Unpublished trials of alprazolam XR and their influence on its apparent efficacy for panic disorder

OBJECTIVE

To test for publication bias with alprazolam, the most widely prescribed benzodiazepine, by comparing its efficacy for panic disorder using trial results from (1) the published literature and (2) the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

METHODS

From FDA reviews, we included data from all phase 2/3 efficacy trials of alprazolam extended-release (Xanax XR) for the treatment of panic disorder. A search for matching publications was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar. Publication bias was examined by comparing: (1) overall trial results (positive or not) according to the FDA v. corresponding publications; (2) effect size (Hedges's g) based on FDA data v. published data.

RESULTS

The FDA review showed that five trials were conducted, only one of which (20%) was positive. Of the four not-positive trials, two were published conveying a positive outcome; the other two were not published. Thus, according to the published literature, three trials were conducted and all (100%) were positive. Alprazolam's effect size calculated using FDA data was 0.33 (CI95% 0.07-0.60) v. 0.47 (CI95% 0.30-0.65) using published data, an increase of 0.14, or 42%.

CONCLUSIONS

Publication bias substantially inflates the apparent efficacy of alprazolam XR.

New systemic treatment paradigms in resectable non-small cell lung cancer and variations in patient access across Europe

The treatment landscape of resectable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is set to change significantly due to encouraging results from randomized trials evaluating neoadjuvant and adjuvant immunotherapy, as well as adjuvant targeted therapy. As of January 2024, marketing authorization has been granted for four new indications in Europe, and regulatory approvals for other study regimens are expected. Because cost-effectiveness and reimbursement criteria for novel treatments often differ between European countries, access to emerging developments may lead to inequalities due to variations in recommended and available lung cancer care throughout Europe. This Series paper (i) highlights the clinical studies reshaping the treatment landscape in resectable early-stage NSCLC, (ii) compares and contrasts approaches taken by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for drug approval to that taken by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and (iii) evaluates the differences in access to emerging treatments from an availability perspective across European countries.

Challenges and controversies in resectable non-small cell lung cancer: a clinician's perspective

The treatment landscape of resectable early-stage non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is transforming due to the approval of novel adjuvant and neoadjuvant systemic treatments. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) recently approved adjuvant osimertinib, adjuvant atezolizumab, adjuvant pembrolizumab, and neoadjuvant nivolumab combined with chemotherapy, and the approval of other agents or new indications may follow soon. Despite encouraging results, many unaddressed questions remain. Moreover, the transformed treatment paradigm in resectable NSCLC can pose major challenges to healthcare systems and magnify existing disparities in care as differences in reimbursement may vary across different European countries. This Viewpoint discusses the challenges and controversies in resectable early-stage NSCLC and how existing inequalities in access to these treatments could be addressed.

Decisions on Non-oncology Breakthrough Therapy Designation Requests in 2017-2019

BACKGROUND

The US Food and Drug Administration's Breakthrough Therapy Designation (BTD) program is intended to facilitate and expedite development of investigational drugs to address unmet medical needs. The objective of this study is to provide an update on FDA's process for review of BTD requests.

METHODS

We reviewed Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) decisions to grant or deny breakthrough therapy designation requests for non-oncology drugs or biological products ("drugs") from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2019. Data collection included characteristics of the corresponding drug and condition, reasons for granting or denying breakthrough therapy status, reasons for rescinding or withdrawing breakthrough therapy status after a request was granted (if applicable), and subsequent marketing approval status through 2022.

RESULTS

Among 240 requests, 93 (39%) requests were granted and 147 (61%) requests were denied. Granting of requests was more common for conditions where no therapy was available or for orphan diseases. Common reasons for denial included data-related issues, insufficient treatment effect, inadequate study design, endpoint attributes, safety issues, and reliance on post hoc analyses. Among 28 drugs receiving marketing approval as of the end of 2022 for the indication for which BTD was previously granted, 21 (75%) involved a first-in-class mechanism of action.

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis describes CDER's decision-making process related to review of requests for breakthrough therapy designations and enhances public awareness regarding efforts to expedite drug development.

Guidelines for pharmacotherapy in Alzheimer's disease - A primer on FDA-approved drugs

The growing prevalence of dementia makes it important for us to better understand its pathophysiology and treatment modalities, to improve the quality of life of patients and caregivers. Alzheimer's disease (AD), a neurodegenerative disease, is the most common form of amnestic dementia in the geriatric population. Pathophysiology of AD is widely attributed to aggregation of amyloid-beta (Aβ) plaques and hyperphosphorylation of tau proteins. Initial treatment modalities aimed to increase brain perfusion in a non-specific manner. Subsequent therapy focused on rectifying neurotransmitter imbalance in the brain. Newer drugs modify the progression of the disease by acting against aggregated Aβ plaques. However, not all drugs used in therapy of AD have been granted approval by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This review categorizes and summarizes the FDA-approved drugs in the treatment of AD in a manner that would make it a convenient reference for researchers and practicing physicians alike. Drugs that mitigate symptoms of dementia may be categorized into mitigators of Behavioral and Psychological Symptoms of Dementia (BPSD), and mitigators of cognitive decline. BPSD mitigators include brexpiprazole, an atypical antipsychotic with a once-daily dosage suited to treat agitation in dementia patients, and suvorexant, an orexin receptor antagonist used to treat sleep disturbances. Cognitive decline mitigators include cholinesterase inhibitors such as donepezil, rivastigmine, and galantamine and glutamate inhibitors such as memantine. Donepezil is the most commonly prescribed drug. It is cheap, well-tolerated, and may be prescribed orally once daily, or as a transdermal patch once weekly. It increases ACh levels, enhances oligodendrocyte differentiation and also protects against Aβ toxicity. However, regular cardiac monitoring is required due to reports of cardiac conduction side effects. Rivastigmine requires a twice-daily oral dosage or once-daily replacement of transdermal patch. It has fewer cardiac side effects than donepezil, but local application-site reactions have been noted. Galantamine, in addition to improving cognitive symptoms in a short span of time, also delays the development of BPSDs and has minimal drug-drug interactions by virtue of having multiple metabolic pathways. However, cardiac conduction disturbances must be closely monitored for. Memantine, a glutamate regulator, acts as an anti-Parkinsonian agent and an antidepressant, in addition to improving cognition and neuroprotection, and requires a once-daily dosage in the form of immediate-release or sustained-release oral tablets. Disease-modifying drugs such as aducanumab and lecanemab reduce the Aβ burden. Both act by binding with fibrillary conformations of Aβ plaques in the brain. These drugs have a risk of causing amyloid-related imaging abnormalities, especially in persons with ApoE4 gene. Aducanumab is administered once every 4 weeks and lecanemab once every 2 weeks. The decision on the choice of the drug must be made after considering the availability of drug, compliance of patient (once-daily vs. multiple doses daily), cost, specific comorbidities, and the risk-benefit ratio for the particular patient. Other non-pharmacological treatment modalities must also be adopted to have a holistic approach toward the treatment of AD.

