For the news media, the only FDA story this coming week will be the two-day advisory committee meeting reviewing the diabetes drug, Avandia. Based on an earlier article (link below), FDA Matters will be looking at how Dr. Hamburg’s FDA handles the discordant voices coming from within the agency.
Missing from public dialogue is the extraordinary (perhaps unprecedented) number of large, consequential projects that FDA will be working on this summer. Every part of FDA is involved in some initiative that could become a “game-changer” for the agency.
FDA shares at least two summer issues with Congress: comprehensive food safety reform and drug safety reorganization. Food safety legislation has passed the House. A different version is awaiting Senate floor action. Since final legislation is not guaranteed, FDA is working hard to develop an approach that is not dependent on statutory changes.
Although drug safety is not an active legislative item, several senior Members of Congress have been persistently calling for re-organization and other changes in how drug safety is evaluated and tracked. The Avandia advisory committee meeting has providing focus for these critics, but their positions do not depend on the outcome.
FDA’s efforts to stay in control of drug safety are reflected in at least three initiatives that FDA is working on this summer: creating workable risk management plans (REMS) to accompany drug approvals; safety issues that are becoming part of the negotiations on renewal of drug user fees; and continuing efforts to update Sentinel and related tools for tracking adverse events and safety signals in large populations.
FDA continues its efforts to clarify its policies on safety and effectiveness of medical devices. Pre-approval issues include possible changes in the 510(k) pathway. Post-approval efforts include better device tracking.
Follow-on biologics (now re-named bio-similars) are also keeping FDA busy. This is the first new drug approval pathway in 25 years and FDA has already declared itself ready to accept product applications. At the same time, the agency has acknowledged that there are multiple policy issues to be resolved before agency guidance will be available. What FDA decides now (both on applications and policy) will reshape the world of bio-pharmaceuticals.
Some other top-level agency initiatives with potentially large consequences:
- FDA is grappling with its role in comparative effectiveness research.
- The FDA’s Transparency Task Force has just reported its findings and recommendations.
- Upgrading inspections and enforcement are an immediate and ongoing priority for the agency.
- FDA is building a new relationship with NIH through a series of initiatives that will fail without serious attention.
Around the agency, here are a few more that could bring significant changes:
- FDA, NIH, patients and industry are trying to upgrade research on rare diseases and increase approvals of orphan drugs.
- FDA has promised guidance later this year on medical product communications on the Internet and in social media.
- FDA is wrestling with antibiotic use in food animals and kicking up some controversy.
- Implementation of the year-old tobacco legislation is ratcheting up after various provisions became effective in June.
Even upcoming product reviews may have interesting consequences. Over the next few months, FDA will be looking at three new drugs to treat obesity. This is a difficult product category with a history of safety problems. Yet, millions of Americans are likely to use these products if they are approved.
Despite the number of potential “game-changers” I have identified…no one knows better than Drs. Hamburg and Sharfstein how incomplete my list is. Fortunately, FDA has a great staff. I suspect most of them will be overloaded this summer.
Steven
FDA commissioners need to stay focused on their legacy, while dealing with the mountain of important issues discussed in today’s column:
Not Too Soon to Consider the Hamburg Legacy
May 27th, 2010
May 18 marked one year since Dr. Margaret Hamburg was sworn in as Commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration. The challenges are great, the torrent of issues is never-ending and most days you can smile but you can’t win. It may seem premature to be discussing “the Hamburg legacy.” But you know that she is thinking about it (all commissioners do), so why can’t FDA Matters talk about it? Read the rest of this entry »
My earlier column that relates to the Avandia advisory committee meeting:
Dissent and Efficiency: Difficult Trade-offs for FDA
May 9th, 2010
FDA has a reputation for being tough on dissent, whether it comes from employees or regulated companies. Whatever the truth has been in the past, FDA is trying to develop an institutional cultural that welcomes and accepts dissent from employees, industry and other stakeholders. It is difficult, even messy, to do this. Yet, FDA’s reputation and authority rests on showing that it listened to all competing views–without unreasonably slowing the decisionmaking process. Read the rest of this entry »