Skip to main content

Summary of U.S. New Drugs For 2010

Here is an initial list of the 2010 US new approved drugs (specifically New Molecular Entities). The way we count things, there were 19 novel newly approved drug substantces in the US last year.

1 Tocilizumab Actemra / RoActemra
2 Dalfampridine Ampyra
3 Liraglutide Victoza
4 Velaglucerase alfa VPRIV
5 Carglumic acid Carbaglu
6 Polidocanol Asclera
7 Denosumab Prolia
8 Cabazitaxel Jevtana
9 Sipuleucel-T Provenge
10 Ulipristal Acetate Ella
11 Alcafatadine Lastacaft
12 Pegloticase Krystexxa
13 Fingolimod Gilenya
14 Dabigatran Etexilate Pradaxa
15 Lurasidone Latuda
16 Ceftaroline Fosamil Teflaro
17 Eribulin Mesylate Halaven
18 Tesamorelin Egrifta
19 Dienogest Natazia

12 are small molecule drugs, and 7 are biologicals. Of the small molecule drugs, 6 (32%) are small molecule synthetic drugs, 6 (32%) are small molecule natural product-derived drugs, 6 (32%) are biologicals (including peptides, enzymes and mAbs) and one (5%) is a cell-based therapy. Also interesting is the fact that the majority are parenterally dosed (11 of 19) (58%).

For details on the icon set used in the table, see this link.

Following some checking, I've added Dienogest to the list (it is part of the combination product Natazia), and updated the analysis below... Some sources are stating that there are 21 'New Drugs' for 2010; however, a 'new drug' is not necessarily the same as an NME, and also there are some inconsistencies on the FDA approval tables for 2010 at the current time (for NMEs that everolimus (Zortress) was first approved in the US in 2010, it was actually first approved in 2009 as Affinitor), that make counting the NMEs for the year problematic. the raw approval data from the FDA is in a series of monthly charts, accessible here (unfortunately, there is no easy, web-friendly way to provide a set of useful links, you'll just have to type in the months). In these tables you should look for the 1s, as being the new NMEs, as you will see, quite a few are unassigned, and as mentioned above there are some errors (e.g. everolimus was first approved (as a new NME) last year, however, under a different Tradename, for a different indication).

UPDATE: One of the potentially new NMEs of last year is incobotulinumtoxinA (trademark:Xeomin), this is a type A botulinum toxin, in the same class as abobotulinumtoxinA (trademark:Dysport, Reloxin, Azzalure), and onabotulinumtoxinA (trademark:BOTOX). These are essentially identical from an active component perspective (the USAN statements are abobotulinumtoxinA, incobotulinumtoxinA, and onabotulinumtoxinA) and the sequences are essentially identical. It is the convention, that due to the very high potency, and subsequent differences in potency from different production/processing routes for botulinum toxin products, that different USANs are assigned to highlight the non-bioequivalence of different products. This is part of a broader issue of assigning bioequivalence of biological drugs, which has exercised drug producers, regulators, and consumers over recent years. Since we are mostly interested in drugs differentiated by differing molecular structures, we do not consider these are distinct NMEs, and so incobotulinumtoxinA is not counted in our analysis as a new NME. A similar issue occurred last year.

Another interesting case for a new 2010 biological drug is Collagenase Clostridium histolyticum (approved in the US in 2010 as Xiaflex), which is a defined composition mixture of two bacterial collagenase gene products. Xiaflex is dosed parenterally. In 2004 Santyl was approved as a topical drug for wound debridement; the active ingredient in Santyl is ‘Collagenase clostridium histolyticum’, produced by an entirely different process. It would appear from cursory literature analysis that Santyl has non-articulated composition (this is not the same as having a variable or non-specific composition, just that the components are not in a defined composition in the easily accessible public regulatory documents). There are clear developmental and safety differences between a topically dosed ‘local’ agent (Santyl), and an agent that has full exposure to the circulatory and immune system (Xiaflex), and they serve different patient populations, have different indications, etc. They are clearly non-substitutable in a clinical setting.

So, how does one treat this case? Should Xiaflex be considered as actually two new NMEs (the independent and related products of the related ColG and ColH gene products, which is actually what the USAN references) towards drug approval innovation numbers, or should it be subsumed under the previous approval of Collagenase Clostridium histolyticum for Santyl. We have taken the view, from the perspective of the approval of ‘new NMEs’, that Xiaflex contains a previously approved active ingredient. Others will take different views.

