Approval of new drugs 1999-2007: comparison of the US, the EU and Japan situations

Cancer drug indication approvals in China and the United States: a comparison of approval times and clinical benefit, 2001-2020

Background

Perceived delays in cancer drug approvals have been a major concern for policymakers in China. Policies have been implemented to accelerate the launch of new cancer drugs and indications. This study aimed to assess similarities and differences between China and the United States in the approvals, timing, and clinical benefit evidence of cancer drug indications between 2001 and 2020.

Methods

This study retrospectively identified all cancer drugs and indications approved in both China and the United States from January 1st, 2001 to December 31, 2020, and described differences in approval times as well as in submission and review times. Information on the availability of overall survival benefit evidence by December 31, 2020, was collected. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to assess whether evidence of benefit and other factors affected the propensity and timing of approvals of cancer drug indications in China.

Findings

Between 2001 and 2020, 229 indications corresponding to 145 cancer drugs approved in the United States were identified. Of those, 80 indications (34.9%) were also approved in China by the end of 2020. Cancer drug indications were approved in China at a median of 1273.5 days after approval in the United States. The median submission and review time differences for cancer drug indications in China were 1198.0 days and 180.0 days respectively. Submission time differences accounted for most of the approval time differences (p < 0.001). Indications supported by overall survival benefit evidence had shorter median review time differences (145.0 days) than those without such evidence (235.0 days, p = 0.008). Indications with overall survival benefit evidence were 3.94 times more likely to be approved in China compared to those without such evidence (p = 0.001), controlling for approval year, cancer type, and the prevalence of cancer by site.

Interpretation

FDA-approved cancer drug indications demonstrating a survival benefit were more likely to receive approvals in China with shorter regulatory review times compared to indications without such evidence. Given that manufacturer submission times were the main driver of cancer drug approval times in China, factors influencing submission timing should be explored.

Funding

No funding.

Trends in oncology drug lags in Japan from 2001 to 2020: A cross-sectional study

Anticancer drugs are essential in the treatment of serious diseases, but their applications are limited by drug lags. This study investigated the characteristics of anticancer drugs approved in Japan over the past 20 years and compared the drug lag trends between Japan and the US. We assessed the changes in drug lag between Japan and the US and the factors affecting the drug lags using publicly available data for anticancer drugs approved in Japan from January 2001 to December 2020. A total of 299 anticancer drugs were approved in Japan in the last 20 years. The approval lag median between the US and Japan was 498 days (16.6 months), peaking in 2002, and decreasing annually thereafter. The minimum approval lag was 173.5 days (5.7 months) in 2018. Multivariate regression analysis revealed that "global simultaneous strategy," "catch-up strategy," and "immunotherapy" are major factors shortening the drug lag. In the past decade, 226 anticancer drugs were approved in Japan. The drug lag for anticancer drugs between Japan and the US peaked in 2002, after which it declined sharply to less than a year. However, the lag was shortest in 2018.

Regional disparity in first-in-class anticancer drug development in the US, EU, and Japan

A cancer diagnosis is devastating for both patients and their caregivers. With high morbidity and mortality, cancer is a serious disease area with unmet medical needs. Thus, innovative anticancer drugs are in high demand worldwide but are unequally available. Our study focused on first-in-class (FIC) anticancer drugs and investigated their actual development situation in the United States (US), European Union (EU), and Japan over the last two decades to obtain fundamental information for understanding how the aforementioned demands are met, especially to eliminate drug lags among regions. We identified FIC anticancer drugs using pharmacological classes for the Japanese drug pricing system. Most FIC anticancer drugs were first approved in the US. The median approval time for anticancer drugs in new pharmacological classes during the last two decades in Japan (5072 days) was significantly different (p=0.043) from that in the US (4253 days), though it was not significantly different from that in the EU (4655 days). Submission and approval lags between the US and Japan were more than 2.1 years, and those between the EU and Japan were more than 1.2 years. However, those between the US and the EU were less than 0.8 years. The development rate of FIC anticancer drugs in Japan is slower than in other regions. Even among developed countries, FIC anticancer drug lags exist. Considering the high impact of FIC anticancer drugs on society worldwide, we should work together to reduce drug lag among regions using an improved international cooperative framework.

Assessment of the Delay in Novel Anticancer Drugs between China and the United States: A Comparative Study of Drugs Approved between 2010 and 2021

Access to anticancer drugs has been a critical health issue in China for many years. We retrospectively analyzed the novel anticancer drugs approved in the United States (US) between 2010 and 2021 to assess the evolving landscape of the drug lags in China by taking Japan and the European Union (EU) as comparisons. The absolute and relative lags of drug initial approval (DIA) and indication approval were calculated between China (or Japan/European Union) and the US based on the US approval date of novel agents, the duration was divided into 2010-2015 and 2016-2021. Overall, 123 (244 indications) new molecular entities (NMEs) approved in the United States were included, of which 58 (94 indications), 72 (128 indications), and 99 (170 indications) NMEs were also approved in China, Japan, and the European Union, respectively. The absolute lags of DIA and indications for approval in China improved dramatically in 2016-2021 compared with 2010-2015. Similarly, the relative DIA and indication approval lags in China decreased significantly in 2016-2021. The median review lags for DIA of China in 2016-2021 were comparable to Japan but dramatically lower than that of the European Union. Nevertheless, China had significantly longer median submission lags for DIA (28 months) in 2016-2021 than that of Japan (6 months) and the European Union (1 month). Although the absolute and relative lags of anticancer drugs in China had been initially addressed, 53% of NMEs and 61% of indications were still not approved for cancers in China compared with the United States. Therefore, China should adopt steps to further reduce drug lags.

Changes in the Review Period of Drug Application and a Drug Lag from the FDA and the EMA: An Industry Survey in South Korea Between 2011 and 2020

Background

The Korean regulatory authority has enacted legislation to expedite the new drug approval (NDA) process. However, the effectiveness of such efforts in reducing review time and drug approval delays between Korea and the USA/EU remains to be evaluated.

Methods

We investigated NDA trends in Korea from 2011 to 2020 using approval information from pharmaceutical companies. We compared the changes in the actual review duration according to active ingredient (chemical vs. biological), orphan status, therapeutic class, and NDA review process. We estimated the submission and approval gaps of new drugs between Korea and the US and EU across the study period.

Results

For 235 new drugs, the median NDA review time was 315 days, with a significant increase in the delay (average 15.4 days) over time. Biological drugs had a 43.2-day delay for approval than the time taken for approving chemical drugs. The median NDA review time for orphan drugs was 130.4 days faster than that for others, although the difference diminished after 2016. Good manufacturing practice reviews played a crucial role in delaying review time. The median submission and approval gaps in Korea were 493 and 551 days, respectively, compared to those of the US and EU.

Conclusions

Despite recent legislative initiatives, the delay in the NDA review timeline has steadily increased over 10 years in Korea. Delays in orphan drugs reviews increased after the enactment of the ‘Rare Disease Management Act’ in 2016. Careful enforcement of relevant laws and supplementary actions is required to increase new drug accessibility.

