About FDA
FY 1997 PDUFA Performance Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Resubmitted NDAs, PLAs, and ELAs
Appendices:
Appendix B: PDUFA Performance Goals FY 1993- FY 1997
Appendix C: List of Approved Applications
COMMISSIONER'S REPORT
The Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992 is now history, but it has left a legacy of success that goes far beyond its literal intent. By working together to meet the Act's increasingly stringent performance goals, the industry and the Agency have forged a partnership that is bringing the benefits of effective new products to the market at an unprecedented pace without compromising safety.
Again this year, the Agency has exceeded all the review performance goals, but as the following pages show, the true gains are in the outcomes that matter to the health care community and patients. The five years of PDUFA have produced:
- More applications for new products
- Higher rates of approval
- Faster review times and total approval times
PDUFA has demonstrated that the Agency and the industry, by combining their resources and working together, can achieve the levels of performance the American people deserve. I commend everyone who has contributed to this remarkable effort.
Michael A. Friedman, M. D.
Lead Deputy Commissioner of Food and Drugs
|
|
OUTCOMESAs the original Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) expires, the successes reported last year have been confirmed and surpassed. PDUFA has resulted in more and better applications that can be filed immediately, reviewed more quickly, and approved more quickly. New products get on the market faster, and the American consumer and the pharmacuetical industry benefit. The cumulative effects of additional human and financial resources, the use of project management methodology to guide the review process and monitor the increasing workload, the elimination of the backlogs, and the increased emphasis on timeliness as a performance measure, have significantly improved Agency and industry performance, predictability, and accountability. More Applications Filed: Over the five years of PDUFA, submissions of original NDAs, PLAs, and ELAs have increased from 96 in FY 93 to 144 in FY 97. This equates to a 50 percent increase in new application workload. Over the same period, the number of efficacy supplements received each year has increased from 100 to 158 (a 58 percent increase) and manufacturing supplements have increased from 1,248 to 1,597 (up 28 percent). Fewer Applications Refused: The "Refuse to File" rate is a key measure of submission quality. Only two of the 144 NDAs, PLAs, and ELAs submitted in FY 97 were refused. This initial Agency ruling -- the fate of more than a third of all original submissions at the start of PDUFA -- is now approaching the vanishing point. In marked contrast with the situation a few years ago, nearly all applications now go directly into the review process. |
|
|
More Approvals on First Review: Of the NDAs and PLAs submitted in FY 96 and reviewed, 44 percent were approved on the first review. This is a major increase over initial approval rates for the previous years. Only 33 percent of the FY 95 submissions were approved on initial review, and that was an improvement over the rates of 21 percent and 28 percent for FY 94 and FY 93 submissions respectively. This high initial approval rate is another measure of submission quality and a key factor in achieving timely approvals. Over the five years of PDUFA, the median time to approval for those NDAs and PLAs that were approved on first review was 11.8 months. By contrast, those that required two or more review cycles took a median of 20.3 months to approve. Increasing Approval Rates: Another indication of improved submission quality is the increase in the percentage of submissions that are ultimately approved. As of September 30, 1997, 65 percent of the FY 96 original NDA and PLA submissions (74) had been approved and another 13 percent (15) had received an initial "approvable" decision. The final approval rate for the FY 96 submissions should reach 85 percent. The approval rates for both the FY 95 and FY 94 submissions currently stand at 81 percent and should also reach 85 percent. For the years immediately preceding PDUFA, less than 60 percent of the original submissions were approved.1 Quicker Approval Times: The ultimate approval times for applications submitted during the PDUFA years continue to decline. If 85 percent of the FY 96 submissions are approved, the median approval time will be 12 months.2 This improves on the 15 month median of the FY 95 submissions, the 19 to 20 month medians of the FY 93 and FY 94 submissions, and the 23 month median typical of the early 1990s.1 |
REPORT ON FY 1997 PDUFA GOALS
Twenty-nine goals constitute the management framework for PDUFA (see Appendix B). Twenty-two of the goals have been reported in previous years' performance reports; seven goals remain for FY 97. Six of the FY 97 goals specify review performance targets for the submissions received subject to PDUFA during FY 97. The seventh goal relates to the FY 97 staffing level and will be addressed in the Financial Report in February 1998.
The review goals define submission categories (e.g., Efficacy Supplements), review time targets for those categories (e.g., within 12 months), and levels of achievement (e.g., 70 percent of reviews on-time). For the first four PDUFA years, both the submission categories and the review time targets remained unchanged, but the achievement levels changed, increasing from 55 percent in FY 93 to 80 percent in FY 96. For FY 97, while achievement levels continued to increase to the 90 percent level, within submission categories some of the review time targets changed.
