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.

There is broad agreement among health-care stakeholders that more must be done to ensure that patients have timely access to new and innovative medicines. Assuming that industry will continue to develop such medicines at a sustainable rate, regulators and payers become the gatekeepers. Regulators, starting in the late 1980s/early 1990s, and, more recently, payers have implemented a variety of early-access pathways or initiatives, and this practice is continuing even today. This article describes the specific approaches that have been taken in four economically developed regions, reviews their success rates, and suggests possible new directions.

No abstract

Background :  Delineation of non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drug (NSAID) gastrointestinal toxicity has largely depended on retrospective epidemiologic studies which demonstrate that lower doses of NSAIDs pose a lower risk of gastrointestinal toxicity. Ibuprofen, a propionic acid NSAID, has, in most such studies, exhibited a favourable profile in terms of gastrointestinal bleeding. Since 1984, ibuprofen has been available as a non‐prescription analgesic/antipyretic with a limit of 1200 mg/day for 10 days of continuous use. Trials and spontaneously reported adverse experiences suggest that gastrointestinal symptoms and bleeding are rare. Methods : This study prospectively evaluated the gastrointestinal tolerability, as compared to placebo, of the maximum non‐prescription dose and duration of ibuprofen use in healthy subjects representative of a non‐prescription analgesic user population. Results : Gastrointestinal adverse experiences were similar in the placebo and ibuprofen groups (67 out of 413, 16% with placebo vs. 161 out of 833, 19% with ibuprofen). There was no difference between the two groups in the proportion discontinuing due to a gastrointestinal event. Gastrointestinal adverse experiences reported by ≥ 1% of subjects were: dyspepsia, abdominal pain, nausea, diarrhoea, flatulence, and constipation. Seventeen (1.4%) subjects had positive occult blood tests: their frequency was comparable between treatments. Conclusions : When used as directed to treat episodic pain, non‐prescription ibuprofen at the maximum dose of 1200 mg/day for 10 days, is well‐tolerated.

This study evaluates whether an adaptive development and licensing approach to drug development, compared with approaches widely used today, might have tangible advantages across stakeholder groups, thereby facilitating the future adoption. Details involving actual and modeled clinical development and licensing programs for 3 case studies were used as inputs into a discounted cash flow spreadsheet model. Outputs included net present value and expected net present value, which are metrics considered as key incentives for pharmaceutical developers, and change in patient access over the product life and numbers of appropriately and inappropriately treated patients, which are metrics considered as key incentives for regulators, patients, and prescribers. Actual and modeled development programs were compared using an "adaptiveness" scoring algorithm. Generally, the more adaptive programs correlated with more favorable stakeholder outcomes. However, favorable outcomes may be overwhelmed in some cases, and the causative conditions and stakeholder reactions need to be defined.