Comparison of New Drug Indications Approved in the United States, Europe, and Japan from 2001 to 2020

In Japan, there have been many requests for off-label drugs from academic societies or patient groups to the "Evaluation Committee on Unapproved or Off-labeled Drugs with High Medical Needs." Thus, drug indications in Japan may be limited compared to those in other countries. To clarify whether drug indications in Japan are limited, the drugs containing new active ingredients approved in Japan, the United States, and Europe from 2001 to 2020 and sold in these three regions as of the end of 2020 were identified and their indications were compared. The indications of antineoplastic agents, psycholeptics, drugs from non-Japanese companies, and drugs approved in Japan from 2011 to 2020 were limited in Japan and Europe compared to the United States. These trends were more notable among antineoplastic agents. Thirty-seven indications for 19 antineoplastic agents were approved in the United States but not in Japan, and the most common indications were urothelial carcinoma (4), hepatocellular carcinoma (3), and thyroid cancer (3). The numbers of indications and drugs with different indications in Japan and Europe were generally comparable, and no specific imbalance was observed. The same indications of antineoplastic agents should be made promptly available in Japan and Europe as in the United States, as malignancy is one of the leading causes of death.

Patient Access in 14 High-Income Countries to New Antibacterials Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, or Health Canada, 2010-2020

BACKGROUND

Inaccessibility of medicines in low- and middle-income countries is a frequent challenge. Yet it is typically assumed that high-income countries have complete access to the full arsenal of medicines. This study tests this assumption for new antibacterials, which are saved as a last resort in order to prevent the development of resistance, resulting in insufficient revenues to offset costs. Prior studies report only regulatory approval, missing the important lag that occurs between approval and commercial launch, although some antibiotics never launch in some countries.

METHODS

We identified all antibacterials approved and launched in the G7 and 7 other high-income countries in Europe for the decade beginning 1 January 2010, using quantitative methods to explore associations.

RESULTS

Eighteen new antibacterials were identified. The majority were accessible in only 3 countries (United States, United Kingdom, and Sweden), with the remaining 11 high-income countries having access to less than half of them. European marketing authorization did not lead to automatic European access, as 14 of the antibacterials were approved by the European Medicines Agency but many fewer were commercially launched. There was no significant difference in access between "innovative" and "noninnovative" antibacterials. Median annual sales in the first launched market (generally the United States) for these 18 antibiotics were low, $16.2M.

CONCLUSIONS

Patient access to new antibacterials is limited in some high-income countries including Canada, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, and Spain. With low expected sales, companies may have decided to delay or forego commercialization due to expectations of insufficient profitability.

Drug Lag and Associated Factors for Approved Drugs in Korea Compared with the United States

(1) Background: Drug lag, the delay between the first global regulatory approval and approval by the national health authorities in other countries, impacts the accessibility of drugs. Although the Korean pharmaceutical market has grown significantly, most of its innovative drugs for public health depend on imports from foreign pharmaceutical markets. (2) Methods: We extracted data from the official websites of the Korean Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) and the US Food and Drug Administration. Information on new molecule entity drugs, approved as imported drugs by MFDS from 2000 to 2019, was extracted. Multivariate Cox proportional hazard models on drug approval were estimated. (3) Results: In total, 424 drugs were analyzed. Orphan drugs designated by MFDS were less likely to receive approval (HR = 0.731, 95% CI: 0.572–0.934). The drugs with Korean MAHs were less likely to obtain drug approval than those with MAHs of subsidiaries of multinational pharmaceutical companies (HR = 0.524, 95% CI: 0.371–0.738). In the analyses for non-orphan drugs (n = 37), oncology drugs that need local clinical study (HR = 0.247, 95% CI: 0.093–0.657) and drugs that need more patients in a local clinical study (HR = 0.993, 95% CI: 0.988–0.999) were less likely to receive approval, with longer drug lag. The higher number of clinical studies in Korea was associated with a shorter drug lag (HR = 2.133, 95% CI: 1.196–3.805). (4) Conclusions: Our findings imply that Korean pharmaceutical companies should augment their research capabilities for new drug development. Furthermore, consideration of orphan drugs used in rare diseases is needed for drug approval to ensure the availability of these drugs in the market without approval delays.

An Empirical Analysis of Japan's Drug Development Lag Behind the United States

The "Drug lag" (i.e., the approval lag for new drugs) hinders patients' access to innovative, new medicines. The drug lag had been heavily debated in Japan from the late 2000s to the early 2010s. It consists of "development lag" (i.e., the submission date lag for new drug applications) and "review lag" (i.e., the difference in review periods). As the two lags have different causes and display significantly different recent trends in Japan, we focus on the development lag-in contrast with most previous literature-between Japan and the United States, based on a database we created for all new drugs from 2008 to 2018 using publicly available data sources. First, we found that Japan's development lag relative to the United States did not shrink in terms of the overall distribution rather than the median, which was the focus of most prior studies. Second, we examined the factors (product characteristics) that significantly affected the development lag and found that products that underwent multi-regional clinical trials and those that were certified as "breakthrough therapies" in the United States had significantly shorter development lags with high robustness, whereas products receiving price premiums did not. Finally, we discussed the policy implications of these results. For instance, innovative new drugs that are presumed to receive price premiums require enhanced policy support for early application from the initial stages of clinical trials. It is also essential to promote information-sharing regarding evaluations by foreign reviewing authorities for efficient utilization in the home country. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Evaluation of Drug Lags in Development Initiation, New Drug Application and Approval Between Japan and the USA and the Impact of Local Versus Multi-regional Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Drug time lags occur between the date that new drugs are first approved, often in the USA, and approval is granted in other countries. Multi-regional clinical trials (MRCTs) are a key strategy for simultaneous global development and regulatory submission of new drugs. However, no studies have evaluated the impact of MRCT versus local development on key time points in the drug development lifecycle between the USA and Japan. It is important for pharmaceutical companies planning drug development in Japan to understand when they can start development, when they can catch up in case of development initiation delay, length of time the development period might take, and amount of time that market exclusivity is lost, if Japan does not participate in the MRCT.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to investigate differences in drug lag in development initiation, New Drug Application (NDA) submission and drug approval, as well as differences in the development and review periods, by local trials and MRCTs between Japan and the USA. We also assessed the advantages and disadvantages of MRCTs for these lags in Japan.

METHODS

We analyzed drug approvals in Japan between 2016 and 2020 and divided them into local and MRCT groups. Lags in development initiation, NDA submission, and approval of new drugs were calculated by subtracting each date in Japan from the corresponding date in the USA. Our study period was divided into three periods based on the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH) E17 guideline, published in 2017, and the guideline for the Phase I trials in the Japanese population prior to MRCTs, published in 2014. In addition, subgroup analyses by therapeutic area, regulatory background, modality, capital style, and sales ranking (2020) were conducted.

RESULTS

We analyzed 174 approvals in Japan and the USA. The differences in the drug lags for development initiation, NDA submission, and approval between the local and MRCT groups were 4.9, 3.5, and 3.2 years, respectively. All three lag times were shorter for the MRCT group than the local group. A development initiation lag in the local group has expanded since publication of the guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

For the people of Japan, important drug lags were identified in development initiation, NDA submission, and drug approval dates between local trials and MRCTs that include Japan. It is difficult to recover fully from the delay caused by local development, and it is important to understand the further expansion of drug lags, in cases where Japan is not involved in the MRCT.