This report updates the performance on the FY 96 submissions and evaluates the Agency's performance on the FY 97 submissions to date. Nearly all of the FY 96 submissions have been reviewed and, while some performance statistics are still open, final performance relative to the goals can now be reported. Only a preliminary performance assessment on FY 97 submissions is possible at this time. For submission categories with a 12-month review goal, it is too early to measure review performance. For those submission categories with a 6-month review goal, performance on those received in the first half of the year provides an early-indicator of final review performance.
|


|
Goal -- Review and act upon complete NDAs, PLAs, and ELAs
FY 94-96: Within 12 months of submission date3
FY 97: Priority applications within 6 months of submission date, standard applications within 12 months3
Workload -- Original submissions filed:
* Includes 24 priority NDAs (6-month goal) Performance
|
|
Goal -- Review and act upon resubmitted5 NDAs, PLAs, and ELAs within 6 months of resubmission date:
Workload -- Resubmissions received:
Performance
|
|
Goal -- Review and act upon complete efficacy supplements to NDAs and PLAs
FY 94-96: Within 12 months of submission date
FY 97: Priority supplements and supplements without clinical data within 6 months of submission date, others within 12 months
Workload -- Efficacy supplements filed:
* Includes 10 priority NDA supplements and 15 w/o clinical data (6-month goal)
Performance
|
|
Goal -- Review and act upon complete manufacturing supplements to NDAs and PLAs
FY 94-96: Within 6 months of submission date
FY 97: Priority supplements and supplements without clinical data within 6 months of submission date, others within 12 months
Workload -- Manufacturing supplements filed:
* Includes 2 NDA supplements with clinical data (12 month goal)
Performance
|
Notes:
1. Source: United States General Accounting Office, FDA Drug Approval: Review Time Has Decreased in Recent Years (GAO/PEMD-96-1), October 1995.
2. Although the last approvals for FY 96 submissions (as well as for earlier years) have not yet occurred, the median statistic can be computed from approvals to date and estimates of the percent of submissions that will ultimately be approved.
3. The PDUFA agreements allow for one 3-month extension of the review time if there is a major amendment to an original NDA, PLA, or ELA submission in the 3-month period before the original due date. This extension is not allowed for efficacy supplements, manufacturing supplements, or resubmissions.
4. The count o f FY 97 submissions assumes that all submissions received in the last two months of FY 97 are filed. When FDA files a submission, it is deemed "complete" by PDUFA definition. FDA determines the "fileability" of an application within 60 days of its original receipt. All calculations of PDUFA review times are made, however, from the original receipt date of the filed application.
5. A resubmission is a firm's response after an FDA action of "approvable" or "not approvable" on an application. The applicable performance goal for a resubmission is determined by the year in which the resubmission itself is received, rather than its original application's year. This explains the relatively low number of resubmissions in the early PDUFA years.
APPENDIX A: PURPOSE
The Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992, Public Law 102-571, authorized revenues from fees paid by the pharmaceutical industry to expedite review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of human drug applications. These revenues were directed by section 102(3) of this Act toward accomplishment of goals identified in the letters of September 14 and 21, 1992 from the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives and the Chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee of the Senate (as set forth at 138 Congressional Record H9099-H9100: daily edition of September 22, 1992).
Section 104 of the Act requires FDA to submit two annual reports to Congress for each fiscal year during which fees are collected: 1) a performance report due within 60 days of the end of the fiscal year, and 2) a financial report due within 120 days of the end of the fiscal year. This document fulfills the first of these requirements for Fiscal Year 1997.