European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing-Recommended Rapid Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus From Positive Blood Culture Bottles

Background

Early diagnosis and treatment are important for a good prognosis of bloodstream infections. The European Committee on Antimicrobial Susceptibility Testing (EUCAST) recommends rapid antimicrobial susceptibility testing (RAST) based on the disk diffusion methodology for 4, 6, and 8 hours of incubation. We evaluated EUCAST-RAST of Escherichia coli, Klebsiella pneumoniae, and Staphylococcus aureus from positive blood culture bottles.

Methods

Twenty strains of E. coli, K. pneumoniae, and S. aureus were tested using EUCAST-RAST. Ten antimicrobial agents against E. coli and K. pneumoniae and four agents against S. aureus were tested. The diameter of the inhibition zone (mm) was compared with the minimal inhibitory concentration (μg/mL) obtained using the Sensititre AST system (TREK Diagnostic Systems, East Grinstead, UK).

Results

For E. coli, the percentage of total categorical agreement (CA) was 69.5% at 4 hours, and 87% at 8 hours. For K. pneumoniae, the total CA was 89% at 4 hours, and 95.5% at 6 hours. For S. aureus, the total CA was 100% after 4 hours. Discrepancies were observed mainly for E. coli with β-lactam antimicrobial agents, and the numbers of errors decreased over time.

Conclusions

EUCAST-RAST for K. pneumoniae and S. aureus met the United States Food and Drug Administration criteria at 6 and 4 hours, respectively, whereas that for E. coli did not meet the criteria for up to 8 hours. RAST can shorten the turn-around testing time by more than one day; therefore, if applied accurately according to laboratory conditions, antimicrobial agent results can be reported faster.

United States Food and Drug Administration Regulation of Human Cells, Tissues, and Gene Therapies

Research and development of gene therapies and cell- or tissue-based therapies has experienced exponential growth in recent decades and the potential for these products to treat diverse, often rare, clinical indications is promising. The Office of Therapeutic Products (OTP) in the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) at the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) is responsible for the regulation of these products, among others, throughout the entire product lifecycle. This chapter provides an overview of the science- and data-driven approach to US FDA regulatory oversight of cell and gene therapy (CGT) products to ensure their safety and efficacy.

Pharmacists' Knowledge and Perceptions of FDA Approval Standards and the Breakthrough Therapy Designation

The “breakthrough therapy” designation (BTD) is a recent mechanism implemented by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to expedite access to drugs that address unmet needs. The purpose of this study is to describe pharmacists’ knowledge of FDA drug-approval standards and knowledge and perceptions of the BTD. Pharmacists engaged in advanced clinical practice were identified through membership profiles of a professional pharmacy organization. Eligible participants were then sent a questionnaire to assess knowledge of FDA approval standards and the BTD. A total of 226 pharmacists responded. The majority of respondents were women (70.2%) and had completed post-graduate training (85.8%). Over half correctly answered at least two of three questions on FDA approval standards (58.1%) and the BTD (78.1%). Only 24.1% of respondents identified as being familiar with the BTD. The majority of pharmacists (62.8%) were certain that FDA-approved “breakthrough” drugs represented a major advance over currently approved therapies and most (88.5%) preferred the drug designated as “breakthrough” in a hypothetical scenario. In conclusion, pharmacists were able to correctly answer questions about FDA approval standards and the BTD. However, they were unfamiliar with the implications of a BTD and may overestimate the benefit demonstrated by these drugs. Future research should identify knowledge gaps in pharmacist understanding of regulatory mechanisms designed to expedite drug approval.

A Call for Regulatory Clarity: "Switch" and "Quit Smoking" Marketing among Online Disposable E-Cigarette Sellers

FDA generally regulates products containing nicotine under its tobacco authorities, unless those products are intended for smoking cessation—in which case, they are regulated as drugs that must be FDA-approved as safe and effective. Accordingly, for e-cigarettes, questions arise about where the line is between a tobacco product intended merely for recreational use and a drug product intended for smoking cessation. Against this background, this Research Letter describes a content analysis of certain claims made by 28 online e-cigarette retailers and argues that our findings suggest a need for additional regulatory clarity about when e-cigarettes are appropriately regulated as smoking cessation drug-delivery devices rather than tobacco products.

A review of patient-reported outcome assessments in registration trials of FDA-approved new oncology drugs (2014-2018)

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) encourages the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology clinical trials. A 2015 review showed that approximately 26% of industry-sponsored oncology trials included assessment of PROs. However, the proportion of recent trials that supported new oncology drug approvals and assessed PROs is unknown. This review found that assessment of PROs was included in about 75% of registration trials that supported 55 new FDA drug approvals during 2014-2018. Patient-reported outcome assessment was included more in randomized controlled trials than in open-label trials (88% vs. 69%, respectively) and more in phase 3 than in phase 2 trials (89% vs. 66%, respectively).

BERT-Based Natural Language Processing of Drug Labeling Documents: A Case Study for Classifying Drug-Induced Liver Injury Risk

Background & Aims: The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates a broad range of consumer products, which account for about 25% of the United States market. The FDA regulatory activities often involve producing and reading of a large number of documents, which is time consuming and labor intensive. To support regulatory science at FDA, we evaluated artificial intelligence (AI)-based natural language processing (NLP) of regulatory documents for text classification and compared deep learning-based models with a conventional keywords-based model.

