C Fernandez-Carol, and L Lasagna

A survey of the U.S. pharmaceutical industry was conducted to obtain data on the length of the review process for supplemental indications of already-approved new chemical entities (NCEs). Responses were received from 51 firms and covered supplemental indications of 348 NCEs that were approved during 1963 to 1988. Since extensive toxicity and safety evaluation would generally not be required for supplemental indication reviews, one would expect supplemental indications, on average, to be reviewed more quickly than applications for the associated original indications. The mean +/- standard deviation review time for the 172 supplemental indications in the sample is 21.5 +/- 18 months; the average review time for the associated 94 original indications is 23.5 +/- 18 months. The difference in average review times is not statistically significant. Analysis of review times for indications grouped by Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewing division showed a statistically significant difference between supplemental and associated original indication review times only in the cardio-renal division. In that division, average review times were longer for supplemental indications (25.6 vs. 19.3 mo; P less than .05). Analysis of time trends showed a significant increase in average supplemental indication review time for 1985 to 1988 approvals relative to the average associated original indication review time (P less than .01) and to average supplemental indication review time for earlier time periods (P less than .01). These results suggest the need for a close examination of the supplemental indication review policy of the FDA.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1991 by the American College of Clinical Pharmacology