APPENDIX B : PDUFA PERFORMANCE GOALS, FY 1993 - FY 1997
The following list presents by fiscal year the performance measures set forth in the letters referenced in Section 102(3) of the PDUFA. In those letters, the timing of a number of the goals was conditional either (l) on the date (July 2, 1993) upon which a supplemental appropriation was enacted to permit FDA to collect PDUFA user fees, or (2) a specific performance interval (e.g., 6 or 12 months after submission). The following chart lists the 29 goals by fiscal year with appropriate goal measurement dates:
| INTERIM GOALS BY FISCAL YEAR |
|
|
| INTERIM GOALS OF FY 93 | ||
| 1. Establish an industry/FDA working group upon initiation of the user fee program. | Supplemental appropriation date | July 2, 1993 |
| 2. Initiate a pilot computer-assisted PLA review (CAPLAR) program during FY 93. | End of FY 93 | Sept. 30, 1993 |
| INTERIM GOALS OF FY 94 | ||
| 1. Review and act upon 55 percent of complete NDA and PLA/ELA submissions received during FY 94 within 12 months after submission date. | 12 months after end of FY 94 | Sept. 30, 1995 |
| 2. Review and act upon 55 percent of efficacy supplements2 received during FY 94 within 12 months after submission date. | 12 months after end of FY 94 | Sept. 30, 1995 |
| 3. Review and act upon 55 percent of manufacturing supplements2 received during FY 94 within 6 months after submission date. | 6 months after end of FY 94 |
Mar. 31, 1995 |
| 4. Review and act upon 55 percent of resubmitted applications received during FY 94 within 6 months after the resubmission date. | 6 months after end of FY 94 |
Mar. 31, 1995 |
| 5. Implement performance tracking and monthly monitoring of CBER performance within 6 months of initial user fee payments. | 6 months after 7/2/93 | Jan. 2, 1994 |
| 6. Implement project management methodology for all NDA reviews within 12 months of the initiation of user fee payments. | 12 months after 7/2/93 | July 2, 1994 |
| INTERIM GOALS OF FY 95 | ||
| 1 Review and act upon 70 percent of complete NDA and PLA/ELA submissions received during FY 95 within 12 months after submission date. | 12 months after end of FY 95 | Sept. 30, 1996 |
| 2. Review and act upon 70 percent of efficacy supplements received during FY 95 within 12 months after submission date. | 12 months after end of FY 95 | Sept. 30, 1996 |
| 3. Review and act upon 70 percent of manufacturing supplements received during FY 95 within 6 months after submission date. | 6 months after end of FY 95 | Mar. 31, 1996 |
| 4. Review and act upon 70 percent of resubmitted applications received during FY 95 within 6 months after the resubmission date. | 6 months after end of FY 95 | Mar. 31, 1996 |
| 5. Recruit and bring on board 50 percent of FDA incremental review staff by first quarter of FY 95 | 3 months after end of FY 94 | Dec. 31, 1994 |
| 6. Implement project management methodology for all PLA/ELA reviews within 18 months of user fee payments | 18 months after 7/2/93 | Jan. 2, 1995 |
| 7. Eliminate overdue backlogs of efficacy and manufacturing supplements to NDAs within 18 months of initiation of user fee payments. | 18 months after 7/2/93 | Jan. 2, 1995 |
| 8. Eliminate overdue backlog of NDAs within 24 months of initiation of user fees. | 24 months after 7/2/93 | July 2, 1995 |
| 9. Eliminate overdue backlog of PLAs, ELAs, and PLA/ELA supplements within 24 months of initiation of user fees. | 24 months after 7/2/93 | July 2, 1995 |
| 10. Adopt uniform computer assisted NDA standards during FY 95. | End of FY 95 | Sept. 30, 1995 |
| INTERIM GOALS OF FY 96 | |||
| 1. Review and act upon 80 percent of complete NDA and PLA/ELA submissions received during FY 96 within 12 months after submission date. | 12 months after end of FY 96 | Sept. 30, 1997 | |
| 2. Review and act upon 80 percent of efficacy supplements received during FY 96 within 12 months after submission date. | 12 months after end of FY 96 | Sept. 30, 1997 | |
| 3. Review and act upon 80 percent of manufacturing supplements received during FY 96 within 6 months after submission date. | 6 months after end of FY 96 | Mar. 31, 1997 | |
| 4. Review and act upon 80 percent of resubmitted applications received during FY 96 within 6 months after the resubmission date. | 6 months after end of FY 96 | Mar. 31, 1997 |
| INTERIM GOALS OF FY 97 | ||
| 1. Review and act upon 90 percent of complete NDA and PLA/ELA submissions for priority applications received during FY 97 within 6 months after submission date. | 6 months after end of FY 97 | Mar. 31, 1998 |
| 2. Review and act upon 90 percent of complete NDA and PLA/ELA submissions for standard applications received during FY 97 within 12 months after submission date. | 12 months after end of FY 97 | Sept. 30, 1998 |
| 3. Review and act upon 90 percent of priority supplements received during FY 97 within 6 months after submission date. | 6 months after end of FY 97 | Mar. 31, 1998 |
| 4. Review and act upon 90 percent of standard supplements received during FY 97 that require review of clinical data (e.g., efficacy supplements) within 12 months after submission. | 12 months after end of FY 97 | Sept. 30, 1998 |
| 5. Review and act upon 90 percent of supplements received during FY 97 that do not require review of clinical data (e.g., manufacturing supplements) within 6 months after submission date. | 6 months after end of FY 97 | Mar. 31, 1998 |
| 6. Review and act upon 90 percent of resubmitted applications received during FY 97 within 6 months after the resubmission date. | 6 months after end of FY 97 | Mar. 31, 1998 |
|
7. Total review staff increment recruited and on board by end of FY 97.
|
End of FY 97 | Sept. 30, 1997 |
NOTES
1. The statute allows three additional months for review of original NDA, PLA, or ELA submissions that involve major amendments within the last three months of their usual 6- or 12-month review intervals. In these cases, the measurement dates shown in this Appendix move forward by 3 months.
2. The term "supplement" applies to both drug and biologic submissions. It includes "amendments" to biologic submissions.
