The United States (U.S.) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oversees the safety and quality of drugs and vaccines that are used in the U.S. Administration of the FDA falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The regulatory oversight of the FDA is complex and comprehensive, requiring the various roles and responsibilities to be divided across six main centers. The activities of two of these centers, the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) are the primary focus of this review.

Nonhuman primates (NHP) have become a commonly used nonrodent species for general toxicity testing for pharmaceuticals reviewed by CDER. Their increased use in pharmaceutical testing appears to have been driven by both increased use in small molecule drug development programs as well as a trend for biologics making up a greater percentage of pharmaceutical development programs. While always in limited supply, the COVID-19 pandemic acutely impaired the availability of NHPs for pharmaceutical testing due to disruptions in the supply and an increased demand to support COVID-19-directed research programs. Because this disruption in the NHP supply had the potential to significantly delay the development of new medications for the treatment of diseases currently without effective treatment options, FDA issued guidance in February of 2022, under its COVID-19 Public Health Emergency authority, that was intended to help mitigate the NHP supply issue by reducing the demand for NHPs. This guidance has been withdrawn with the expiration of the public health emergency. Here we discuss what impact we expect that the withdrawal of this guidance will have on efforts to minimize NHP use.

Previously, we provided an FDA/CDER perspective on nonclinical testing strategies and briefly discussed the opportunities and challenges of using new approach methodologies (NAMs) in drug development, especially for regulatory purposes. To facilitate the integration of NAMs into nonclinical regulatory testing, we surveyed the CDER Pharmacology/Toxicology community to identify the nonclinical challenges faced by CDER review staff, including gaps and areas of concern underserved by current nonclinical testing approaches, and to understand how development of NAMs with specific contexts of use (COUs) could potentially alleviate them. Survey outcomes were coalesced into CDER-identified needs for which NAMs with specific COUs could potentially be developed to address gaps and challenges in nonclinical safety assessments. We also discussed the current FDA procedure for validation and qualification of NAMs intended to inform regulatory decisions. This manuscript is intended to facilitate productive discussions and collaborations with regulatory, government, and academic stakeholders within the drug development community regarding the development and regulatory use of NAMs and their role in safety and efficacy assessment of pharmaceuticals.

BACKGROUND: Throughout the years, the disruption caused by COVID-19 continues to pose an excess of challenges for the pharmaceutical industry. Throughout the entire year, questions were raised that does COVID-19 have a negative impact on new drug approvals. However, the answer to those questions was a \'big no\'.
METHODS: We propose a compilation and analysis of around 100 medications, including small new molecular entities (NMEs), approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for the years 2020 and 2021. Novel drug discovery is crucial for pharmaceutical research and development as well as patient care. The only possible way to achieve this crucial goal is to repurpose current medications that may have anticipated effects as possible candidates. The availability of new drugs and biological products often means new treatment options for patients and advances in health care.
RESULTS: Around 40% of the drugs were approved for various types of cancers. Other major therapeutic areas that were focused on were neurological products (around 17%), infectious diseases (13-15%), and cardiovascular disorders (7-8%). Various new products were approved for rare diseases (58-60%). This study aimed to discover a pattern in FDA medicine approvals during the last two decades.
CONCLUSIONS: This data shows that anticancer medicines and biologics are receiving increased attention in research. With a bigger number of biologically derived medications being produced, the price could rise much higher. FDA should embrace innovative techniques that will stimulate the industry to enhance research and development of novel compounds or medications that can deliver considerable improvements over existing ones. To put it briefly, FDA had to update our approach to regulation as a whole in order to effectively develop the types of technologies that are becoming available. Modernizing medical product review programmes is a part of this. These initiatives are part of the Medical Innovation Access Plan.

Similar to last year, 2021 will be remembered for the COVID-19 pandemic. Although five vaccines have been approved by the two most important drug regulatory agencies, namely the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the pandemic has still not been brought under control. However, despite the context of a global pandemic, 2021 has been an excellent year with respect to drug approvals by the FDA. In 2021, 50 drugs have been authorized, making it the fourth-best year after 2018 (59 drugs) and 1996 and 2020 (53 each). Regarding biologics, 2021 has been the third-best year to date, with 14 approvals, and it has also witnessed the authorization of 36 small molecules. Of note, nine peptides, eight monoclonal antibodies, two antibody-drug conjugates, and two oligonucleotides have been approved this year. From them, five of the molecules are pegylated and three of them highly pegylated. The presence of nitrogen aromatic heterocycles and/or fluorine atoms are once again predominant among the so-called small molecules. This report analyzes the 50 new drugs approved in 2021 from a chemical perspective, as it did for those authorized in the previous five years. On the basis of chemical structure alone, the drugs that received approval in 2021 are classified as the following: biologics (antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, enzymes, and pegylated proteins); TIDES (peptide and oligonucleotides); combined drugs; natural products; nitrogen aromatic heterocycles; fluorine-containing molecules; and other small molecules.