Methods: FDA drug labeling documents were used as a representative regulatory data source to classify drug-induced liver injury (DILI) risk by employing the state-of-the-art language model BERT. The resulting NLP-DILI classification model was statistically validated with both internal and external validation procedures and applied to the labeling data from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for cross-agency application.

Results: The NLP-DILI model developed using FDA labeling documents and evaluated by cross-validations in this study showed remarkable performance in DILI classification with a recall of 1 and a precision of 0.78. When cross-agency data were used to validate the model, the performance remained comparable, demonstrating that the model was portable across agencies. Results also suggested that the model was able to capture the semantic meanings of sentences in drug labeling.

Conclusion: Deep learning-based NLP models performed well in DILI classification of drug labeling documents and learned the meanings of complex text in drug labeling. This proof-of-concept work demonstrated that using AI technologies to assist regulatory activities is a promising approach to modernize and advance regulatory science.

Registration, publication, and outcome reporting among pivotal clinical trials that supported FDA approval of high-risk cardiovascular devices before and after FDAAA

Background

Selective registration, publication, and outcome reporting of clinical trials distort the primary clinical evidence that is available to patients and clinicians regarding the safety and efficacy of US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved medical devices. The purpose of this study is to compare registration, publication, and outcome reporting among pivotal clinical trials that supported FDA approval of high-risk (class III) cardiovascular devices before and after the FDA Amendment Act (FDAAA) was enacted in 2007.

Methods

Using publicly available data from ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA summaries, and PubMed, we determined registration, publication, and reporting of findings for all pivotal clinical studies supporting FDA approval of new high-risk cardiovascular devices between 2005 and 2020, before and after FDAAA. For published studies, we compared both the primary efficacy outcome with the FDA’s Premarket Approval (PMA) primary efficacy outcome and the published interpretation of findings with the FDA reviewer’s interpretation (positive, equivocal, or negative).

Results

Between 2005 and 2020, the FDA approved 156 high-risk cardiovascular devices on the basis of 165 pivotal trials, 48 (29%) of which were categorized as pre-FDAAA and 117 (71%) as post-FDAAA. Post-FDAAA, pivotal clinical trials were more likely to be registered (115 of 117 (98%) vs 24 of 48 (50%); p < 0.001), to report results (98 of 117 (87%) vs 7 of 48 (15%); p < 0.001) on ClinicalTrials.gov, and to be published (100 or 117 (85%) vs 28 of 48 (58%); p < 0.001) in peer-reviewed literature when compared to pre-FDAAA. Among published trials, rates of concordant primary efficacy outcome reporting were not significantly different between pre-FDAAA trials and post-FDAAA trials (24 of 28 (86%) vs 96 of 100 (96%); p = 0.07), nor were rates of concordant trial interpretation (27 of 28 (96%) vs 93 of 100 (93%); p = 0.44).

Conclusions

FDAAA was associated with increased registration, result reporting, and publication for trials supporting FDA approval of high-risk medical devices. Among published trials, rates of accurate primary efficacy outcome reporting and trial interpretation were high and no different post-FDAAA.

Pediatric contrast-enhanced ultrasound: shedding light on the pursuit of approval in the United States

For two decades, pediatric contrast US has been well accepted throughout Europe and other parts of the world outside the United States because of its high diagnostic efficacy and extremely favorable safety profile. This includes intravenous (IV) administration, contrast-enhanced US (CEUS) and the intravesical application, contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography (ceVUS). However, the breakthrough for pediatric contrast US in the United States did not come until 2016, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first pediatric indication for a US contrast agent. This initial approval covered the use of Lumason (Bracco Diagnostics, Monroe Township, NJ) for the evaluation of focal liver lesions via IV administration in children. A second pediatric indication followed shortly thereafter, when the FDA extended the use of Lumason for assessing known or suspected vesicoureteral reflux via intravesical application in children. Both initial pediatric approvals were granted without prospective pediatric clinical trials, based instead on published literature describing favorable safety and efficacy in children. Three years later, in 2019, the FDA approved Lumason for pediatric echocardiography following a clinical trial involving a total of 12 subjects at 2 sites. The story of how we achieved these FDA approvals spans more than a decade and involves the extraordinary dedication of two professional societies, namely the International Contrast Ultrasound Society (ICUS) and the Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR). Credit also must be given to the FDA staff for their commitment to the welfare of children and their openness to compelling evidence that contrast US is a safe, reliable, radiation-free imaging option for our pediatric patients. Understanding the history of this approval process will impact the practical application of US contrast agents, particularly when expanding off-label indications in the pediatric population. This article describes the background of the FDA's approval of pediatric contrast US applications to better illuminate the potential pathways to approvals of future indications.

Changes to cigarette packaging influence US consumers' choices: Results of two discrete-choice experiments to inform regulation

INTRODUCTION

While plain packaging of tobacco products has emerged as a policy intervention to reduce smoking, regulators in the US have limited ability to implement plain packaging. We sought to identify the impact of subtle changes to cigarette packaging (Study 1) and how packaging design influenced participant choices based on appeal, harm, and style (Study 2).

METHODS

We conducted two discrete-choice experiments with US adult smokers online in 2018. In Study 1 (n=285), we assessed participants’ selections based on subtle changes to pack design features (dimensions, color saturation, logo size). In Study 2 (n=284), we assessed three choices in which participants selected packs based on appeal, harmfulness, and best match to their personal style. Study 2 packs varied by color hue, design with different levels of organic labeling and natural imagery, and color saturation.

RESULTS

Pack designs influenced smokers’ choices. In Study 1, pack dimensions and color saturation emerged as the most important features, and, in Study 2, design and color hue were the most influential characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

Regulators should consider how the design of cigarette packages may influence consumers’ perceptions and choices.

A pharmacist-driven Food and Drug Administration incident surveillance and response program for compounded drugs

PURPOSE

To provide an overview of compounding under sections 503A and 503B of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, and to describe the pharmacist's role within the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) Compounding Incidents Program, whose efforts are aimed at protecting the public against poor-quality compounded drugs through surveillance, review and response to adverse events and complaints.