APPENDIX C : LIST OF APPROVED APPLICATIONS
This appendix updates the detailed review histories of the NDAs and PLAs submitted and approved under PDUFA. It shows approvals of FY 93 through FY 96 submissions that took place this year as well as FY 96 approvals of FY 96 submissions. Earlier PDUFA approvals were listed in last year's performance report.
The following two tables summarize the review histories for all approved applications submitted from FY 93 through FY 96. The tables show the average first review, second review, and approval times. Note that times are in months, not all applications required a second review, and some required more than two reviews. The mean total approval times for the FY 95 and FY 96 submissions will increase in the future as additional applications are approved.
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The remainder of this appendix shows the individual review histories. Approvals are grouped by submission year and priority designation and listed in order of total approval time. Review histories of all other PDUFA submissions approved prior to FY 97 can be found in Appendix B of the "Fourth Annual Performance Report" which is available on the Internet at http://www.fda.gov.
|
|
FY 96 approval of an FY 96 submission. These were not included in earlier PDUFA reports and are included here for completeness. | ||||||
|
|
May not appear to add to total due to rounding. | ||||||
|
|
Major amendment was received within 3 months of the action due date, which extended the review timeframes by 3 months. |
||||||
|
|
Tentative Approval | ||||||
|
| Table 1 FY 96 Priority NDA and PLA Submissions Approved in FY 96 (†) and FY 97 |
|||||
|
|
|
|
Goal Met |
||
|
|
(if necessary) |
||||
| † | INDIVAR SULFATE | Merck Research |
|
|
|
| † | RITONAVIR ORAL SOLUTION | Abbott Labs |
|
|
|
| † | RITONAVIR CAPSULE | Abbott Labs |
|
|
|
| † | NEVIRAPINE | Boehringer Pharmeceutical |
|
|
|
| † | TOPOTECAN HCL | Smith Kline Beecham |
|
|
|
| COAGULATION FACTOR IX (PLA) | Genetics Institute, Inc. |
|
|
||
| † | IRINOTECAN HCL | Pharmacia and Upjohn |
|
|
|
| † | AZITHROMYCIN DIHYDRATE | Pfizer |
|
|
|
| † | STAVUDINE | STAVUDINE |
|
|
|
| TROGLITAZONE | Sankyo |
|
|
||
| TROGLITAZONE | Parke Davis |
|
|
||
| † | ALBENDAZOLE | Smith Kline Beecham |
|
|
|
| ATORVASTATIN CALCIUM | Parke Davis |
|
|
||
| † | CARMUSTINE | Rhone Poulenc Rorer |
|
|
|
| DONEPEZIL HCL | EISAI America |
|
FDA 1st Action: 5.5 (AE) Sponsor Response: 0.5 FDA Second Action: 1.7 (AP) |
Y |
|
| IVERMECTIN | Merck Research |
|
FDA 1st Action: 6.2 (AE) Sponsor Response: 0.3 FDA Second Action: 1.2 (AP) |
Y |
|
| ALPROSTADIL | Vivus |
|
FDA 1st Action: 6.3 (AE) Sponsor Response: 1.2 FDA Second Action: 0.4 (AP) |
Y |
|
| DELAVIRDINE MESYLATE | Pharmacia and Upjohn |
|
|
||
| ITRACONAZOLE | Janssen |
|
|
||
| † | ELLIOTT B SOLUTION | Orphan Medcl |
|
|
|
| BETAINE ANHYDROUS | Orphan Medcl |
|
|
||
| ANAGRELIDE HYDROCHLORIDE | Roberts Labs |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 0.2 FDA Second Action: 1.2(AP) |
Y |
|
| DIPHTHERIA & TETANUS TOXOIDS & ACELLULAR PERTUSSIS VACCINE ADSORBED (PLA) | Smith Kline Beecham Biologicals |
|
FDA 1st Action: 7.2 (NA) Sponsor Response: 2.0 FDA Second Action: 5.3 (AP) |
Y |
|
| DIPHTHERIA & TETANUS TOXOIDS ADSORBED COMBINED BULK (PLA) | Chiron Behring GmbH & Co. |
|
FDA 1st Action: 7.4 (NA) Sponsor Response: 2.9 FDA Second Action: 4.1 (AP) |
Y |
|
| AUTOLOGOUS CULTURED CHONDROCYTES (PLA) | Genzyme Tissue Repair |