More broadly, it is of interest to examine the USAN definition for Xiaflex - it contains two distinct chemical components (the two sequence related collagenase proteins) in a simple mixture - there is nothing special about the mixture - for example, they are not a defined composition obligate heterodimer, and they will be separable from drug substance via straightforward routes under native physiological-like conditions. Some small molecule USANs contain multiple molecules, but these are invariably salts, and in cases where there are two (or more) active ingredients in a small molecule drug, they are typically assigned separate USANs. Furthermore, the convention now is to assign a USAN for the parent small molecule, as well as for each distinct salt, even if the salt is the only component in an approved product. This is in-line with the INN model (where salts are not usually assigned distinct INNs) Logically, to us, from an informatics perspective, it would make sense to assign USANs for Xiaflex at the level of the distinct proteins), and then for Xiaflex to be a ‘product’ containing two USANs as a defined mixture, in the same way the many small molecule mixture drugs are defined. Anyway, the informatics representation of biological drugs, and the concepts of bioequivalence, differences in post-translational processing (proteolytic maturation, N- and O-linked glycosylation, etc) may seem to be a semantic discussion, but it does have important commercial and healthcare implications. This issue will no doubt keep many drug discoverers, regulators, and intellectual property staff employed for some time, and hopefully will eventually bring improved, cheaper and continually innovative healthcare to all.

Stepping back even further… Given that current drug naming processes and ‘business rules’ were developed at a time when the complexities of biological drugs were not imagined, and also before a time of electronic databases, and the benefits of the application of controlled vocabularies, dictionaries and ontologies were really appreciated - it is interesting to reflect on how it would be done nowadays if starting from scratch. More of this in a future post (maybe).

In final summary, the number of molecularly novel drugs that were approved in the US last year is between 19 and 22, with the difference being in the way that biological drugs are treated!


Popular posts from this blog

A python client for accessing ChEMBL web services

Motivation The CheMBL Web Services provide simple reliable programmatic access to the data stored in ChEMBL database. RESTful API approaches are quite easy to master in most languages but still require writing a few lines of code. Additionally, it can be a challenging task to write a nontrivial application using REST without any examples. These factors were the motivation for us to write a small client library for accessing web services from Python. Why Python? We choose this language because Python has become extremely popular (and still growing in use) in scientific applications; there are several Open Source chemical toolkits available in this language, and so the wealth of ChEMBL resources and functionality of those toolkits can be easily combined. Moreover, Python is a very web-friendly language and we wanted to show how easy complex resource acquisition can be expressed in Python. Reinventing the wheel? There are already some libraries providing access to ChEMBL d

ChEMBL 29 Released

  We are pleased to announce the release of ChEMBL 29. This version of the database, prepared on 01/07/2021 contains: 2,703,543 compound records 2,105,464 compounds (of which 2,084,724 have mol files) 18,635,916 activities 1,383,553 assays 14,554 targets 81,544 documents Data can be downloaded from the ChEMBL FTP site: .  Please see ChEMBL_29 release notes for full details of all changes in this release: New Deposited Datasets EUbOPEN Chemogenomic Library (src_id = 55, ChEMBL Document IDs CHEMBL4649982-CHEMBL4649998): The EUbOPEN consortium is an Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) funded project to enable and unlock biology in the open. The aims of the project are to assemble an open access chemogenomic library comprising about 5,000 well annotated compounds covering roughly 1,000 different proteins, to synthesiz

Identifying relevant compounds in patents

  As you may know, patents can be inherently noisy documents which can make it challenging to extract drug discovery information from them, such as the key targets or compounds being claimed. There are many reasons for this, ranging from deliberate obfuscation through to the long and detailed nature of the documents. For example, a typical small molecule patent may contain extensive background information relating to the target biology and disease area, chemical synthesis information, biological assay protocols and pharmacological measurements (which may refer to endogenous substances, existing therapies, reaction intermediates, reagents and reference compounds), in addition to description of the claimed compounds themselves.  The SureChEMBL system extracts this chemical information from patent documents through recognition of chemical names, conversion of images and extraction of attached files, and allows patents to be searched for chemical structures of interest. However, the curren

Julia meets RDKit

Julia is a young programming language that is getting some traction in the scientific community. It is a dynamically typed, memory safe and high performance JIT compiled language that was designed to replace languages such as Matlab, R and Python. We've been keeping an an eye on it for a while but we were missing something... yes, RDKit! Fortunately, Greg very recently added the MinimalLib CFFI interface to the RDKit repertoire. This is nothing else than a C API that makes it very easy to call RDKit from almost any programming language. More information about the MinimalLib is available directly from the source . The existence of this MinimalLib CFFI interface meant that we no longer had an excuse to not give it a go! First, we added a BinaryBuilder recipe for building RDKit's MinimalLib into Julia's Yggdrasil repository (thanks Mosè for reviewing!). The recipe builds and automatically uploads the library to Julia's general package registry. The build currently targe

New Drug Warnings Browser

As mentioned in the announcement post of  ChEMBL 29 , a new Drug Warnings Browser has been created. This is an updated version of the entity browsers in ChEMBL ( Compounds , Targets , Activities , etc). It contains new features that will be tried out with the Drug Warnings and will be applied to the other entities gradually. The new features of the Drug Warnings Browser are described below. More visible buttons to link to other entities This functionality is already available in the old entity browsers, but the button to use it is not easily recognised. In the new version, the buttons are more visible. By using those buttons, users can see the related activities, compounds, drugs, mechanisms of action and drug indications to the drug warnings selected. The page will take users to the corresponding entity browser with the items related to the ones selected, or to all the items in the dataset if the user didn’t select any. Additionally, the process of creating the join query is no