Progress towards antibiotic use targets in eight high-income countries

Objective

To compare antibiotic sales in eight high-income countries using the 2019 World Health Organization (WHO) Access, Watch and Reserve (AWaRe) classification and the target of 60% consumption of Access category antibiotics.

Methods

We analysed data from a commercial database of sales of systemic antibiotics in France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and United States of America over the years 2013-2018. We classified antibiotics according to the 2019 AWaRe categories: Access, Watch, Reserve and Not Recommended. We measured antibiotic sales per capita in standard units (SU) per capita and calculated Access group sales as a percentage of total antibiotic sales.

Findings

In 2018, per capita antibiotic sales ranged from 7.4 SU (Switzerland) to 20.0 SU (France); median sales of Access group antibiotics were 10.9 SU per capita (range: 3.5-15.0). Per capita sales declined moderately over 2013-2018. The median percentage of Access group antibiotics was 68% (range: 22-77 %); the Access group proportion increased in most countries between 2013 and 2018. Five countries exceeded the 60% target; two countries narrowly missed it (> 55% in Germany and Italy). Sales of Access antibiotics in Japan were low (22%), driven by relatively high sales of oral cephalosporins and macrolides.

Conclusion

We have identified changes to prescribing that could allow countries to achieve the WHO target. The 60% Access group target provides a framework to inform national antibiotic policies and could be complemented by absolute measures and more ambitious values in specific settings.

Achievements and challenges of the Sakigake designation system in Japan

The Sakigake designation system (Sakigake) has been launched to encourage the pioneered development of innovative new medical products for the effective treatment of severe illness in Japan, which allows leveraging the several advantages in prioritized consultation, rapid review, premium drug pricing and extended data-protection period. We retrospectively analysed the Sakigake products including drugs and regenerative medical products to clarify the achievements and the future issues in this system. From April 2015 to August 2020 (the first 5-year trial period of Sakigake), 37 products were designated, and 10 of those were approved in Japan in which 7 new active substances achieved the first-in-world approvals. Oncology, neurology and cardiovascular disease were the major therapeutic areas, and those 3 accounted for 75.7% of all products. Sakigake achieved some first-in-world approvals by the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency/the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare of innovative new medical products, although in some therapeutic areas, there remains room in stimulating drug development.

Rationales of delay and difference in regulatory review by Japan, the USA and Europe among new drugs first approved in Japan

AIMS

To clarify the rationales of delay or difference in the review of new drug applications among regulatory authorities for new drugs, those first approved in the world being in Japan.

METHODS

Among 80 new drugs first approved in Japan from 2008 to 2019, we identified those subsequently approved in the USA or Europe. Significant delays in approval time (boxplot outliers) and the rationales for the delays were assessed among the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

RESULTS

Of the 80 Japan-first approvals, 25 and 24 were approved in the USA and Europe, respectively, and their median approval times in Japan, the USA and Europe were 285, 334 and 477 days, respectively. Significant delays were identified for pirfenidone (1806 days, FDA), alogliptin benzoate (1856 days, FDA), insulin degludec (1457 days, FDA) and romosozumab (750 days, PMDA; 994 days, FDA; 748 days, EMA). Due to concerns about cardiovascular risk, alogliptin benzoate and insulin degludec were requested for additional clinical trials by the FDA, and romosozumab required a much longer review period than the standard approval time in all three regions.

CONCLUSIONS

Among the new drugs significantly delayed in approval time in Japan, the USA or Europe, there were some differences in the requirements, the participating regions and the assessment of clinical trials. The regulatory views on the cardiovascular risk also differed among the three regions. These divergences may be associated with the differences in approval histories.

Evolving Landscape of New Drug Approval in Japan and Lags from International Birth Dates: Retrospective Regulatory Analysis

The Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) has approved hundreds of new drugs in recent years. We retrospectively analyzed the new drugs approved in Japan from 2008 to 2019, and identify the first-in-world approvals and clarify the current drug lag. The new drug and the drug lag were defined as a drug with a new active substance and a difference between the approval date in Japan and the international birth date, respectively. Among 400 new drugs approved in Japan during the last 12 years, 80 (20.0%) were first approved in Japan, and 320 were outside Japan (the United States: 202, 50.5%; Europe: 82, 20.5%; other regions: 36, 9.0%). Of these, 45 new drugs have not yet been approved outside Japan, and the remaining 355 have been globally approved in Japan and overseas. The number of new drug approvals were the largest in oncology followed by metabolic/endocrine and infectious diseases. The median drug lags (year) among all 400 new drugs and 355 new drugs with global approvals were 4.3 and 4.7 in the first tertile (2008-2011), 1.5 and 2.6 in the second tertile (2012-2015), and reduced to 1.3 and 2.2 in the third tertile (2016-2019), respectively. Substantial drug lag remains in neurology, psychiatry, and therapeutic areas where the number of new drug approvals was relatively small. Collectively, one-fifth of the new drugs approved in Japan are first-in-world approvals. Drug lag has been greatly decreased, although it still exists.

Reducing Reimbursement Drug Price Risk to Enhance R&D Incentives without Raising Drug Prices/Expenditures: Implications of Simulations Based on Questionnaire Survey of Pharmaceutical Companies in Japan

Due to severe financial conditions and unmet medical needs, the Japanese government must prioritize both R&D incentives and drug prices/expenditures. However, increasing reimbursement drug prices to strengthen R&D incentives also increases the financial burden on patients and the National Health Insurance, wherein virtually all prescription drugs are reimbursed, with prices determined and controlled by the government. Hence, it is important to find ways to achieve higher R&D incentives without raising drug prices/expenditures. To seek such policies, we focus on the reimbursement drug price risk of pharmaceutical firms. An original questionnaire survey is used to collect data on the price-risk attitudes of R&D-oriented pharmaceutical firms in Japan. With this data, we conduct numerical simulations to quantify the effect of reducing the reimbursement drug price risk on firms' R&D incentives. Then, we check the robustness of our results. We find that many R&D-oriented pharmaceutical firms in Japan are risk averse. Thus, to enhance R&D incentives, reducing price risk is effective. The simulated impact of removing a ±10% price risk is equivalent to winning a 5% premium, which is substantial. These results are robust to changes in utility form, price/sales patterns and market size, while increased price risk enhances the simulated impact.

Safety-Related Regulatory Actions and Risk Factors for Anticancer Drugs in Japan

INTRODUCTION

The approval of anticancer drugs in Japan has increased to meet high medical demand. To maximize the benefits of anticancer drugs, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) must be properly managed. However, in some cases, clinically significant safety issues are detected after launch, and safety-related regulatory actions (SRRAs) are implemented.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to determine the characteristics of SRRAs for anticancer drugs approved in Japan and to identify factors related to the drug development and regulatory approval process associated with the occurrence of an SRRA.

METHODS

We defined an SRRA as the issuance of a 'Yellow Letter', 'Blue Letter', or an official notification by the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare. Anticancer drugs approved in Japan as new active ingredients from April 2004 to July 2016 were analyzed using publicly available information. The Kaplan-Meier survival curve was plotted to estimate the probability of the occurrence of an SRRA, and the Cox proportional hazards model was used to identify risk factors associated with the occurrence of an SRRA. Independent variables were selected using backward/forward stepwise selection according to Akaike's Information Criterion.