SUMMARY

Compounded drugs may serve an important medical need for patients who cannot be treated with medications approved by FDA; however, compounded drugs are not approved by FDA and are not subject to premarket review for safety, efficacy, or manufacturing quality; thus, they may pose safety risks to patients. Prompt reporting of adverse events or complaints related to compounding is important in identifying these risks and implementing safeguards to protect the public. FDA's Compounding Incidents Program consists of a team of pharmacists dedicated to the surveillance and review of adverse events and complaints and follow-up actions related to safety risks associated with compounded drugs. Pharmacists are a vital component of FDA's Compounding Incidents Program, utilizing their clinical skill set and regulatory knowledge to review and act on safety issues that affect public health.

CONCLUSION

As FDA continues to expand the Compounding Incidents Program and its efforts to protect the public against poor-quality compounded drugs, we encourage the continued submission of adverse event reports by healthcare professionals and consumers to FDA's MedWatch reporting system in addition to adverse event reporting compliance by outsourcing facilities.

Regulatory reliance to approve new medicinal products in Latin American and Caribbean countries

Objective.

To describe the current status of regulatory reliance in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) by assessing the countries’ regulatory frameworks to approve new medicines, and to ascertain, for each country, which foreign regulators are considered as trusted regulatory authorities to rely on.

Methods.

Websites from LAC regulators were searched to identify the official regulations to approve new drugs. Data collection was carried out in December 2019 and completed in June 2020 for the Caribbean countries. Two independent teams collected information regarding direct recognition or abbreviated processes to approve new drugs and the reference (trusted) regulators defined as such by the corresponding national legislation.

Results.

Regulatory documents regarding marketing authorization were found in 20 LAC regulators’ websites, covering 34 countries. Seven countries do not accept reliance on foreign regulators. Thirteen regulatory authorities (Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and the unique Caribbean Regulatory System for 15 Caribbean States) explicitly accept relying on marketing authorizations issued by the European Medicines Agency, United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada. Ten countries rely also on marketing authorizations from Australia, Japan, and Switzerland. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico are reference authorities for eight LAC regulators.

Conclusions.

Regulatory reliance has become a common practice in the LAC region. Thirteen out of 20 regulators directly recognize or abbreviate the marketing authorization process in case of earlier approval by a regulator from another jurisdiction. The regulators most relied upon are the European Medicines Agency, United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada.

Comparison of regulatory pathways for the approval of advanced therapies in the European Union and the United States

BACKGROUND AIMS

Regulatory agencies in the European Union (EU) and in the United States of America (USA) have adapted and launched regulatory pathways to accelerate patient access to innovative therapies, such as advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs). The aim of this study is to analyze similarities and differences between regulatory pathways followed by the approved ATMPs in both regions.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of the ATMPs approved by EU and US regulatory agencies was carried out until May 31, 2020. Data were collected on the features and timing of orphan drug designation (ODD), scientific advice (SA), expedited program designation (EP), marketing authorization application (MAA) and marketing authorization (MA) for both regions.

RESULTS

In the EU, a total of fifteen ATMPs were approved (eight gene therapies, three somatic cell therapies, three tissue-engineered products and one combined ATMP), whereas in the USA, a total of nine were approved (five gene therapies and four cell therapies); seven of these were authorized in both regions. No statistical differences were found in the mean time between having the ODD or EP granted and the start of the pivotal clinical trial or MAA in the EU and USA, although the USA required less time for MAA assessment than the EU (mean difference, 5.44, P = 0.012). The MAA assessment was shorter for those products with a PRIME or breakthrough designation.. No differences were found in the percentage of ATMPs with expedited MAA assessment between the EU and the USA (33.3% versus 55.5%, respectively, P = 0.285) or in the time required for the MAA expedited review (mean difference 4.41, P = 0.105). Approximately half of the products in both regions required an Advisory Committee during the MAA review, and 60% required an oral explanation in the EU. More than half of the approved ATMPs (67% and 55.55% in the EU and the USA, respectively) were granted an ODD, 70% by submitting preliminary clinical data in the EU. The mean number of SA and protocol assistance per product conducted by the European Medicines Agency was 1.71 and 3.75, respectively, and only 13% included parallel advice with health technology assessment bodies. A total of 53.33% of the products conducted the first SA after the pivotal clinical study had started, reporting more protocol amendments. Finally, of the seven ATMPs authorized in both regions, the type of MA differed for only two ATMPs (28.6%), and four out of eight products non-commercialized in the USA had a non-standard MA in the EU.

CONCLUSIONS

The current approved ATMPs mainly target orphan diseases. Although EU and US regulatory procedures may differ, the main regulatory milestones reached by the approved ATMPs are similar in both regions, with the exception of the time for MAA evaluation, the number of authorized products in the regions and the type of authorization for some products. More global regulatory convergence might further simplify and expedite current ATMP development in these regions.

An evaluation of drug lag for new drugs approved by the Indian regulator relative to the United States, European Union, and Japanese regulatory agencies: A 15-year analysis (2004-2018)

Background:

The approval process of every drug regulatory agency differs, and hence, the time required for the approval of a new drug varies. This results in a drug lag and India is no exception to this phenomenon. A drug lag precludes Indian patients from accessing new medicines at the same time as they are approved elsewhere. Against this backdrop, we assessed the absolute and relative drug lags of the Indian regulator relative to three regulators in mature markets, namely United States (US), European Union (EU), and Japan.

Methods:

International nonproprietary names were used to identify new drugs. Their dates of approval (2004-2018) from the online database of four regulatory agencies were identified. Both absolute and relative drug lags were calculated for India as compared to US, EU, and Japan as well for all the agencies relative to the Indian regulator.

Results:

We identified a total of 453, 473, 424, and 472 new drugs approved over the study period in India, US, EU, and Japan, respectively. The absolute drug lag of Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO) was 19 and 18 relative to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Japan Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), respectively. The relative drug lag for the CDSCO vis-a-vis the US FDA, European Medicines Agency, and PMDA was 43.2 (2.1–1287.8), 25.6 (0.03–1310.5), and 30.3 (1.2–1242) months, respectively.

Conclusion:

Our study shows a significant drug lag between India and other three developed nations (US, EU, and Japan). However, in some therapeutic areas, Indian regulator has proactively approved new drugs much before other agencies. The New Drugs and Clinical Trials Rule of 2019 has brought hope for reduction in drug lag in the near future.

Pharmacogenomic information from CPIC and DPWG guidelines and its application on drug labels

There are several hurdles to overcome before implementing pharmacogenomics (PGx) in precision medicine. One of the hurdles is unawareness of PGx by clinicians due to insufficient pharmacogenomic information on drug labels. Therefore, it might be important to implement PGx that reflects pharmacogenomic information on drug labels, standard of prescription for clinicians. This study aimed to evaluate the level at which PGx was being used in clinical practice by comparing the Clinical Pharmacogenetics Implementation Consortium and Dutch Pharmacogenetics Working Group guidelines and drug labels of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Korea Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS). Two PGx guidelines and drugs labels were scrutinized, and the concordance of the pharmacogenomic information between guidelines and drug labels was confirmed. The concordance of the label between FDA and MFDS was analyzed. In FDA labels, the number of concordant drug with guidelines was 24, while 13 drugs were concordant with MFDS labels. The number of drugs categorized as contraindication, change dose, and biomarker testing required was 7, 12 and 12 for the FDA and 8, 5 and 4 for the MFDS, respectively. The pharmacogenomic information of 9 drugs approved by both FDA and MFDS was identical. In conclusion, pharmacogenomic information on clinical implementation guidelines was limited on both FDA and MFDS labels because of various reasons including the characteristics of the guidelines and the drug labels. Therefore, more effort from pharmaceutical companies, academia and regulatory affairs needs to be made to implement pharmacogenomic information on drug labels.

Assessment of handwritten prescriptions from Saudi Arabia according to international guidelines

Objective:

Prescription dispensing services are not digitalized in the majority of governmental hospitals and private clinics in Saudi Arabia, which makes them prone to error. We aimed to evaluate handwritten prescriptions in a region in Saudi Arabia for consistency and accuracy according to international guidelines.

Methods:

A sample of handwritten prescriptions (dated 2016 or 2017) from selected pharmacies in the Al-Qassim region (n = 556) were evaluated for missing information on items related to prescriber, patient, and medication according to the World Health Organization and Food and Drug Administration guidelines.

Results:

We found that the prescriber’s name and contact information were missing in two-thirds of the prescriptions (66%). Patients’ addresses were always missing (100%). No prescription contained medication warnings; a majority lacked information on mode of administration (68%) and methods to avoid refilling (66%).

Conclusion:

Saudi Arabia should take a multipronged approach, including digitalization of prescription dispensing services, in both public and private health care facilities in order to reduce prescription errors.

The Integrated Review: FDA Modernizes the Review of New Drug Marketing Applications

New Drug Applications and Biologics Licensing Applications submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are reviewed by an interdisciplinary team of regulatory scientists that includes medical officers, clinical pharmacologists, toxicologists, statisticians, and drug labeling experts. Upon review of an applicant's submitted evidence from nonclinical studies, clinical trials, and manufacturing capabilities, the review team evaluates the benefits and risks of the drug and makes a scientifically-informed decision. As part of a multi-year, multi-phase New Drugs Regulatory Program Modernization effort, the FDA has recently redesigned how it reviews and documents its decisions with regard to marketing applications. This article describes the origins and rationale of the new Integrated Assessment process and Integrated Review document, summarizes how these differ from the FDA's traditional review of marketing applications, and discusses what industry can expect from a modernized drug review.

Toward Patient-Centered Innovation: A Conceptual Framework for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Transformative Kidney Replacement Devices

Individuals with dialysis-dependent kidney failure experience considerable disease- and treatment-related decline in functional status and overall well-being. Despite these experiences, there have been few substantive technological advances in KRT in decades. As such, new federal initiatives seek to accelerate innovation. Historically, integration of patient perspectives into KRT product development has been limited. However, the US Food and Drug Administration recognizes the importance of incorporating patient perspectives into the total product life cycle (i.e., from product conception to postmarket surveillance) and encourages the consideration of patient-reported outcomes in regulatory-focused clinical trials when appropriate. Recognizing the significance of identifying patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that capture contemporary patient priorities, the Kidney Health Initiative, a public-private partnership between the American Society of Nephrology and US Food and Drug Administration, convened a workgroup to (1) develop a conceptual framework for a health-related quality of life PROM; (2) identify and map existing PROMs to the conceptual framework, prioritizing them on the basis of their supporting evidence for use in the regulatory environment; and (3) describe next steps for identifying PROMs for use in regulatory clinical trials of transformative KRT devices. This paper summarizes the proposed health-related quality-of-life PROM conceptual framework, maps and prioritizes PROMs, and identifies gaps and future needs to advance the development of rigorous, meaningful PROMS for use in clinical trials of transformative KRT devices.

Impact of Regulatory Guidance on Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk of New Glucose-Lowering Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Lessons Learned and Future Directions

Responding to concerns about the potential for increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, specifically myocardial infarction, associated with certain glucose-lowering therapies, the US Food and Drug Administration and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency issued guidance to the pharmaceutical industry in 2008. Glucose-lowering therapies were granted regulatory approval primarily from smaller studies that have demonstrated reductions in glycated hemoglobin concentration. Such studies were overall underpowered and of insufficient duration to show any effect on cardiovascular outcomes. The 2008 guidance aimed to ensure the cardiovascular safety of new glucose-lowering therapies to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This resulted in a plethora of new cardiovascular outcome trials, most designed primarily as placebo-controlled noninferiority trials, but with many also powered for superiority. Several of these outcome trials demonstrated cardiovascular benefits of the newer agents, resulting in the first-ever cardiovascular protection indications for glucose-lowering therapies. Determining whether the guidance continues to have value in its current form is critically important as we move forward after the first decade of implementation. In February 2018, a think tank comprising representatives from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies convened to consider the guidance in light of the findings of the completed cardiovascular outcome trials. The group made several recommendations for future regulatory guidance and for cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering therapies. These recommendations include requiring only the 1.3 noninferiority margin for regulatory approval, conducting trials for longer durations, considering studying glucose-lowering therapies as first-line management of type 2 diabetes mellitus, considering heart failure or kidney outcomes within the primary outcome, considering head-to-head active comparator trials, increasing the diversity of patients enrolled, evaluating strategies to streamline registries and the study of unselected populations, and identifying ways to improve translation of trial results to general practice.

Changes in emergency department visits for zolpidem-attributed adverse drug reactions after FDA Drug Safety Communications

Purpose

To identify possible changes in U.S. emergency department (ED) visits from zolpidem-attributed adverse drug reactions (ADRs) after 2013 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Drug Safety Communications (DSCs), which notified the public about FDA's new dosing recommendations for zolpidem.

Methods

We estimated the occurrence of ED visits from zolpidem-attributed ADRs using nationally representative, public health surveillance of medication harms (National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-Cooperative Adverse Drug Event Surveillance project, 2010-2017). We estimated the number of zolpidem prescriptions using IQVIA National Prescription Audit, 2010-2017. We calculated rates of ED visits for zolpidem-attributed ADRs per 10 000 dispensed zolpidem prescriptions and identified time trends and potential inflection points using joinpoint regression. For comparison, we repeated these analyses for sedating antidepressants commonly used to treat disordered sleep (trazodone, doxepin, and mirtazapine).

Results

The best-fit regression model for rates of ED visits for zolpidem-attributed ADRs by 6-month intervals identified a single inflection point in the second half of 2014 (P = .024) with a 6.7% biannual decrease from 2010 to 2014 ([-13.1%, 0.3%], P = .059) and a 13.9% biannual increase from the second half of 2014 through 2017 ([-1.1%, 31.3%], P = .068). No change or inflection points were identified for rates of ED visits for sedating antidepressant-attributed ADRs.

Conclusions

While there was a nominal decline in the rate of ED visits for ADRs in the time period before and for 18 months after FDA's 2013 zolpidem DSCs, the decrease was not sustained, and thus questions remain concerning the long-term impact of the zolpidem DSCs on ADRs.

A Path Forward for Regenerative Medicine

Although clinical trials of cell-based approaches to cardiovascular disease have yielded some promising results, no cell-based therapy has achieved regulatory approval for a cardiovascular indication. To broadly assess the challenges to regulatory approval and identify strategies to facilitate this goal, the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium sponsored a session during the Texas Heart Institute International Symposium on Cardiovascular Regenerative Medicine in September 2017. This session convened leaders in cardiovascular regenerative medicine, including participants from academia, the pharmaceutical industry, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium, with particular focus on treatments closest to regulatory approval. A goal of the session was to identify barriers to regulatory approval and potential pathways to overcome them. Barriers identified include manufacturing and therapeutic complexity, difficulties identifying an optimal comparator group, limited industry capacity for funding pivotal clinical trials, and challenges to demonstrating efficacy on clinical end points required for regulatory decisions. Strategies to overcome these barriers include precompetitive development of a cell therapy registry network to enable dual-purposing of clinical data as part of pragmatic clinical trial design, development of standardized terminology for product activity and end points to facilitate this registry, use of innovative statistical methods and quality of life or functional end points to supplement outcomes such as death or heart failure hospitalization and reduce sample size, involvement of patients in determining the research agenda, and use of the Food and Drug Administration's new Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation to facilitate early discussion with regulatory authorities when planning development pathways.

A Technology Roadmap for Innovative Approaches to Kidney Replacement Therapies: A Catalyst for Change

The number of patients dialyzed for ESKD exceeds 500,000 in the United States and more than 2.6 million people worldwide, with the expectation that the worldwide number will double by 2030. The human cost of health and societal financial cost of ESKD is substantial. Dialytic therapy is associated with an unacceptably high morbidity and mortality rate and poor quality of life. Although innovation in many areas of science has been transformative, there has been little innovation in dialysis or alternatives for kidney replacement therapy (KRT) since its introduction approximately 70 years ago. Advances in kidney biology, stem cells and kidney cell differentiation protocols, biomaterials, sensors, nano/microtechnology, sorbents and engineering, and interdisciplinary approaches and collaborations can lead to disruptive innovation. The Kidney Health Initiative, a public-private partnership between the American Society of Nephrology and the US Food and Drug Administration, has convened a multidisciplinary group to create a technology roadmap for innovative approaches to KRT to address patients' needs. The Roadmap is a living document. It identifies the design criteria that must be considered to replace the myriad functions of the kidney, as well as scientific, technical, regulatory, and payor milestones required to commercialize and provide patient access to KRT alternatives. Various embodiments of potential solutions are discussed, but the Roadmap is agnostic to any particular solution set. System enablers are identified, including vascular access, biomaterial development, biologic and immunologic modulation, function, and safety monitoring. Important Roadmap supporting activities include regulatory alignment and innovative financial incentives and payment pathways. The Roadmap provides estimated timelines for replacement of specific kidney functions so that approaches can be conceptualized in ways that are actionable and attract talented innovators from multiple disciplines. The Roadmap has been used to guide the selection of KidneyX prizes for innovation in KRT.

Development of Treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer in Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance: U.S. Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence Public Workshop

PURPOSE

The following is a summary of discussion at a United States FDA (Food and Drug Administration) public workshop reviewing potential trial designs and end points to develop therapies to treat localized prostate cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The workshop focused on the challenge that drug and device development to treat localized prostate cancer has been limited by the large trial sizes and lengthy timelines required to demonstrate an improvement in overall or metastasis-free survival and by the lack of agreed on alternative end points. Additionally, evolving treatment paradigms in the management of localized prostate cancer include the widespread use of active surveillance of patients with low and some intermediate risk prostate cancer, and the availability of advances in imaging and genomics.

RESULTS

The workshop addressed issues related to trial design in this setting. Attendees discussed several potential novel end points such as a delay of morbidity due to radiation or prostatectomy and pathological end points such as Gleason Grade Group upgrade.

CONCLUSIONS

The workshop provided an open forum for multiple stakeholder engagement to advance the development of effective treatment options for men with localized prostate cancer.

