Are The 90s Back? Oncologics Drove FDA’s 2012 Novel Approval Count To 15-Year High

With 45 new molecular entities and novel biologics cleared in 2012, FDA approvals have reached a level not seen since the mid-1990s, the golden age of modern medicine. The group reflects a boom in oncology; other drug development trends like orphan diseases and personalized medicine held steady. Big pharma contributed just over a third of the 2012 class, with Pfizer regaining the lead with five novel approvals.

Cancer therapies were the driving engine as FDA’s annual new molecular and biological entity approval count roared back to levels not seen since the boom years of the mid-1990s. Almost 40% of the 39 novel products approved by Center for Drug Evaluation and Research in 2012 went through the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products.

The CDER class of 2012 is 30% larger than 2011’s 30 novel approvals – and 2011 was a good year, a recovery from a seven-year NME doldrums where output averaged just under 22 novel approvals per year Also see "

Read the full article – start your free trial today!

Join thousands of industry professionals who rely on Pink Sheet for daily insights

  • Start your 7-day free trial
  • Explore trusted news, analysis, and insights
  • Access comprehensive global coverage
  • Enjoy instant access – no credit card required

More from Approvals

More from Product Reviews

FDA Adcomms Are Back: Four Cancer Drugs, COVID-19 Vaccine Formulations To Get Reviews

 

The Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee will meet for two days in mid-May, followed by a Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee’s review of the 2025-2026 COVID-19 vaccine formulation.

Unlocking Opportunities: How To Engage With The EMA On Animal Testing Alternatives

 

The European Medicines Agency, like its counterpart in the US, is increasingly focusing on the use of alternatives to animal testing.

Opioid Safety: US FDA Hears Mixed Messages On Adding Posmarketing Studies To Labeling

 
• By 

Some advisory committee members said adding quantitative data on misuse, abuse, opioid use disorder and overdose to labeling would be helpful, but others worried the two epidemiological studies were not sufficiently generalizable to a broader population.