The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) performs an essential role in public health by ensuring, evaluating, and monitoring the safety and efficacy of drugs before they are sold in the US. Before approving new drug applications, CDER ensures that therapeutic benefits of both prescription and over-the-counter drugs (brand name and generic) provide more health benefits than the potential risks. First passed by Congress in 1992, the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) allowed the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to collect fees from drug manufacturers to fund new drug approvals. The law allowed the FDA to expedite drug approvals, but possibly lowered standards for safety and brought potential conflicts of interest within the FDA and pharmaceutical industry. To examine the conflicts of interest, we conducted a review using the Excerpta Medica database, US National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health Database (PubMed), Scopus, and Google. Our search yielded Vioxx (rofecoxib) and Exondus-51 (eteplirsen) as examples of consequence when the FDA and pharmaceutical industry are too closely aligned. We further examine how the pharmaceutical industry may indirectly influence the FDA by lobbying to Congress or directly by hiring ex-FDA commissioners.

The safety testing of pharmaceutical candidates has traditionally relied on data gathered from studies in animals, and these sources of information remain a vital component of the safety assessment for new drug and biologic products. However, there are clearly ethical implications that attend the use of animals for safety testing, and FDA fully supports the principles of the 3Rs, as it relates to animal usage; these being to replace, reduce and refine. We provide an overview of some of the events and activities (legal and programmatic) that have had, and continue to have, the greatest impact on animal use in pharmaceutical development, and highlight some ongoing efforts to further meet the challenge of achieving our mission as humanely as possible.

Although the pharmaceutical industry will remember 2020 as the year of COVID-19, it is important to highlight that this year has been the second-best-together with 1996-in terms of the number of drugs accepted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Each of these two years witnessed the authorization of 53 drugs-a number surpassed only in 2018 with 59 pharmaceutical agents. The 53 approvals in 2020 are divided between 40 new chemical entities and 13 biologic drugs (biologics). Of note, ten monoclonal antibodies, two antibody-drug conjugates, three peptides, and two oligonucleotides have been approved in 2020. Close inspection of the so-called small molecules reveals the significant presence of fluorine atoms and/or nitrogen aromatic heterocycles. This report analyzes the 53 new drugs of the 2020 harvest from a strictly chemical perspective, as it did for those authorized in the previous four years. On the basis of chemical structure alone, the drugs that received approval in 2020 are classified as the following: biologics (antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, and proteins); TIDES (peptide and oligonucleotides); natural products; fluorine-containing molecules; nitrogen aromatic heterocycles; and other small molecules.

This Chapter provides an introduction and overview of the U.S. FDA REMS program and applicable regulatory aspects. Topics covered include the 2015 Draft Guidance, organization structure and functions, a discussion on pharmacovigilance and adverse event reports, and a discussion of the applicability of REMS in oncology.

The Nanotechnology Risk Assessment Working Group in the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) within the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was established to assess the potential impact of nanotechnology on drug products. One of the working group\'s major initiatives has been to conduct a comprehensive risk management exercise regarding the potential impact of nanomaterial pharmaceutical ingredients and excipients on drug product quality, safety, and efficacy. This exercise concluded that current review practices and regulatory guidance are capable of detecting and managing the potential risks to quality, safety, and efficacy when a drug product incorporates a nanomaterial. However, three risk management areas were identified for continued focus during the review of drug products containing nanomaterials: (1) the understanding of how to perform the characterization of nanomaterial properties and the analytical methods used for this characterization, (2) the adequacy of in vitro tests to evaluate drug product performance for drug products containing nanomaterials, and (3) the understanding of properties arising from nanomaterials that may result in different toxicity and biodistribution profiles for drug products containing nanomaterials. CDER continues to actively track the incorporation of nanomaterials in drug products and the methodologies used to characterize them, in order to continuously improve the readiness of our science- and risk-based review approaches. In parallel to the risk management exercise, CDER has also been supporting regulatory research in the area of nanotechnology, specifically focused on characterization, safety, and equivalence (between reference and new product) considerations. This article provides a comprehensive summary of regulatory and research efforts supported by CDER in the area of drug products containing nanomaterials and other activities supporting the development of this emerging technology.