Regulatory Framework for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products in Europe and United States

Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are a fast-growing field of innovative therapies. The European Union (EU) and the United States (US) are fostering their development. For both regions, ATMPs fall under the regulatory framework of biological products, which determines the legal basis for their development. Sub-classifications of advanced therapies are different between regions, while in EU, there are four major groups, i.e., gene therapy, somatic cell therapy, tissue-engineered therapies, and combined advanced therapies; in US, the sub-classification covers two major groups of products, i.e., gene therapy and cellular therapy. The inclusion criteria that define a gene therapy are equivalent in both regions, and the exclusion criteria are directly related to the indications of the product. In the EU, there is a clear differentiation between cell- and tissue-based products regarding their classification as advanced therapies or coverage by other legal frameworks, whereas in US, there is a broader classification about whether or not these products can be categorized as biologic products. Both in EU and in US, in order to classify a cell- or a tissue-based product as an advanced therapy, it must be ensured that the processing of the cells implies a manipulation that alters their biological characteristics, although the term of manipulation in US differentiates between structural and non-structural cells and tissues. The regulatory terminology used to define ATMPs and their sub-classification reveals some differences between EU and US.

'Testosterone Boosting' Supplements Composition and Claims Are not Supported by the Academic Literature

Purpose

Men take testosterone (T) boosting supplements to naturally improve T levels. We evaluated the composition and advertised claims of “T boosting” supplements, and supporting published evidence.

Materials and Methods

Fifty “T booster” supplements were evaluated for active ingredients and product claims, discovered via Google search. PubMed was reviewed for any literature supporting the claims, followed by review of Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) and upper tolerable intake level (UL) for each component.

Results

Ninety percent of supplements claimed to “boost T”, 50% “improve libido”, and 48% “feel stronger”. One-hundred nine unique components were found, with a mean number of 8.3 per product. On PubMed, 24.8% of supplements had data showing an increase in T with supplementation, 10.1% had data showing a decrease in T, and 18.3% had data showing no change in T. No data were found on 61.5% of supplements on their effect on T. Supplements contained a median 1,291% of the RDA for vitamin B12, 807.6% for vitamin B6, 272% of zinc, 200% of vitamin B5, and 187.5% of vitamin B3. Thirteen products exceeded the US Food and Drug Administration UL of ingredients (zinc, vitamin B3, and magnesium).

Conclusions

Ninety percent of “T booster” supplements claimed to boost T. However, only 24.8% of these had data to support these claims. A total of 10.1% contained components with data suggesting a negative effect on T. Many had supra-therapeutic doses of vitamins and minerals, occasionally over the UL. Patients should be informed that “T booster” supplements may not have ingredients to support their claims.

Anticancer drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration for gastrointestinal malignancies: Clinical benefit and price considerations

BACKGROUND

The cost of new anticancer drugs is rising. We aimed to assess the clinical benefit and price of anti-cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for advanced gastrointestinal cancers.

METHODS

Drugs approved between 2006 and 2017 for advanced GI malignancies were identified from FDA.gov, and their updated supporting trial data were searched. Incremental clinical benefit was quantified by using ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (grade 0-5) and ASCO Value Framework version 2 (score range -20 to 180). Higher scores indicate larger net benefit, and substantial benefit was defined as score 4 or 5 by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). The Micromedex REDBOOK was used to estimate the monthly average wholesale price (AWP) and total drug price (TDP) over the median treatment duration per patient. Clinical benefit, AWP and TDP of each drug class were assessed.

RESULTS

In total, 16 GI cancer drugs received FDA approval for 24 indications, including five monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), five oral targeted therapies (TT), two immunotherapeutics (IO), three cytotoxic chemotherapies (CT), and one recombinant fusion protein (aflibercept). Most supporting trials (82%) reported overall survival benefit of less than 3 months and no significant improvement in quality of life. Only five agents (including one TT and one IO) with 21% the of approved indications met the ESMO's threshold of substantial clinical benefit. Median incremental benefit scores of TT and IO were comparable to other drug classes. However their median TDP was much higher at $153 402 and $98 208, respectively, compared to $30 330 USD per patient for CT. The estimated TDP did not correlate with clinical benefit scores.

CONCLUSION

Most FDA-approved gastrointestinal cancer drugs do not meet the ESMO threshold of substantial clinical benefit. TT and IO are estimated to carry significant drug costs, and further cost analysis of these drugs is urgently needed.

Why Biosimilars Can Never Be Identical To Originators-and Why They Don't Need To Be

The FDA's approval criteria require a biosimilar to be highly similar to its original biologic and show "no clinically meaningful differences." But mere similarity is not close enough for many clinicians and some patients; it makes biosimilars seem riskier than the original biologics.

FDA's Gottlieb Aims To End Biosimilars Groundhog Day

The FDA commissioner has an 11-step "action plan" to get biosimilars out of a repeat mode of unrealized potential. But issues like interchangeability still need clarifying if biosimilars are to have a major effect on drug expenditures.

Evaluation of US Food and Drug Administration-recommended abuse-potential questions in chronic pain patients without history of recreational opioid use: results and plan for research

Background

Existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments that measure the human abuse potential for opioid analgesics have been tested exclusively in experienced recreational opioid users, as required by US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance.

Methods

The goals of the current studies were to modify items from FDA-recommended abuse potential PRO assessments to specify the analgesic benefits versus the euphoric effects of opioids and to ascertain the clarity, understandability, appropriateness, and validity of the modified questions. This was achieved by conducting cognitive debriefing interviews (CDIs) with patients (≥18 and <65 years) who have chronic pain, were prescribed an opioid daily dose of at least 80 morphine-equivalent milligrams (>30 days to ≤180 days from the date of interview), and did not have a history of recreational opioid use.

Results

Participants in study 1 (n=30) and study 2 (n=7) had a better understanding of the items designed to measure the concepts of drug liking and items designed to measure the desire to take a drug again when reasons for liking and desire to take again were included in the item wording (namely, “due to pain relief ” and “excluding pain relief ”). Most participants indicated no interest in taking their medication for reasons other than pain relief.

Conclusion

Modification of questions in the PRO assessment improved patient understanding of “drug liking” and “desire to take again.” Patients with chronic pain who were not recreational opioid users understood the difference between the analgesic and euphoric effects of an opioid drug. The modified questions should assist future researchers in providing a more accurate assessment of the abuse potential of an opioid, as required by regulatory agencies.

