Rationale for the Effective Use of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics in Early Drug Development

  • Carl C. Peck


Premarketing development of new drugs is time-consuming, costly, and does not always lead to optimal dosages. DiMasi and coworkers (1991) estimate that the mean development time of new drugs approved during the mid-80’s was 11.8 years and the average direct cost was 117 million dollars. Despite such lengthy and costly premarketing research efforts, as of April 1991, 8.3% of 192 new drugs approved during the 1980’s had undergone significant dosage changes in the approved drug labels (examples: midazolam, zidovudine, buprenorphine, alprazolam). These dosage changes were prompted by a recognition that modifications in recommended doses or dosing intervals would lead to even more efficacious or safer therapy in individual patients. Thus, if efficiency in premarketing drug development is measured by its duration, cost and optimality of dosages, it appears that the process is often inefficient.


Dosage Regimen Drug Development Drug Development Program Early Drug Development Average Direct Cost 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Collins, J M., C. K. Grieshaber, and B. A. Chabner (1990). Review: Pharmacologically guided phase I clinical trials based upon preclinical drug development. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 82, No. 16.Google Scholar
  2. DiMasi, J. A., R. W. Hansen, H. G. Grabowski, and L. Lasagna (1991). Cost of innovation in the pharmaceutical industry, J. Health Econ. 10, 107–142.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Peck, C. C. (1992). Population approach in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: FDA view. In M. Rowland and L. Aarons (Eds.), New Strategies in Drug Development and Clinical Evaluation: Population Approach. Commission of European Communities, Brussels, pp. 157–168.Google Scholar
  4. Peck, C. C., and J. M. Collins (1990). New drugs: The first time in man, a regulatory perspective, J. Clin. Pharmacol. 30, 210–222.Google Scholar
  5. Sanathanan, L., and C. C. Peck (1991). The randomized concentration-controlled trial: An evaluation of its sample size efficiency. Controlled Clin. Trials 12, 780–794.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Temple, R. J. (1983). Discussion Paper on Testing of Drugs in the Elderly. FDA, Rockville, Maryland.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carl C. Peck
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Drug Evaluation and ResearchFood and Drug AdministrationRockvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations