2021 New Drug Approvals, By The Numbers

Last week, the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research released it 2021 report of New Drug Therapy Approvals. The approvals are notable for the potential to provide a positive impact on patient care. The following infographic shows some of the more notable statistics from this year's report.

According to the FDA, CDER approved 50 new drugs in 2021. The applications represented both new molecular entities under New Drug Applications or new therapeutic biologics under Biologics License Applications. In each case, the active ingredient or ingredients have never been approved in the U.S.

New drugs advance treatment options in heart, blood, kidney and endocrine disease; autoimmune, inflammatory and lung diseases; infectious disease; neurological and psychiatric disorders; cancer; and other orphan conditions.

98 percent of the approvals were granted within the Prescription Drug User Fee Act timeframes and nearly 90 percent were approved on the first cycle. The FDA credits this with earlier and more effective communication between manufacturers and the FDA. It is also likely due to the use of expedited approval pathways, including "fast track" and "breakthrough therapy" designation along with "priority review" and "accelerated approval."

Of note, CDER approved four new biosimilar products and the first two interchangeable biosimilar products, marking continued advancement in this market segment. Beyond novel drug approvals, the FDA approved 12 new formulations of drugs that had been previously approved. These include new formulations, new dosage forms and other non-novel drug approvals.

This report should be of interest to drug manufacturer, particularly given the level of coordination and collaborations needed to secure approval for new drugs. The FDA report shows that an effective, team-base collaboration with the FDA and other experts can lead to timely approval of safe and effective therapies for a wide range of medical conditions. We listen to their concerns and strive to see their perspectives. We know it is important to understand the needs of our key constituencies and take actions that will benefit as many Americans as possible.

For more information about this report, contact me at john@policypros.net

Comments

Selecting Therapeutic Alternatives: A Critical Perspective for Drug Manufacturers

The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 instructed the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to initiate drug price negotiations with manufacturers for the first time. A key component of these negotiations involves considering factors like the drug's benefits and costs to establish a "lowest maximum fair price." (MFP) For drug manufacturers, CMS’s process for making comparisons of therapeutic alternative(s) to determine the MFP raises a number of crucial questions. The IRA's guidance suggests that CMS will initially compare drugs within the same class as the negotiated drug to determine a starting point for pricing. For drug manufacturers, this approach raises concerns regarding price competition within drug classes. As new drugs are often priced in line with preexisting brand-name drugs in the same class, the negotiation process may result in downward pressure on prices for all drugs in the class. This could significantly affect the revenue and profitabi...

The Problem of Limited-Supply Agreements for Medicare Price Negotiation

A recent JAMA Viewpoint article discusses how limited-supply agreements between brand name and generic drug makers could impact Medicare price negotiation under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA). These agreements allow brand manufacturers to maintain some market exclusivity by limiting the supply of generic competitors. The article suggests these deals may increase as the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) implements the IRA's price negotiation provisions. From a business perspective, it's understandable why brand manufacturers might find limited-supply agreements preferable to having their drugs subject to Medicare negotiation. Maintaining even partial exclusivity is likely better for revenue than triggering government-dictated price reductions. However, policymakers and patients are increasingly concerned that these deals keep prices high despite generic availability. The use of limited supply agreements could also produce unintended consequences. Balancing som...

TCET Pathway Could Accelerate Access to Innovating Technologies

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) proposed the Transitional Coverage for Emerging Technologies (TCET) pathway to enable quicker coverage decisions for breakthrough devices needing accelerated regulatory review. As described in JAMA Health Forum, TCET allows tailored oversight based on an innovation’s specific benefits and risks. TCET focuses on FDA Breakthrough-designated devices for serious conditions supported by limited clinical data for market authorization. By facilitating transitional coverage, TCET aims to help make cutting-edge technologies accessible to patients while additional real-world evidence is gathered to meet CMS’ “reasonable and necessary” standard. For developers to optimize TCET’s streamlined approach they should be sure to: - Pursue FDA Breakthrough designation when criteria are met. This opens the TCET pathway. - Engage CMS early on study designs and evidence needs. Incorporate draft guidance on endpoints and real-world data....

The Health Policy War Room

Search This Blog