Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
1.
JAMA Health Forum ; 4(7): e231718, 2023 Jul 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37418270

ABSTRACT

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) often relies on independent advisory committees when making decisions about the approval of prescription drugs or their withdrawal from the market. These committees provide the FDA with valuable insight and an opportunity to build public trust through transparent deliberation, but recent controversies have raised questions about the optimal use of FDA advisory committees. Objective: To assess the frequency, purposes, and voting outcomes of human drug advisory committees convened from 2010 to 2021 and the FDA's corresponding actions. Design, Setting, and Participants: This qualitative study used a manual review of meeting summaries prepared by FDA staff for the 18 human drug advisory committees active at any time from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2021, as well as FDA announcements and press releases, drug labels and approval data, industry publications, and company press releases. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcomes of votes on regulatory questions were recorded using meeting minutes. Alignment of FDA action with advisory votes for new drugs and indications was judged as of 1 year after the vote was held and as of November 30, 2022. Results: The FDA held 409 human drug advisory committee meetings from 2010 to 2021. Committees were convened less frequently over time, from a high of 50 in 2012 to a low of 18 in 2020 and 2021. Much of this decrease occurred at committee meetings involving votes on initial approvals, which declined from a high of 26 in 2012 to a low of 8 in 2021. Overall, FDA regulatory actions aligned with 262 of 298 advisory committee votes on initial approvals, supplemental approvals, withdrawals of approval, and safety actions (88%). Approval followed 142 of 147 positive votes for initial approvals (97%) and 33 of 36 positive votes for supplemental indications (92%), while nonapproval followed 40 of 60 negative votes on initial approvals (67%) and 18 of 21 negative votes on supplemental indications (86%). Conclusions and Relevance: In this qualitative study, there was consistent alignment between advisory votes and FDA action across years and subject areas, but the number of meetings decreased over time. Discordance between FDA actions and advisory committee votes was most frequently an approval after a negative vote. This study demonstrated that these committees have played a key role in the FDA's decision-making process but that the FDA sought independent expert advice less frequently over time even as it continued to follow it. The role of advisory committees in the current regulatory landscape should be more clearly and publicly defined.


Subject(s)
Prescription Drugs , United States , Humans , Advisory Committees , United States Food and Drug Administration , Politics , Drug Labeling
2.
IEEE Pulse ; 13(5): 33-37, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36301809

ABSTRACT

The production of antibodies for therapeutic use in clinical medicine has become a focus of the biotechnology industry. In 2021, four of the top six selling prescription drugs were monoclonal antibodies, leading to a reported revenue of over US $ 67 billion dollars. Thus, it is no surprise that the otherwise arcane rules around antibody patents have become increasingly important to drug companies, health care providers, and consumers alike.


Subject(s)
Antibodies, Monoclonal , Biotechnology , Humans , Antibodies, Monoclonal/therapeutic use
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...