RESULTS

An SRRA was implemented for 38 of 63 anticancer drugs. Approximately 70% of SRRAs occurred within 2 years after approval, and the median time between approval and the occurrence of an SRRA was 1.6 years (interquartile range 0.94-2.4). No Yellow Letter was issued during the follow-up period; however, one Blue Letter was issued for 'acute lung injury and interstitial pneumonia' for sorafenib. According to official notifications, 'clinically significant adverse reactions' was the most revised section of package inserts (62%). The probability of an SRRA at the 1-, 2- and 3-year follow-up was 15.9% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.4-24.4%), 41.3% (95% CI 27.8-52.3%), and 56.8% (95% CI 41.8-68.0%), respectively. Monoclonal antibodies were associated with a low risk of occurrence of an SRRA (hazard ratio [HR] 0.29, p = 0.019), while the large number of patients in pivotal studies (per 100 patients) was associated with a high risk of occurrence (HR 1.07, p = 0.012).

CONCLUSIONS

The high-risk period for the occurrence of an SRRA for anticancer drugs in Japan was within 2 years after approval. Among the factors related to the drug development and regulatory approval process, anticancer drugs in the form of non-monoclonal antibodies, and whose pivotal studies included a large number of patients, were more likely to be associated with an SRRA. Postmarketing follow-up should therefore be carefully performed, especially in the first 2 years after approval and for non-monoclonal antibody anticancer drugs. Moreover, postmarketing follow-up is crucial, even if large-scale pivotal studies for regulatory approval have already been performed.

Innovation in Regulatory Science Is Meeting Evolution of Clinical Evidence Generation

At the turn of the century, the pharmaceutical industry began a transition toward a focus on oncology, rare diseases, and other areas of high unmet need that required a new, more complex approach to drug development. For many of these disease states and novel approaches to therapy, traditional approaches to clinical trial design fall short, and a number of innovative trial designs have emerged. In light of these changes, regulators across the globe are implementing new programs to provide regular development program support, facilitate accelerated access, use real-world data, and use digital tools to improve patients' lives. Emerging market regulators are also focusing on simplifying their regulatory pathways via regional harmonization schemes with varying levels of ambition. These changes in the external environment imply that biopharma regulatory teams need to adapt and evolve, leveraging digital tools, data, and analytics, and positioning themselves as strategic advisors during development.

Do Free Trade Agreements Matter to Drug Lag? Recent Evidence From Korea After the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement

The KORUS FTA includes various clauses on marketing approval of new medicines and their reimbursement decisions. We aim to capture the availability of new medicines, to measure drug lags for new medicines, and to demonstrate the effect of the KORUS FTA on the timely availability of new medicines in the Korean market. We selected new drug applications approved in the United States between 2007 and 2015, calculated the drug lag, which was defined as the time difference between the date of regulatory approval in the United States and in Korea, and constructed a logistic and Cox model to capture the effect of the variables of interest on the availability and drug lag of new medicines in the Korean market. The FDA in the United States approved 160 NDAs between 2007 and 2015. The KORUS FTA does not increase the availability of new medicines or shorten the drug lag of new medicines. However, the presence of the manufacturer in Korea was significantly related to the availability and drug lag in the Korean market. It is noteworthy that the presence of the manufacturer, which is a kind of by-product of free trade in pharmaceuticals, affected drug lag.

Martinez E, Lindbæk M, Outterson K, Røttingen JA, Laxminarayan R. Introduction and geographic availability of new antibiotics approved between 1999 and 2014

BACKGROUND

Despite the urgent need for new, effective antibiotics, few antibiotics of value have entered the market during the past decades. Therefore, incentives have been developed to stimulate antibiotic R&D. For these incentives to be effective, geographic availability for recently approved antibiotics needs to be better understood. In this study, we analyze geographic availability and market introduction of antibiotics approved between 1999 and 2014.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We identified antibiotics, considered new chemical entities (NCEs) for systemic use approved globally between 1999 and 2014, from national medicine agencies' lists of approved drugs, and data from the WHO Collaborating Center for Drug Statistics. Geographic availability was mapped using sales data from IQVIA, and analyzed with regards to class, indication, safety, and origin.

RESULTS

Of the 25 identified NCEs, only 12 had registered sales in more than 10 countries. NCEs with the widest geographic availability had registered sales in more than 70 countries within a ten-year timeframe and 30 countries within a three-year timeframe, spreading across five different geographic regions and three country income classes. Half (52%) of the NCEs had an indication for infections caused by antibiotic- resistant bacteria, little diversity was seen regarding target pathogen and indication. Antibiotics originated from and/or marketed by companies from the US or Europe had greater geographic availability compared to Japanese antibiotics, which seldom reached outside of Asia. For 20 NCEs developers chose to fully or partially sublicense marketing rights to a number of companies of different sizes.

CONCLUSION

Our findings show great variation in geographic availability of antibiotics, indicating that availability in multiple regions and country income classes is possible, but rarely seen within a few years of market authorization. Sublicensing agreements between multiple companies was common practice. Moreover, differences were seen between countries regarding benefit/risk evaluations and company behavior. These findings could be a potential source of uncertainties, and create barriers to assure that working antibiotics are developed and made available according to public health needs.

Drug Lag for Inflammatory Bowel Disease Treatments in the East and West

Background

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), though historically common in the West, is now increasingly prevalent in industrializing countries. A simultaneous dramatic increase in IBD drug options has enabled most patients to achieve remission. Nevertheless, worldwide disparities in the approval of IBD drugs, or "drug lag", remain problematic.

Summary

Drug lag for major IBD drugs before March 31, 2018 (12 for Crohn's disease [CD] and 13 for ulcerative colitis [UC]) was compared between that of the United States (US), European Union (EU), and Asia (Japan, China, South Korea, Taiwan, and the Philippines) to assess current trends. In the US, unapproved IBD drugs accounted for 16.7% (2/12) for CD and 23.1% (3/13) for UC; approval lag was 3.8 (0-80.5) months for CD and 3.6 (0-88) months for UC. In the EU, unapproved drugs accounted for 16.7% (2/12) for CD and 15.4% (2/13) for UC; approval lag was 0.03 (0-13.9) months for CD and 0 (0-13.9) months for UC. This demonstrates the short drug lag in both regions, although one drug developed in a joint US/EU clinical trial had around a 350-day approval lag. In Asia, the proportion of unapproved IBD drugs was the lowest in Japan at 33.3% (4/12) for CD and 23.1% (3/13) for UC; South Korea had the shortest lag for CD at 13.2 (0-133.1) months and the Philippines had the shortest lag for UC at 9.9 (0.6-176.2) months, but these countries still had longer lag periods than the West. However, a proportion of unapproved drugs and approval lag has decreased considerably in Asia since the start of the biologics era.

Key Messages

Despite the recent shortening drug lag between different countries and regions, this study shows that disparities persist. With globalization, eliminating these disparate drug lags is necessary to manage IBD and may require efforts toward international adoption of a more standardized approval process.

