Drug regulatory agencies should ensure that the benefits of drugs outweigh their risks, but licensed medicines sometimes do not perform as expected in everyday clinical practice. Failure may relate to lower than anticipated efficacy or a higher than anticipated incidence or severity of adverse effects. Here we show that the problem of benefit-risk is to a considerable degree a problem of variability in drug response. We describe biological and behavioural sources of variability and how these contribute to the long-known efficacy-effectiveness gap. In this context, efficacy describes how a drug performs under conditions of clinical trials, whereas effectiveness describes how it performs under conditions of everyday clinical practice. We argue that a broad range of pre- and post-licensing technologies will need to be harnessed to bridge the efficacy-effectiveness gap. Successful approaches will not be limited to the current notion of pharmacogenomics-based personalized medicines, but will also entail the wider use of electronic health-care tools to improve drug prescribing and patient adherence.

The first formal qualification of safety biomarkers for regulatory decision making marks a milestone in the application of biomarkers to drug development. Following submission of drug toxicity studies and analyses of biomarker performance to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMEA) by the Predictive Safety Testing Consortium's (PSTC) Nephrotoxicity Working Group, seven renal safety biomarkers have been qualified for limited use in nonclinical and clinical drug development to help guide safety assessments. This was a pilot process, and the experience gained will both facilitate better understanding of how the qualification process will probably evolve and clarify the minimal requirements necessary to evaluate the performance of biomarkers of organ injury within specific contexts.

Traditional drug licensing approaches are based on binary decisions. At the moment of licensing, an experimental therapy is presumptively transformed into a fully vetted, safe, efficacious therapy. By contrast, adaptive licensing (AL) approaches are based on stepwise learning under conditions of acknowledged uncertainty, with iterative phases of data gathering and regulatory evaluation. This approach allows approval to align more closely with patient needs for timely access to new technologies and for data to inform medical decisions. The concept of AL embraces a range of perspectives. Some see AL as an evolutionary step, extending elements that are now in place. Others envision a transformative framework that may require legislative action before implementation. This article summarizes recent AL proposals; discusses how proposals might be translated into practice, with illustrations in different therapeutic areas; and identifies unresolved issues to inform decisions on the design and implementation of AL.

Drug regulatory agencies have traditionally assessed the quality, safety and efficacy of drugs, and the current paradigm dictates that a new drug should be licensed when the benefits outweigh the risks. By contrast, third-party payers base their reimbursement decisions predominantly on the health benefits of the drug relative to existing treatment options (termed relative efficacy; RE). Over the past decade, the role of payers has become more prominent, and time-to-market no longer means time-to-licensing but time-to-reimbursement. Companies now have to satisfy the sometimes divergent needs of both regulators and payers, and to address RE during the pre-marketing stages. This article describes the current political background to the RE debate and presents the scientific and methodological challenges as they relate to RE assessment. In addition, we explain the impact of RE on drug development, and speculate on future developments and actions that are likely to be required from key players.

We studied the adhesion of erythrocytes from 30 diabetic patients and 25 controls to human endothelial cells. Washed erythrocytes were labeled with 51Cr and added to confluent endothelial cells cultured from umbilical veins. After incubation at 37 degrees C, the nonadherent erythrocytes were removed by sequential washings. The percentage of erythrocytes adhering to cultured endothelium after each wash was significantly higher when erythrocytes were from diabetics than when they were from controls (P less than 0.005). After the fifth wash, the mean adhesion ratio (percentage of adhering diabetic red cells: percentage of adhering control red cells) was 2.33 (range, 0.8 to 5.2). Increased adhesion was related to the extent of vascular complications in the diabetics, as assessed by a vascular score. With the same technique, fewer erythrocytes adhered to plastic and to cultured human fibroblasts than to endothelial cells, although the adhesion of the diabetic red cells to these surfaces was higher than that of the controls. These results suggest that in diabetes there is an intrinsic erythrocyte abnormality that is related to vascular disease.