As the principal agency regulating food, drugs, medical devices, and biological products used by Americans, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) serves one of the most critical consumer protection functions of the federal government. The FDA's reach is enormous, regulating products that represent roughly 25 percent of all consumer spending in the United States. Since 1992, however, federal funding for the agency has diminished, and the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) currently relies on the fees it receives from the industry it regulates to fund the majority of its drug regulation functions. Prescription drug safety is receiving heightened press coverage and congressional scrutiny as a result of recent, highly publicized events, such as the recall of Vioxx because of its link to heart attacks, and the link between certain antidepressants (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs) and an increased risk of suicidal ideation in children. To address these concerns, the FDA in 2005 commissioned the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to conduct an independent assessment of the current U.S. drug safety system. In September 2006, the IOM committee released its report-The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public-which included 25 recommendations for improving the system for drug safety review. The committee identified four major vulnerabilities in the U.S. drug safety system: (1) chronic underfunding; (2) organization problems, particularly inadequate integration of pre-and postmarket data review; (3) a range of technical problems related to the insufficient quantity and quality of postmarket data and inadequate capability to systematically monitor the risks and benefits of drugs after marketing; and (4) unclear regulatory authority and insufficiently flexible regulatory tools. Since the IOM report was issued, the FDA has taken a number of steps toward implementing the recommended improvements. Like many government agencies, however, the FDA is financially strained by its existing responsibilities, and fully implementing the recommended improvements to the drug safety system would require significant financial commitments.The IOM report addressed some of the costs associated with its recommendations, but left many unanswered questions about the resources required to fully achieve the envisioned improvements. To better understand the types and magnitude of resources required to achieve the goals of the IOM report, the IOM's Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation convened a 1-day symposium in March 2007. Challenges for the FDA: The Future of Drug Safety, Workshop Summary explains the presentations and discussions in seven key areas: addressing the FDA's resource challenges; strengthening the scientific base of the agency; integrating pre- and postmarket review; enhancing postmarket safety monitoring; conducting confirmatory drug safety and efficacy studies; enhancing the value of clinical trial registration; and enhancing the FDA's postmarket regulation and enforcement.

In the wake of publicity and congressional attention to drug safety issues, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requested the Institute of Medicine assess the drug safety system. The committee reported that a lack of clear regulatory authority, chronic underfunding, organizational problems, and a scarcity of post-approval data about drugs' risks and benefits have hampered the FDA's ability to evaluate and address the safety of prescription drugs after they have reached the market. Noting that resources and therefore efforts to monitor medications' riskâ€"benefit profiles taper off after approval, The Future of Drug Safety offers a broad set of recommendations to ensure that consideration of safety extends from before product approval through the entire time the product is marketed and used.

Biomarkers can be defined as indicators of any biologic state, and they are central to the future of medicine. As the cost of developing drugs has risen in recent years, reducing the number of new drugs approved for use, biomarker development may be a way to cut costs, enhance safety, and provide a more focused and rational pathway to drug development. On October 24, 2008, the IOM's Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation held "Assessing and Accelerating Development of Biomarkers for Drug Safety," a one-day workshop, summarized in this volume, on the value of biomarkers in helping to determine drug safety during development.

In the last decade, pharmacoepidemiology has emerged as an important field to study the use/effects of drugs in large populations in real life, allowing for improved benefits and effectiveness of drugs as well as a decline in drug-related risks. The correct assessment, reporting, monitoring, and prevention of adverse events in drugs’ development, as well as therapy and post-market surveillance, is essential to improve clinical therapies and health outcomes. This book provides a comprehensive and unique overview of the relevance, new insights, and recent findings of pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety in public health.

In recent years, the costs of new drug development have skyrocketed. The average cost of developing a new approved drug is now estimated to be $1.3 billion (DiMasi and Grabowski, 2007). At the same time, each year fewer new molecular entities (NMEs) are approved. DiMasi and Grabowski report that only 21.5 percent of the candidate drugs that enter phase I clinical testing actually make it to market. In 2007, just 17 novel drugs and 2 novel biologics were approved. In addition to the slowing rate of drug development and approval, recent years have seen a number of drugs withdrawn from the market for safety reasons. According to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), 10 drugs were withdrawn because of safety concerns between 2000 and March 2006 (GAO, 2006). Finding ways to select successful drug candidates earlier in development could save millions or even billions of dollars, reduce the costs of drugs on the market, and increase the number of new drugs with improved safety profiles that are available to patients. Emerging scientific knowledge and technologies hold the potential to enhance correct decision making for the advancement of candidate drugs. Identification of safety problems is a key reason that new drug development is stalled. Traditional methods for assessing a drug's safety prior to approval are limited in their ability to detect rare safety problems. Prior to receiving U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval, a drug will have been tested in hundreds to thousands of patients. Generally, drugs cannot confidently be linked to safety problems until they have been tested in tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of people. With current methods, it is unlikely that rare safety problems will be identified prior to approval. Emerging Safety Science: Workshop Summary summarizes the events and presentations of the workshop.

The Future of Drug Discovery: Who decides which diseases to treat? provides a timely and detailed look at the efforts of the pharmaceutical industry and how they relate, or should relate, to societal needs. The authors posit that as a result of increasing risk aversion and accelerated savings in research and development, the industry is not developing drugs for increasingly prevalent diseases, such as Alzheimer’s disease, untreatable pain, antibiotics and more. This book carefully exposes the gap between the medicines and therapies we need and the current business path. By analyzing the situation and discussing prospects for the next decade, the The Future of Drug Discovery is a timely book for all those who care about the development needs for drugs for disease. Provides an in-depth, broad perspective on the crisis in drug industry Exposes the disconnect between what society needs and what the drug companies are working on Analyses and projects over 10 years into the future Explains what it means for scientists and society Determines what is needed to be done to make sure that the industry responds to society's needs, remains commercially attractive and answers the question as to who decides which diseases to treat