|
FDA 1st Action: 14.8 (AE) Sponsor Response: 2.0 FDA Second Action: 0.1 (AP) |
Y |
|
| Table 2 FY 96 Standard NDA and PLA Submissions Approved in FY96 (†) and FY 97 |
|||||
|
|
|
|
Goal Met |
||
|
|
(if necessary) |
||||
| IMIQUIMOD | 3M Pharms |
|
|
||
| † | CIDOFOVIR | Gilead |
|
|
|
| LORATADINE TABLET | Schering |
|
|
||
| IDARUBICIN HCL | Pharmacia and Upjohn |
|
|
||
| OLOPATADINE HYDROCHLORIDE | Alcon |
|
|
||
| BUPROPION HCL | Glaxo Wellcome (US) |
|
|
||
| † | PENCICLOVIR | SKB Pharms |
|
|
|
| MIGLITOL | Bayer |
|
|
||
| SPARFLOXACIN | Rhone Poulenc Rorer |
|
|
||
| AMPHOTERICIN B | Sequus Pharm |
|
|
||
| LORATADINE SYRUP | Schering |
|
|
||
| AZITHROMYCIN | Pfizer |
|
|
||
| VALSARTAN | Novartis Pharms |
|
|
||
| HYDROCORTISONE BUTYRATE | Yamanouchi |
|
|
||
| CIPROFLOXACIN | Bayer |
|
|
||
| CABERGOLINE | Pharmacia and Upjohn |
|
|
||
| ESTRADIOL | Theratech |
|
|
||
| AMINO ACID w/ ELECTROLYTES IN DEXTROSE w/ CALCIUM | Baxter Healthcare |
|
|
||
| AMINO ACIDS/DEXTROSE | Baxter Healthcare |
|
|
||
| TAMSULOSIN HCL | Boehringer Pharms |
|
|
||
| LEVOFLOXACIN TABS | Johnson RW |
|
|
||
| LEVOFLOXACIN INJ | Johnson RW |
|
|
||
| ETHINYL ESTRADIOL LEVONORGESTREL | Wyeth Ayerst Labs |
|
|
||
| PROGESTERONE GEL | Columbia Res Labs |
|
|
||
| LEUPROLIDE ACETATE | TAP Holdings |
|
|
||
| NICOTINE INHALATION SYSTEM | Pharmacia and Upjohn |
|
|
||
| LETROZOLE | Novartis Pharms |
|
|
||
| CERIVASTATIN SODIUM | Bayer |
|
|
||
| IRBESARTAN | Sanofi Winthrop |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 0.1 FDA Second Action: 0.0 (AP) |
Y |
|
| HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE/IRBESARTAN | Sanofi Winthrop |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 0.1 FDA Second Action: 0.0 (AP) |
Y |
|
| Table 2, Continued | |||||
|
|
|
|
Goal Met |
||
|
|
(if necessary) |
||||
| TILUDRONATE DISODIUM | Sanofi Winthrop |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0(AE) Sponsor Response: 0.2 FDA 2nd Action: 0.0(AP) |
Y |
|
| MOEXIPRIL HCL/HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE | Schwarz Pharma (US) |
|
FDA 1st Action: 10.4(AE) Sponsor Response: 1.9 FDA 2nd Action: 0.5(AP) |
Y |
|
| ENALAPRIL MALEATE/FELODIPINE | Astra Merck |
|
FDA 1st Action: 11.2(AE) Sponsor Response: 1.2 FDA 2nd Action: 0.5(AP) |
Y |
|
| QUETIAPINE FUMARATE | Zeneca Pharms |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0(AE) Sponsor Response: 0.2 FDA 2nd Action: 1.7(AP) |
Y |
|
| GLATIRAMER ACETATE | Teva Pharms |
|
FDA 1st Action: 11.8(AE) Sponsor Response: 1.1 FDA 2nd Action: 1.4(AP) |
Y |
|
| NIACIN | Kos Pharms |
|
|
||
| PAROXETINE HCL | SKB Pharms |
|
FDA 1st Action: 10.7(AE) Sponsor Response: 2.7 FDA 2nd Action: 1.3(AP) |
Y |
|
| FENOLDOPAM MESYLATE | Neurex |
|
|
||
| SALMETEROL XINAFOATE | Glaxo Wellcome |
|
|
||
| MIBEFRADIL DIHYDROCHLORIDE | Roche |
|
FDA 1st Action: 15.0(AE) Sponsor Response: 0.3 FDA 2nd Action: 0.0(AP) |
Y |
|
| HYDROCODONE BITARTRATE/IBUPROFEN | Knoll Pharm |
|
FDA 1st Action: 11.7(AE) Sponsor Response: 1.3 FDA 2nd Action: 3.9(AP) |
Y |
|
| CARBAMAZEPINE | Shire Labs |
|
FDA 1st Action: 11.5(AE) Sponsor Response: 2.0 FDA 2nd Action: 5.4(AP) |
Y |
|
| PRAMIPEXOLE DIHYDROCHLORIDE | Pharmacia and Upjohn |
|
FDA 1st Action: 11.9(AE) Sponsor Response: 0.6 FDA 2nd Action: 5.7(AP) |
Y |
|
| DOLASETRON MESYLATE | Hoechst Marion Rssl |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0(AE) Sponsor Response: 0.9 FDA 2nd Action: 5.8(AP) |
Y |
|
| ALPROSTADIL | Schwarz Pharma (US) |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0(AE) Sponsor Response: 1.3 FDA 2nd Action: 5.8(AP) |
Y |
|
| Table 2, Continued | |||||
|
|
|
|
Goal Met |
||
|
|
(if necessary) |
||||
| DIAZEPAM | Athena |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0(AE) Sponsor Response: 3.9 FDA 2nd Action: 3.9(AP) |
|
|
| ROPINIROLE HCL | SKB Pharms |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0(AE) Sponsor Response: 2.8 FDA 2nd Action: 5.9(AP) |
|
|
| FOLLITROPIN BETA | Organon |
|
FDA 1st Action: 15.0(NA) Sponsor Response: 1.2 FDA 2nd Action: 4.5(AP) |
|
|
| TIAGABINE HCL | Abbott Labs |
|
FDA 1st Action: 11.8(AE) Sponsor Response: 5.0 FDA 2nd Action: 6.0(AP) |
|
|
| Table 3 FY 95 Priority NDA and PLA Submissions Approved in FY 97 |
|||||
|
|
|
|
Goal Met |
||
|
|
(if necessary) |
||||
| AMLEXANOX | Block Drug |
|
FDA 1st Action: 11.9 (AE) Sponsor Response: 3.6 FDA Second Action: 4.4 (AP) |
|
|
| CAPROMAB PENDETIDE (PLA) | Cytogen Corporation |
|
FDA 1st Action: 6.0 (NA) Sponsor Response: 6.5 FDA Second Action: 4.5 (NA) Sponsor Response: 1.9 FDA Third Action: 2.6 (AP) |
|
|
| UREA C-14 | Tri Med Speclts |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0 (NA) Sponsor Response: 3.4 FDA Second Action: 5.8 (AE) Sponsor Response: 2.3 FDA Third Action: 1.0 (AP) |
|
|
| MYCOPHENOLATE MOFETIL | Syntex USA |
|
FDA 1st Action: 5.7 (NA) Sponsor Response: 19.8 FDA Second Action: 5.8 (AP) |
|
|
| Table 4 Standard NDA and PLA Submissions Approved in FY 97 |
|||||
|
|
|
|
Goal Met |
||
|
|
(if necessary) |
||||
| CLONIDINE HCL | Fujisawa USA |
|
|
||
| IBUPROFEN | Whitehall Robins |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 1.2 FDA Second Action: 1.7 (AP) |
|
|
| RETEPLASE (PLA) | Boehringer Mannheim GmbH |
|
FDA 1st Action: 11.9 (AE) Sponsor Response: 0.4 FDA Second Action: 3.6 (AP) |
|
|
| LEVONORGESTREL | Population Council |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0(NA) Sponsor Response: 3.4 FDA Second Action: 5.8 (AE) Sponsor Response: 0.4 FDA Third Action: 2.0 (AP) |
|
|
| TRANDOLAPRIL/VERAPAMIL HCL | Knoll Pharm |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 2.1 FDA Second Action: 3.8 (AP) |
|
|
| HAEMOPHILUS B CONJUGATE (MENINGOCOCCAL PROTEIN CONJUGATE) AND HEPATITIS B (RECOMBINANT) VACCINE (PLA) | Merck & Co., Inc. |
|
FDA 1st Action: 11.2 (NA) Sponsor Response: 1.6 FDA Second Action: 5.3 (AP) |
|
|
| BUTENAFINE HCL | Penederm |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 1.2 FDA Second Action: 5.3 (AP) |
|
|
| ETODOLAC | Wyeth Ayerst Labs |
|
FDA 1st Action: 15.1 (AE) Sponsor Response: 1.1 FDA Second Action: 2.7 (AP) |
|
|
| ONDANSETRON HCL | Glaxo Wellcome |
|
FDA 1st Action: 11.3 (AE) Sponsor Response: 1.9 FDA Second Action: 6.0 (AP) |
|
|
| PANCRELIPASE | Organon |
|
FDA 1st Action: 15.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 2.4 FDA Second Action: 2.3 (AP) |
|
|
| CALCIPOTRIENE | Bristol Myers Squibb |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0 (NA) Sponsor Response: 2.1 FDA Second Action: 5.9 (AP) |
|
|
| CALFACTANT | Ony |
|
FDA 1st Action: 4.8 (AE) Sponsor Response: 3.5 FDA Second Action: 5.9 (AP‡) |
|
|
| Table 4, Continued | |||||
|
|
|
|
Goal Met |
||
|
|
(if necessary) |
||||
| VALPROATE SODIUM | Abbott Labs |
|
FDA 1st Action: 14.6 (AE) Sponsor Response: 1.3 FDA Second Action: 5.5 (AP) |
|
|
| PODOFILOX | Oclassen Pharm |
|
FDA 1st Action: 11.8 (AE) Sponsor Response: 5.3 FDA Second Action: 4.4 (AP) |
|
|