A Significant Anticancer Drug Approval Lag Between Japan and the United States Still Exists for Minor Cancers

Reports have indicated that approval lag for anticancer drugs between Japan and the United States has decreased. However, if this is also true for drugs used to treat minor cancers remains unknown. We analyzed the anticancer drugs approved in Japan from 2006 to 2016 to compare the drug approval lag based on cancer incidence (major vs. minor cancers) between Japan and the United States. The lag of anticancer drugs for minor cancers had not decreased relative to that a decade ago. Recently, development strategies resulting in longer approval lag were used by pharmaceutical companies more often for the development of drugs used to treat minor cancers than for drugs targeting major cancers, leading to significant differences in the approval lag time between drugs for major and minor cancers. Effective measures that expedite the development of drugs targeting minor cancers in Japan should, therefore, be implemented to shorten lag time.

The drug lag and associated factors for orphan anticancer drugs in Japan compared to the United States

The approval of orphan anticancer drugs in Japan has increased to meet high social demand. Drug lag, namely the approval lag of new drugs, is recognized as a social issue in Japan. We investigated the approval lag and its components, submission lag and review-time lag, between Japan and the United States (US) to reveal whether an approval lag still exists, and to identify potential factors that may contribute to reducing the approval lag. Anticancer drugs approved in Japan between April 2004 and November 2017 were investigated using publicly available information. Results showed that the median approval lag of orphan anticancer drugs in 2016-2017 was 727.0 days (interquartile range, IQR, 310.0-1054.3). The approval lag was significantly correlated with the submission lag (correlation coefficient = 1.00, P < 0.001) but not with the review-time lag (correlation coefficient = -0.16, P = 0.22). The submission lag was significantly longer for orphan anticancer drugs than non-orphan drugs (median, 712.5 days [IQR, 186.0-1448.3] vs. 387.0 days [92.8-1096.0], P = 0.023). External collaboration in drug development was associated with a longer submission lag (coefficient = 762.1, P = 0.017), while breakthrough therapy designation in the US was associated with a shorter submission lag (coefficient = -832.8, P = 0.035). In conclusion, we revealed that an approval lag for orphan anticancer drugs still existed in 2016-2017. A submission lag for orphan anticancer drugs was the main component affecting the approval lag, and was longer than that for non-orphan drugs. External collaboration in drug development may be a potential factor in reducing the submission lag for orphan anticancer drugs.

Influence of Drug Lag on New Drug Label Revisions

BACKGROUND

Drug lag (DL) in Japan has decreased in the last few years as a result of the globalization of drug development in the past decade, and new molecule entities (NMEs) with short DL are on the rise. The purpose of this study was to investigate the influence of DL on postmarketing safety of NMEs, by comparing the length of DL and the chronological trend of package insert revisions.

METHODS

The number of label revisions occurring during 6 years after approval was investigated for 142 NMEs approved between 2000 and 2006. The NMEs were classified by the length of DL (2 years and 4 years), and the label revision trends by each label section and therapeutic categories were analyzed.

RESULTS

The cumulative number of level revisions in the "Drug Interactions" and "Clinically Significant Adverse Reactions" sections in the first year after approval in the DL <2 years group was significantly greater than in the DL ≥2 years group. In the chemotherapeutic category that showed the shortest DL, the first label revision occurred in 33.3% within the first year and in 66.7% by the second year, and label revisions were performed earlier than in any other therapeutic categories.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that the package inserts of NMEs with a shorter DL tend to be revised earlier and more frequently, and it requires more careful monitoring of safety information after product launch.

Pharmacy Students' Knowledge and Attitude toward Registration Trials and Clinical Research: A Survey in a Japanese University Hospital

Clinical research plays a fundamental role in establishing new treatments. Clinical research coordinators are considered essential in clinical research, and medical professionals such as pharmacists often take on this role. Pharmacy students can be considered future candidates for this task. We used questionnaires to survey the knowledge of and attitudes toward registration trials and clinical research of pharmacy students at Tokushima University Hospital. All pharmacy students (103) to whom questionnaires were sent responded. Almost all respondents were aware of registration trials and clinical research. More than 90% were aware of the existence of clinical research coordinators, and about half (48.6%) understood their role. In clinical research terminology, most respondents were aware of informed consent and related issues, but fewer than 20% were aware of more practical things. In total, 29.1% and 40.8% of the respondents were willing to carry out and coordinate research. These findings suggest that pharmacy students have basic knowledge of clinical research and that many students are willing to carry out and coordinate clinical research. More practical exposure to clinical research may help to strengthen their future contribution. Further studies may help to determine how to provide education on registration trials and clinical research to pharmacy students.

Delays in clinical development of neurological drugs in Japan

The delays in the approval and development of neurological drugs between Japan and other countries have been a major issue for patients with neurological diseases. The objective of this study was to analyze factors contributing to the delay in the launching of neurological drugs in Japan. We analyzed data from Japan and the US for the approval of 42 neurological drugs, all of which were approved earlier in the US than in Japan, and examined the potential factors that may cause the delay of their launch. Introductions of the 42 drugs in Japan occurred at a median of 87 months after introductions in the US. The mean review time of new drug applications for the 20 drugs introduced in Japan in January 2011 or later (15 months) was significantly shorter than that for the other 22 drugs introduced in Japan in December 2010 or earlier (24 months). The lag in the Japan's review time behind the US could not explain the approval delays. In the 31 of the 42 drugs, the application data package included overseas data. The mean review time of these 31 drugs (17 months) was significantly shorter than that of the other 11 drugs without overseas data (26 months). The mean approval lag behind the US of the 31 drugs (78 months) was also significantly shorter than that of the other 11 drugs (134 months). These results show that several important reforms in the Japanese drug development and approval system (e.g., inclusion of global clinical trial data) have reduced the delays in the clinical development of neurological drugs.

Approval status and evidence for WHO essential medicines for children in the United States, United Kingdom, and Japan: a cross-sectional study

Background

The WHO Model List of Essential Medicines for Children (EMLc) covers medicines for globally high-burden diseases. Regulatory approval in high-income countries ensures evidence and dosage form but usually focuses on diseases common in those countries and not in low- and middle-income countries.

Methods

This cross-sectional study assessed supporting evidence for the 346 medicines in the 5th WHO EMLc and their approval data from the United States, United Kingdom, and Japan.

Results

Of the 346 EMLc medicines, 307 were approved in one or more of the three countries, 278 of which had supporting evidence of efficacy. The percentage of medicines approved in one or more of the three countries was lowest for antiparasitics (60%) whereas 100% for medicines for cancers and musculoskeletal and respiratory conditions were approved. Five of the 30 EMLc antineoplastics had no supporting paediatric evidence. Of the 39 EMLc medicines unapproved in all three countries, 26 were indicated for neglected infectious diseases (NIDs). Ten of the 26 had supporting paediatric evidence. Seventeen of the 39 unapproved medicines had no paediatric dosage form available, and all 17 were indicated for NIDs.

Conclusions

Most EMLc medicines for diseases common in the three countries had supporting evidence, which was closely associated with approval, whereas a substantial number of medicines for NIDs were unapproved in the three countries, regardless of whether they had supporting evidence. Because of the limited contribution to the EMLc from high income countries, appropriate incentive mechanisms for pharmaceutical companies are required to make paediatric development for NIDs feasible and effective.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s40545-016-0094-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement in Japan: For Faster, More Complete Access to New Drugs

BACKGROUND

In Japan, National Health Insurance (NHI) has ensured that all Japanese citizens can use the health services they need for more than 50 years. This paper gives an overview of the Japanese NHI drug price listing scheme and practice, and it also discusses the issue of drug price setting and health insurance system from the viewpoint of better patient access to new drugs as well as the environment for innovative new drug development.

METHODS

For each New Molecular Entity (NME) approved between October 2004 and December 2014, we checked its presence in the list of NHI drug prices as of January 31, 2015, to calculate the NHI coverage rate and the average time between marketing approval and the date of NHI listing.

RESULTS

A total of 304 NMEs were listed in the NHI price list during the study period, and the NHI coverage rate (excepting preventive vaccines) was 97.4%. The average time between marketing authorization and the initiation of reimbursement was 66 days. There were 88 drugs that gained premiums for innovativeness/usefulness.

CONCLUSIONS

From the view of NHI coverage scope and speed, the hurdle to access new drugs in Japan is shown to be lower than in other countries that also set public prices for reimbursement. Although the difficulty of controlling health expenditures increases, drug pricing that properly reflects the drug's clinical value is important in that it also furthers the development of medical technology. Better price setting can also facilitate patient access to innovative drugs.

Japanese Physicians' Views on Drug Post-Marketing Surveillance

BACKGROUND

Registration trials leading to the approval of drugs are paramount in drug development. After approval, continuous efforts are necessary to ensure proper use of the approved drugs. In Japan, post-marketing surveillance (PMS) by drug companies is conducted in accordance with good post-marketing study practice (GPSP). Although the global standard for pharmacovigilance is incorporated into GPSP, attention has recently been focused on disassociating them. In this study, we examined physicians' views on PMS with the aim of conducting PMS more effectively.

METHODS

We retrospectively reviewed records between 2009 and 2013 from the institutional review board of Tokushima University Hospital, an academic hospital in rural Japan. The annual number of times PMS was performed was then determined. Next, we assessed physicians' attitudes toward drug PMS, including ethical issues, in a cross-sectional study using a questionnaire designed for this study. Five- and two-point scales were used. The questionnaire was distributed in 2014 to 221 physicians listed as investigators in PMS contracts.

RESULTS

Of the 221 physicians, 103 (46.6%) responded to the questionnaire. About 50% of the respondents had experience writing PMS reports. Many of the physicians considered PMS to be important but burdensome. Furthermore, from the viewpoint of research ethics, many physicians considered it improper within the present PMS framework to collect and provide data beyond the scope of routine clinical practice without obtaining informed consent in the case of extra blood sampling, provision of images, monitoring and controlled studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Beyond practical factors such as workload, attention should be given to establishing an ethical infrastructure and globally harmonized system with regard to the Japanese PMS system. Given the limitations of this single-institution study, further research is needed to collect information for developing a suitable infrastructure.

Current Status of Single-Agent Phase I Trials in Japan: Toward Globalization

PURPOSE

In Japan, phase I trials, except first-in-human trials, are usually initiated from approximately 50% of the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD) or maximum administered dose (MAD) determined during the initial phase I trials in North America and Europe (the West). However, the key findings of phase I trials in Japan and the West, such as dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) profiles and MTD or MAD levels, have not been compared.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We retrospectively analyzed data for patients enrolled onto single-agent phase I trials at the National Cancer Center Hospital between 1995 and 2012. DLT profiles, MTDs, and MADs of single-agent phase I trials in Japan were compared with those from trials in the West that were obtained from the literature.

RESULTS

A total of 777 patients were enrolled onto 54 single-agent phase I trials, including five first-in-human trials. DLTs were observed in 11.1% of the patients. Importantly, 66.4% of the DLTs were observed within a dose range (80% to 120%) similar to those reported for the trials in the West. The majority of MTDs or MADs could be considered similar between patients, and 80.3% of the drugs had similar MTDs or MADs in the West.

CONCLUSION

The toxicity profiles of single-agent phase I agents determined from trials conducted in Japan were comparable to those obtained from trials in the West. We believe that phase I trials in Japan could be conducted over timelines similar to those in the West, allowing for global or parallel phase I clinical trials.

Recent trends for drug lag in clinical development of oncology drugs in Japan: does the oncology drug lag still exist in Japan?

BACKGROUND

This study exhaustively and historically investigated the status of drug lag for oncology drugs approved in Japan.

METHODS

We comprehensively investigated oncology drugs approved in Japan between April 2001 and July 2014, using publicly available information. We also examined changes in the status of drug lag between Japan and the United States, as well as factors influencing drug lag.

RESULTS

This study included 120 applications for approval of oncology drugs in Japan. The median difference over a 13-year period in the approval date between the United States and Japan was 875 days (29.2 months). This figure peaked in 2002, and showed a tendency to decline gradually each year thereafter. In 2014, the median approval lag was 281 days (9.4 months). Multiple regression analysis identified the following potential factors that reduce drug lag: "Japan's participation in global clinical trials"; "bridging strategies"; "designation of priority review in Japan"; and "molecularly targeted drugs".

CONCLUSIONS

From 2001 to 2014, molecularly targeted drugs emerged as the predominant oncology drug, and the method of development has changed from full development in Japan or bridging strategy to global simultaneous development by Japan's taking part in global clinical trials. In line with these changes, the drug lag between the United States and Japan has significantly reduced to less than 1 year.

A perspective on the benefit-risk assessment for new and emerging pharmaceuticals in Japan

The universal health care system in Japan is facing a historical turning point as a result of the increasing fiscal burden, rapidly aging society, and a decreasing population. To understand the challenges and opportunities in the Japanese pharmaceutical market, which occupies one tenth of the global share, this review highlights several issues related to the benefit-risk assessment that is unique to the modern Japanese society: 1) regulatory system for new drug development; 2) health hazards related to pharmaceuticals ("Yakugai" in Japanese); 3) drug lag; 4) problems and controversies in the vaccination policy; and 5) clinical study misconduct. The regulatory process places a significant importance on Japanese data collection regardless of data accumulation from other countries. Because Yakugai has repeatedly caused tragedies and social disputes historically, the regulatory judgments generally tend to be more prudential when safety concerns are raised for new and emerging pharmaceuticals. Such a regulatory system has caused more than several years of approval delays compared to delays in other countries. The problem of drug lag still lingers on despite several regulatory system revisions, while the solution is incompatible with the elimination of Yakugai because the lag potentially reduces the risk of unpredictable adverse events. The Japanese vaccination policy has also received a lot of criticism, and needs improvements so that the decision-making process can be more transparent and scientifically based. Additionally, repeated clinical study misconduct damaged the reputation of Japanese clinical studies with unnecessary defrayment in health insurance; therefore, the medical community must change its inappropriate relationship with the industry. The problems surrounding pharmaceuticals are related to centralized, strict drug pricing control under the universal health coverage. Although the current government attempts to facilitate innovative research and development of novel therapeutics in Japan, further reforms should be explored for patients who need new and emerging pharmaceuticals.