Why drug prices will continue to roil the waters-and why Scott Gottlieb, MD, will be in the center of the action

We'll see what happens to the administration's Part B proposal. Congress is not likely to take bold action, partly because drugmakers are a strong influence on both parties. That leaves the FDA and Administrator Scott Gottlieb, MD, as major players in efforts to rein in drug prices.

Recent Advances in the Management of Autosomal Dominant Polycystic Kidney Disease

Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD), the most common monogenic cause of ESKD, is characterized by relentless development of kidney cysts, hypertension, and destruction of the kidney parenchyma. Over the past few years, major advancements in diagnosing, prognosticating, and understanding the pathogenesis and natural course of the disease have been made. Currently, no kidney disease is more suitable for nephron-protective strategies. Early nephrology referral and implementation of these strategies may have a substantial effect. Total kidney volume is a good prognostication marker and allows stratification of patients into slow or rapid progressing disease, with implications for their management. Measurement of total kidney volume, disease stratification, and prognostication are possible using readily available tools. Although some patients require only monitoring and basic optimized kidney protective measures, such as rigorous BP control and various lifestyle and dietary changes, others will benefit from disease-modifying treatments. Vasopressin V2 receptor antagonists, a likely disease-modifying treatment, has been approved in several countries and recently by the US Food and Drug Administration; other therapies, such as somatostatin analogs and other novel agents, are currently in clinical trials. The purpose of this article is to present our views on the optimal management to delay kidney disease progression in ADPKD.

Regulatory Considerations for Hemodiafiltration in the United States

Online hemodiafiltration provides greater removal of higher molecular weight uremic retention solutes than conventional high-flux hemodialysis. However, online hemodiafiltration is used sparsely in the United States in part because of a paucity of delivery systems cleared for clinical use by the US Food and Drug Administration. Although a pathway for regulatory approval exists in the United States, concerns remain, particularly regarding online production of the large volumes of sterile, nonpyrogenic substitution fluid infused directly into the bloodstream to maintain fluid balance. Clearly defined testing protocols, acceptable to Food and Drug Administration, will be useful to show that an online hemodiafiltration system is capable of routinely achieving a sterility assurance level of 10-6 and nonpyrogenic levels of endotoxin. Large-scale clinical experience has shown that systems providing this level of performance when combined with certain design features, such as redundancy, and an appropriate quality management process can routinely and safely produce substitution fluid for online hemodiafiltration.

A Path to Better-Quality mHealth Apps

The rapid growth of mobile health (mHealth) apps has resulted in confusion among health care providers and the public about which products rely on evidence-based medicine. Only a small subset of mHealth apps are regulated by the US Food and Drug Administration. The system similar to that used to accredit and certify laboratory testing under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendment offers a potential model for ensuring basic standards of quality and safety for mHealth apps. With these products expanding into the realm of diagnosis and treatment, physicians and consumers are in a strong position to demand oversight that delivers safe and high-quality mHealth apps.

Drug-Associated Acute Kidney Injury Identified in the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System Database

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common condition associated with both short-term and long-term consequences including dialysis, chronic kidney disease, and mortality. Although the United States Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database is a powerful tool to examine drug-associated events, to our knowledge, no study has analyzed this database to identify the most common drugs reported with AKI. The objective of this study was to analyze AKI reports and associated medications in the FAERS database.

DESIGN

Retrospective pharmacovigilance disproportionality analysis.

DATA SOURCE

Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System database.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

We queried the FAERS database for reports of AKI from 2004 quarter 1 through 2015 quarter 3. Extracted drugs were assessed using published references and categorized as known, possible, or new potential nephrotoxins. The reporting odds ratio (ROR), a measure of reporting disproportionality, was calculated for the 20 most frequently reported drugs in each category. We retrieved 7,241,385 adverse event reports, of which 193,996 (2.7%) included a report of AKI. Of the AKI reports, 16.5% were known nephrotoxins, 18.6% were possible nephrotoxins, and 64.8% were new potential nephrotoxins. Among the most commonly reported drugs, those with the highest AKI ROR were aprotinin (7614 reports; ROR 115.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] 110.63-121.01), sodium phosphate (1687 reports; ROR 55.81, 95% CI 51.78-60.17), furosemide (1743 reports; ROR 12.61, 95% CI 11.94-13.32), vancomycin (1270 reports, ROR 12.19, 95% CI 11.45-12.99), and metformin (4701 reports; ROR 10.65, 95% CI 10.31-11.00). The combined RORs for the 20 most frequently reported drugs with each nephrotoxin classification were 3.71 (95% CI 3.66-3.76) for known nephrotoxins, 2.09 (95% CI 2.06-2.12) for possible nephrotoxins, and 1.55 (95% CI 1.53-1.57) for new potential nephrotoxins.

CONCLUSION

Acute kidney injury was a common reason for adverse event reporting in the FAERS. Most AKI reports were generated for medications not recognized as nephrotoxic according to our classification system. This report provides data on medications needing further research to determine the risk of AKI with these new potential nephrotoxins.

Clinical Pharmacology of Oral Anticoagulants in Patients with Kidney Disease

Oral anticoagulants are commonly used drugs in patients with CKD and patients with ESKD to treat atrial fibrillation to reduce stroke and systemic embolism. Some of these drugs are used to treat or prevent deep venous thrombosis and pulmonary embolism in patients with CKD who undergo knee and hip replacement surgeries. Warfarin is the only anticoagulant that is approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration in individuals with mechanical heart valves. Each oral anticoagulant affects the coagulation profile in the laboratory uniquely. Warfarin and apixaban are the only anticoagulants that are Food and Drug Administration approved for use in patients with CKD and patients with ESKD. However, other oral anticoagulants are commonly used off label in this patient population. Given the acquired risk of bleeding from uremia, these drugs are known to cause increased bleeding events, hospitalization, and overall morbidity. Each anticoagulant has unique pharmacologic properties of which nephrologists need to be aware to optimally manage patients. In addition, nephrologists are increasingly asked to aid in the management of adverse bleeding events related to oral anticoagulant use in patients with CKD and patients with ESKD. This article summarizes the clinical pharmacology of these drugs and identifies knowledge gaps in the literature related to their use.