| SAMARIUM SM153 EDTMP | Cytogen |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0 (NA) Sponsor Response: 3.6 FDA Second Action: 5.9(AP) |
|
|
| BETAXOLOL HCL/PILOCARPINE HCL | Alcon |
|
FDA 1st Action: 13.7 (AE) Sponsor Response: 1.2 FDA Second Action: 3.8 (AE) Sponsor Response: 2.1 FDA Third Action: 1.4 (AP) |
|
|
| LOPERAMIDE HCL/SIMETHICONE | McNeil Cons Prods |
|
FDA 1st Action: 11.8 (AE) Sponsor Response: 5.3 FDA Second Action: 5.9 (AP) |
|
|
| DILTIAZEM MALATE | Merck |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 10.2 FDA Second Action: 0.9 (AP) |
|
|
| DILTIAZEM MALATE/ENALAPRIL MALEATE | Merck |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 10.2 FDA Second Action: 0.9 (AP) |
|
|
| DOLASETRON MESYTLATE | Hoechst Marion Rssl |
|
FDA 1st Action: 17.2 (AE) Sponsor Response: 0.9 FDA Second Action: 5.4 (AP) |
|
|
| DANAPAROID SODIUM | Organon |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.7 (NA) Sponsor Response: 0.2 FDA Second Action: 6.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 3.9 FDA Third Action: 1.2 (AP) |
|
|
| TOPIRAMATE | Johnson RW |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 6.0 FDA Second Action: 5.9 (AP) |
|
|
| TAZAROTENE | Allergan |
|
FDA 1st Action: 11.6 (NA) Sponsor Response: 0.9 FDA Second Action: 5.9 (AE) Sponsor Response: 0.7 FDA Third Action: 4.7 (AP) |
|
|
| Table 4, Continued | |||||
|
|
|
|
Goal Met |
||
|
|
(if necessary) |
||||
| SUMATRIPTAN |
Glaxo Wellcome
|
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0 (NA) Sponsor Response: 2.1 FDA Second Action: 5.8 (AE) Sponsor Response: 0.5 FDA Third Action: 3.6 (AP) |
|
|
| TRETINOIN GEL | Adv Polymer |
|
FDA 1st Action: 15.0 (NA) Sponsor Response: 3.1 FDA Second Action: 6.0 (AP) |
|
|
| BUDESONIDE | Astra USA |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 2.9 FDA Second Action: 3.5 (AE) Sponsor Response: 0.3 FDA Third Action: 5.8 (AP) |
|
|
| HYDROCHLOROTHIAZIDE | Watson Labs |
|
FDA 1st Action: 9.2 (NA) Sponsor Response: 8.9 FDA Second Action: 4.7 (AE) Sponsor Response: 1.8 FDA Third Action: 1.0 (AP) |
|
|
| TOREMIFENE CITRATE | Orion |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 4.0 FDA Second Action: 6.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 2.8 FDA Third Action: 4.1 (AP) |
|
|
| BROMFENAC SODIUM | Wyeth Ayerst Labs |
|
FDA 1st Action: 11.9 (AE) Sponsor Response: 1.6 FDA Second Action: 7.5 (AE) Sponsor Response: 4.9 FDA Third Action: 4.6 (AP) |
|
|
| Table 5 FY 94 Standard NDA and PLA Submissions Approved in FY 97 |
|||||
|
|
|
|
Goal Met |
||
|
|
(if necessary) |
||||
| FOSFOMYCIN TROMETHAMINE | Zambon |
|
FDA 1st Action: 11.7 (NA) Sponsor Response: 9.3 FDA Second Action: 5.7 (AP) |
|
|
| ZILEUTON | Abbott Labs |
|
FDA 1st Action: 15.0 (NA) Sponsor Response: 7.7 FDA Second Action: 6.0 (AP) |
|
|
| BRIMONIDINE TARTRATE | Allergan |
|
FDA 1st Action: 11.8 (NA) Sponsor Response: 14.4 FDA Second Action: 3.2 (A.P) |
|
|
| ESTRADIOL | Parke Davis |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0 (NA) Sponsor Response: 2.6 FDA Second Action: 1.5 (NA) Sponsor Response: 8.2 FDA Third Action: 6.0 (AP) |
|
|
| BECLOMETHASONE DIPROPIONATE | Schering |
|
FDA 1st Action: 11.9 (AE) Sponsor Response: 3.2 FDA Second Action: 6.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 4.0 FDA Third Action: 5.7(AP) |
|
|
| BUPROPION HYDROCHLORIDE | Glaxo Wellcome |
|
FDA 1st Action: 14.8 (NA) Sponsor Response: 4.0 FDA Second Action: 5.6 (AE) Sponsor Response: 2.1 FDA Third Action: 4.7 (AP) |
|
|
| ZINC ACETATE | Lemmon |
|