Fatal adverse drug reactions of anticancer drugs detected by all-case post-marketing surveillance in Japan

OBJECTIVE

All-case post-marketing surveillance of newly approved anticancer drugs is usually conducted on all patients in Japan. The present study investigates whether all-case post-marketing surveillance identifies fatal adverse drug reactions undetected before market entry.

METHODS

We examined fatal adverse drug reactions identified via all-case post-marketing surveillance by reviewing the disclosed post-marketing surveillance results, and determined the time points in which the fatal adverse drug reactions were initially reported by reviewing drug labels. We additionally scanned emergency alerts on the Japanese regulatory authority website to assess the relationship between all-case post-marketing surveillance and regulatory action.

RESULTS

Twenty-five all-case post-marketing surveillances were performed between January 1999 and December 2009. Eight all-case post-marketing surveillances with final results included information on all fatal cases. Of these, the median number of patients was 1287 (range: 106-4998), the median number of fatal adverse drug reactions was 14.5 (range: 4-23). Of the 111 fatal adverse drug reactions detected in the eight post-marketing surveillances, only 28 (25.0%) and 22 (19.6%) were described on the initial global and the initial Japanese drug label, respectively, and 58 (52.3%) fatal adverse drug reactions were first described in the all-case post-marketing surveillance reports. Despite this, the regulatory authority issued only four warning letters, and two of these were prompted by case reports from the all-case post-marketing surveillance.

CONCLUSION

All-case post-marketing surveillance of newly approved anticancer drugs in Japan was useful for the rigorous compilation of non-specific adverse drug reactions, but it rarely detected clinically significant fatal adverse drug reactions.

Regulatory review time for approval of oncology drugs in Japan between 2001 and 2014. Considerations of changes, factors that affect review time, and difference with the United States

In this study, we comprehensively and historically studied the review time of oncology drugs approved by the regulatory authorities in Japan with publicly available information. A total of 120 applications of oncology drugs were approved in Japan between April 2001 and July 2014. The review time peaked with 732.0 days (24.4 months) in 2005, and showed a tendency to decline gradually each year thereafter. After 2012, a significant reduction of the review time was seen in comparison to the median of 13-year median time. In addition, we compared the review time with that in the United States. The median review time lag with the United States was significantly peaked in 2005. After 2005, the review time lag with the FDA has decreased, but lag did not significantly reduce by 2014. We also examined factors influencing the review time in Japan with multiple regression analysis. It was found that the factors related to a use of overseas data and expedited program for accelerating the reviews influenced the direction of shortening the review time. We consider that regulatory authorities in Japan need to keep making efforts to reduce the review time further and eliminate the review time lag with the United States.

Relationship between drug lag and factors associated with clinical trials in Japan

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Drug lag is a major public concern in Japan. During the development of new drugs, some factors related to clinical trials in the marketing application package, such as trial design and the number of trials, can affect drug approval. The aim of this study was to determine whether those clinical trial factors were associated with drug lag in Japan.

METHODS

We investigated new drug applications for new molecular entities that were approved in Japan between April 2009 and March 2012. We collected information on clinical trials in the marketing application package from review reports.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We constructed a multiple regression model to predict drug lag using the review period, use of foreign clinical trial data, the number of confirmatory trials, the design of the pivotal trial, failures of confirmatory trials and the death rate (n = 59). No use of foreign trial data was significantly associated with a longer drug lag (84% increase; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1·03-3·29). Compared to the open-label, one-armed design, drugs that underwent pivotal trials of placebo-controlled superiority, active-controlled superiority and active-controlled non-inferiority designs had a significantly shorter drug lag (74% decrease, 95% CI: 0·08-0·83; 74% decrease, 95% CI: 0·07-0·99; and 85% decrease, 95% CI: 0·04-0·58, respectively).

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Our findings suggest that new drug application packages that do not use data from foreign clinical trials and that involve pivotal trials of open-label, one-armed design contribute to drug lag in Japan. To reduce this lag, improved strategies for the development of new drugs should be identified.

[Pediatric drug development: ICH harmonized tripartite guideline E11 within the United States of America, the European Union, and Japan]

To address the lack of appropriate pediatric drugs available on the global market, in 2000 the International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) issued the ICH E11 guideline regarding the Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products in the Pediatric Population. This guideline considerably changes the environment of drug development for children. It has been written specifically to harmonize, promote, and facilitate high-quality and ethical clinical research for children within the ICH regions, i.e., the United States of America (USA), the European Union (EU), and Japan. This article details the various regulations applicable in each ICH region following the publication of the guideline. The framework of rewards, incentives, and obligations for pharmaceutical companies established for the development of pediatric drugs are compared. It appears that the USA and the EU have both developed specific regulations for pediatric drug development while Japan has not. However, in Japan, pharmaceutical companies (PCs) are encouraged to develop pediatric drugs voluntarily, and they may be granted additional months of market exclusivity or the postponement of the drug re-examination deadline. In both the USA and the EU, regulations aimed to increase the number of clinical studies conducted in children, in order to ensure that the necessary data are generated, determining the conditions in which a drug may be authorized to treat the pediatric population. PCs are encouraged to develop pediatric assessment, including pediatric clinical trials, which is described in a pediatric plan submitted to the relevant authorities. A system of rewards for PCs submitting an application for marketing authorization containing pediatric use information has been put in place to cover the additional investment for testing drugs in children. Subject to conditions, these rewards consist in a 6-month extension of the patent or supplementary protection. Regarding the approval for new medicinal products in these two regions, regulations require PCs to include, when it is relevant, a pediatric assessment in their drug research and development plan, which must be approved. Although these regions have implemented the ICH guideline, the regulation differs with respect to the timing of studies in children relative to adults and approval of a pediatric drug development plan. Except for special cases, the pediatric investigation plan in the EU is required to be prepared and submitted to the competent authorities upon availability of adult pharmacokinetic studies (after phase I), which means at an early phase of a new drug development plan. In the USA, the pediatric plan is requested later during the phase II or III trials. In practice, it has become difficult for pharmaceutical industries to develop a practicable clinical program for pediatrics including timelines for studies in children that satisfy both EU and USA authorities. Nevertheless, at an early stage of the development strategy, direct support and advice from competent authorities can be obtained. For the ICH regions, pediatric committees are well-established albeit less structured in Japan. Their roles are to review and assess pediatric plans, to issue recommendations, to advise pharmaceutical companies on the content and format of pediatric data to be methodically collected and analyzed, and to avoid exposing children to unnecessary or redundant clinical trials. This regulatory framework encourages the study and the development of pediatric drugs, but it is still quite difficult to actually measure the impact of the ICH E11 on increasing the number of drugs for pediatric use.

Japanese regulatory system for approval of off-label drug use: evaluation of safety and effectiveness in literature-based applications

BACKGROUND

Although approved elsewhere, many drug indications remain unapproved in Japan. Many of these unapproved indications are off-label, which, despite strong supporting evidence, are not covered by the Japanese health insurance system. To address this situation, the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan announced in 1999 that, under certain conditions, it would approve a new supplement for a drug indication without clinical trials. This approval scheme involved application evaluation using literature-based evidence; however, the type of indications and the kind of evidence used in practical applications remain to be clarified.

