Reports Document FDA Review Delays: What It Means for Drug Manufacturers

April 24, 2025

Recent reports have highlighted growing concerns over delays in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) drug review processes, particularly in the context of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) and Generic Drug User Fee Act (GDUFA) timelines. PDUFA, originally enacted in 1992, allows the FDA to collect fees from pharmaceutical companies to fund the drug review process, with the aim of speeding up access to new therapies. In return, the FDA commits to reviewing new drug applications within specific timeframes—typically 6 to 10 months depending on the type of application. 



However, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, the FDA has increasingly struggled to keep up with both innovative and follow-on drug reviews, largely due to recent reductions in force (RIFs) and a leadership vacuum at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Worse yet, other reports indicate that the FDA recently dismissed most of its User Fee negotiators, just as the next PDUFA and GDUFA reauthorization cycles begin. 


For drug manufacturers, these delays can have significant implications. Missing a PDUFA goal date can lead to lost revenue, delayed market entry, and uncertainty in investor relations. For companies developing treatments for serious or rare diseases, delayed approvals can also stall patient access to potentially life-saving therapies. 


The FDA has acknowledged these challenges and is actively working on strategies to improve review efficiencies, including better staff recruitment, enhanced use of real-world data, and the modernization of review frameworks. Still, the current delays underscore the importance for manufacturers to anticipate longer timelines and build flexibility into their development and launch strategies. 


In the broader picture, ensuring timely FDA reviews is critical not only for pharmaceutical companies but also for patients and the overall healthcare system. As such, continued scrutiny and policy refinement by industry groups around the FDA’s review capacity and adherence to PDUFA commitments remain essential. 

RECENT ARTICLES

April 24, 2025
Prenuptial Patenting: Responsible Engagement with Engineering Firms
April 24, 2025
PharmOptima, a Poratge, Michigan-based preclinical contract research organization (CRO) is advancing drug discovery through its comprehensive suite of services. Specializing in in-vivo ADME/PK, ocular research, as well as regulated large and small molecule bioanalytical and ligand binding services, PharmOptima supports clients in optimizing drug development programs efficiently and effectively. With a staff averaging 11 years of industry experience and multiple individuals with advanced degrees, PharmOptima also boasts one of the most capable and engaging teams in the industry. The company collaborates with board-certified veterinary ophthalmologist Dr. Ryan Boyd, further enhancing its ocular research capabilities. PharmOptima's team of experts is dedicated to providing high-quality services to the pharmaceutical biotechnology industries. Looking ahead, PharmOptima scientists will be presenting posters at the 2025 The Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) conference, showcasing their latest research and innovations in ocular drug development. For more information visit www.pharmoptima.com .
April 24, 2025
Two bills, HB 4332 and HB 4333 were recently re-introduced that would prohibit pathogen gain-of-function (GoF) research. Given that the House is now Republican-led raises concerns for MichBio and others that the legislation might gain traction due to misinformation over biosafety and pandemic origins. MichBio opposes such broad legislative bans as they risk undermining critical scientific progress, public health preparedness, and economic innovation. GoF research has been instrumental in developing life-saving therapies and vaccines. For instance, viral vector-based gene therapies, such as Sarepta's Elevidys for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and oncolytic virotherapies like Amgen's Imlygic for melanoma, rely on genetically modified viruses to deliver therapeutic genes or selectively destroy cancer cells. These advancements stem from GoF methodologies that enhance viral capabilities for therapeutic purposes. Moreover, GoF research has played a pivotal role in vaccine development. Examples like the AstraZeneca and Janssen COVID-19 vaccines and Merck's ERVEBO vaccine against Ebola employs a genetically modified virus to confer protection, underscore the public health benefits derived from GoF studies. ​ Contrary to concerns that GoF research operates without sufficient oversight, multiple layers of regulation are in place. Since 2017, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has implemented a framework to evaluate and guide funding decisions for GoF research, particularly those involving potential pandemic pathogens. This framework includes stringent safety protocols, risk assessments, and ethical reviews. ​ MichBio is most concerned that any legislative bans that broadly define and prohibit GoF research risk stifling innovation across various scientific fields. Such bans could inadvertently encompass research in virology, microbiology, molecular biology, and synthetic biology—disciplines vital for developing new therapies, sustainable agricultural practices, and environmental remediation technologies. ​ In turn, state-level bans on GoF research could have detrimental effects on local economies and academic institutions. Such a ban could impede research critical to understanding and combating diseases, leading to a loss of federal and philanthropic funding. This could hamper the growth of the Michigan's biotech and biomedical sectors. ​  MichBio advocates for a balanced approach that reinforces existing oversight mechanisms and fosters transparent, responsible research practices essential to safeguard both public health and scientific progress.