FDA 1st Action: 14.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 13.8 FDA Second Action: 3.4 (AP) |
|
|
| TRETINOIN CREAM | Penederm |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0 (NA) Sponsor Response: 8.9 FDA Second Action: 6.0 (NA) Sponsor Response: 0.6 FDA Third Action: 6.0 (AP) |
|
|
| TRETINOIN GEL | Penederm |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0 (NA) Sponsor Response: 9.3 FDA Second Action: 5.7 (NA) Sponsor Response: 0.6 FDA Third Action: 6.0 (AP‡) |
|
|
| CICLOPIROX | Hoechst Marion Rssl |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 3.2 FDA Second Action: 6.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 6.7 FDA Third Action: 5.9 (AP) |
|
|
| Table 5, continued | |||||
|
|
|
|
Goal Met |
||
|
|
(if necessary) |
||||
| TIZANIDINE HCL | Athena Neurosciences |
|
FDA 1st Action: 15.0 (NA) Sponsor Response: 6.2 FDA Second Action: 6.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 6.5 FDA Third Action: 2.1 (AP) |
|
|
| HYDROCORTISONE BUTEPRATE | Savage Labs |
|
FDA 1st Action: 7.8 (NA) Sponsor Response: 14.3 FDA Second Action: 6.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 2.9 FDA Third Action: 4.7 (AP) |
|
|
| FERUMOXSIL | Advanced Magnetics |
|
FDA 1st Action: 29.5 (AE) Sponsor Response: 1.7 FDA Second Action: 5.3 (AP) |
|
|
| LOPERAMIDE HCL | McNeil Cons Prods |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 9.2 FDA Second Action: 5.8 (AE) Sponsor Response: 7.5 FDA Third Action: 5.9 (AP) |
|
|
| SERMORELIN ACETATE | Serono Labs |
|
FDA 1st Action: 11.9 (NA) Sponsor Response: 25.0 FDA Second Action: 5.0 (AP) |
|
|
| ARBUTAMINE HCL | Gensia |
|
FDA 1st Action: 15.0 (NA) Sponsor Response: 6.7 FDA Second Action: 6.0 (NA) Sponsor Response: 6.6 FDA Third Action: 6.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 2.2 FDA Fourth Action: 1.9 (AP) |
|
|
| TRICLOSAN/SODIUM FLUORIDE | Colgate Palmolive |
|
FDA 1st Action: 15.0 (NA) Sponsor Response: 6.1 FDA Second Action: 6.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 1.2 FDA Third Action: 6.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 4.3 FDA Fourth Action: 5.9 (AP) |
|
|
| Table 6 FY 93 Standard NDA and PLA Submissions Approved in FY 97 |
|||||
|
|
|
|
Goal Met |
||
|
|
(if necessary) |
||||
| ALBUTEROL SULFATE/ IPRATROPIUM BROMIDE | Boehringer Ingelheim |
|
FDA 1st Action: 9.1 (NA) Sponsor Response: 5.0 FDA Second Action: 4.8 (NA) Sponsor Response: 5.0 FDA Third Action: 6.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 5.1 FDA Fourth Action: 6.0 (AP) |
|
|
| ACITRETIN | Roche |
|
FDA 1st Action: 15.0 (NA) Sponsor Response: 5.1 FDA Second Action: 6.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 2.9 FDA Third Action: 6.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 4.0 FDA Fourth Action: 6.0 (AP) |
|
|
| DIGOXIN | Glaxo Wellcome |
|
FDA 1st Action: 12.8 (AE) Sponsor Response: 13.3 FDA Second Action: 2.4 (AE) Sponsor Response: 13.8 FDA Third Action: 1.8 (AE) Sponsor Response: 3.5 FDA Fourth Action: 0.4 (AP) |
|
|
| FOLLITROPIN ALPHA | Serono Labs |
|
FDA 1st Action: 11.9 (NA) Sponsor Response: 28.1 FDA Second Action: 6.0 (AE) Sponsor Response: 0.1 FDA Third Action: 2.4 (AP) |
|
|
| ARDEPARIN SODIUM | Wyeth Ayerst Labs |
|
FDA 1st Action: 11.3 (NA) Sponsor Response: 2.2 FDA Second Action: 4.6 (NA) Sponsor Response: 2.8 FDA Third Action: 8.9 (NA) Sponsor Response: 2.5 FDA Fourth Action: 4.7 (NA) Sponsor Response: 3.9 FDA Fifth Action: 5.7 (AE) Sponsor Response: 5.6 FDA Sixth Action: 0.7 (AP) |
|
|