OBJECTIVE

This commentary sought to investigate the factors that contribute to the approval of individual applications through an analysis of review reports and to assess the outcome of efforts to facilitate the approval of off-label drugs by this approval system that has been used for over a decade in Japan.

METHODS

Data from 80 approvals granted under this scheme were obtained from the official review reports of the Japanese regulatory agency. The following criteria were selected for the analysis of individual applications: review time, therapeutic class, application category under Japanese regulations, international approval status, postapproval monitoring plan, and variety and quantity of literature evidence. The literature used as a source of evidence was categorized into 4 types: (I) standard textbooks, (II) standard guidelines, (III) reviews, and (IV) application dossier submitted to the foreign regulatory authorities.

RESULTS

The number of approvals and applications per year showed no consistent trend. The median (SD) review time was 16.4 (9.0) months, which was not affected by the international approval status or the literature evidence. This approval scheme was applied to not only a new indication (56 applications [70%]) or dosage (9 [11%]) but also a new route of administration (13 [16%]). Of the 80 applications, 46 (58%) had been approved in the United States, the United Kingdom, or both; 11 (14%), in other countries; and 23 (29%), in no country. For 2 approvals, the review reports were not released; the other 78 were based on either standard textbooks or guidelines, while 67 (84%) were based on both. The variety and quantity of literature evidence provided in the application showed no consistent trend with respect to international approval status.

CONCLUSIONS

Prior approval by foreign authorities, although important, did not appear to be essential for approval in Japan. However, substantiating safety and effectiveness of agents by means of standard textbooks or guidelines was used consistently to obtain approval for off-label use.

Analysis of regulatory review times of new drugs in Japan: association with characteristics of new drug applications, regulatory agency, and pharmaceutical companies

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Various factors have been reported to be associated with the duration of regulatory review of new drug applications (NDAs). We investigated potential links between the review times in Japan and the attributes of NDAs, the regulatory agency and pharmaceutical companies.

METHODS

We analysed new drugs approved in 2000-2009 in Japan using a proprietary database collected through annual surveys to pharmaceutical companies. Regression models in which individual firms were treated as either a fixed effect or a random effect were applied to examine factors associated with the overall review time and the duration of each step of the review.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The fixed effect model analysis using variations within each firm indicated that new molecular entities that were submitted to the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), priority reviews and pre-NDA consultations were associated with a shorter overall review time, whereas additional studies during the review resulted in a longer review. In the random effect model analysis using both within- and between-firm variations, use of end-of-phase 2 consultations and foreign clinical data also had negative coefficients, suggesting the effect of these two vary among firms. Analysis of each step of the review process revealed NDAs reviewed by the Committee on Drugs under the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, and the number of NDAs assigned to a review team were significantly linked with their duration, whereas consultation services and the number of reviewers had no relation.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Factors associated with each step of the review process as well as the differences in attributes and strategies among pharmaceutical companies should be considered to further improve the speed, quality and efficiency of the regulatory review.

Anticancer drug development from traditional cytotoxic to targeted therapies: evidence of shorter drug research and development time, and shorter drug lag in Japan

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

Concern about the drug lag, the delay in marketing approval between one country and another, for anticancer drugs has increased in Japan. Although a number of studies have investigated the drug lag, none has investigated it in relation to the transition of anticancer therapy from traditional cytotoxic drugs to molecularly targeted agents. Our aim was to investigate current trend in oncology drug lag between the US and Japan and identify oncology drugs approved in only one of the two countries.

METHODS

Publicly and commercially available data sources were used to identify drugs approved in the US and Japan as of 31 December 2010 and the data used to calculate the drug lag for individual drugs.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Fifty-one drugs were approved in both the US and Japan, whereas 34 and 19 drugs were approved only in the US or Japan, respectively. Of the 19 drugs approved only in Japan, 12 had not been subject to development for a cancer indication in the US, and all were approved before 1996 in Japan. Of the 34 drugs approved only in the US, 20 had not been subject to development in Japan, and none was in the top 25 by annual US anticancer drug-class sales. For drugs approved in both countries, the mean approval lag of the molecularly targeted drugs (MTDs) was significantly shorter than that of the non-molecularly targeted drugs (non-MTDs) (3·3 vs. 5·4 years). Further, mean R&D time of the MTDs was significantly shorter than that of non-MTDs (10·0 vs. 13·7 years). The price of MTDs had increased on average by 6·6% annually in the US, whereas it had decreased on average by 4·3% biyearly in Japan.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

The emergence of new molecularly targeted agents has contributed to reducing the approval lag, most likely due to improvements in R&D strategy.

Delays in psychiatric drug development in Japan

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

The lag in the approval and development of psychiatric drugs between Japan and other countries has been a major issue both for patients with psychiatric diseases and for psychiatrists. The objective of this study was to analyse factors contributing to delays in launching new psychiatric drugs in Japan.

METHODS

We analysed data from Japan, the USA, and the UK for the approval of 23 standard psychiatric drugs and examined potential factors that might have contributed the delay of their launch.

RESULTS

Of the 23 standard psychiatric drugs, all of which were approved in the USA and the UK, only 13 were introduced in Japan between September 2000 and July 2011. None of their development strategies adopted the ICH E5 guideline on simultaneous development of drugs on a global scale. Twelve of the 13 drugs (not including atomoxetine) were approved in Japan after their approval in the USA and the UK. The median review time (from approval application to approval) of these 13 drugs in Japan was 23 months, which was considerably longer than those of the US Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency (10·0 and 13·5 months, respectively). The 10-13-month difference in review time cannot explain the overall 87- and 51-month delay in Japan after approval in the USA or UK.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

There remains a large gap between Japan and Western countries, such as the USA and the UK, with regard to access to standard psychiatric drugs, despite several important reforms in the Japanese drug approval system.

Delays in neurological drug development in Japan

OBJECTIVE

The lag in the approval and development of neurological drugs between Japan and other countries has been a major issue for patients with neurological diseases. The objective of this study was to analyze the factors contributing to the delay in the launching of neurological drugs in Japan.

METHODS

We analyzed data from Japan and the US for the approval of 36 standard neurological drugs and examined the potential factors that may cause the delay of their launch.

RESULTS

Of the 36 standard neurological drugs, all of which were approved in the US, only 21 were introduced in Japan from June 1999 to April 2010, whereas the other 15, whose indications were Alzheimer disease, epilepsy, migraine, multiple sclerosis, and Parkinson disease, remained unapproved. The US led Japan in the number of introductions (20 versus 1), with introductions in Japan occurring at a median of 87 months after introductions in the US. Japan's review time of new drug applications (23 months) could not explain this lag. In 15 of the 21 approved drugs, the application data package included overseas data. The mean review time of these 15 drugs was significantly shorter than that of the other 6 drugs without overseas data. The maximum daily doses of 7 of the drugs were higher in the US than in Japan.

CONCLUSION

These results show that there is still a large gap between Japan and the US with regard to access to standard neurological drugs, despite several important reforms in the Japanese drug approval system.