Disagreements Within the US Food and Drug Administration Regarding Approval of Novel Therapeutic Agents, 2011-2015

US Food and Drug Administration regulatory reviewer disagreements and postmarket safety actions among new therapeutics

OBJECTIVES

To examine the association between regulatory reviewer disagreements and postmarket safety actions among novel therapeutics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2011 and 2015. Disagreements among FDA reviewers regarding the recommendation for a novel therapeutic's approval, its safety, the indicated patient population and/or other parameters of the drug's approval are common. However, the implications of such disagreements-particularly with respect to postmarket safety actions-are poorly understood.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

All novel therapeutics approved by the FDA between January 2011 and December 2015.

PARTICIPANTS

None.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Postmarket safety actions defined as new label warnings/increased warning severity, FDA safety communications and safety-related therapeutic withdrawals after the original regulatory approval.

RESULTS

Among 174 novel therapeutics approved by the FDA between 2011 and 2015, 42 (24%) had at least one regulatory reviewer disagreement. Altogether, 156 instances of disagreement were observed. Following market approval, a total of 253 postmarket safety actions were taken by the FDA among all new therapeutics, with at least one postmarket safety action identified for 98 (56.3%) of the 174 novel therapeutic approvals. Overall, therapeutics that were the subject of disagreement during the FDA's review had fewer safety actions following approval compared with therapeutics in which no disagreement was observed (38.1% vs 62.1%; RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.92; p=0.006). Therapeutic approvals containing at least one reviewer disagreement also more often carried a black box warning at the point of approval (47.7% vs 31.1%; RR 1.53, 95% CI 1.02 to 2.30; p=0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

This investigation of regulatory reviewer disagreements and postmarket safety actions among new therapeutics suggests that disagreements among regulatory reviewers may lead to important pre-emptive actions, potentially mitigating the need for postmarket safety actions to be taken.

The Prescription Drug User Fee Act: Much More Than User Fees

BACKGROUND

The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) is due for reauthorization in 2022. Beyond creating the user fee program which now generates a majority of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Human Drugs Program budget, PDUFA has made numerous additional changes to FDA policy during its 29-year history. FDA's budgetary dependence on user fees may advantage the industry in negotiating favorable policy changes through PDUFA.

METHODS

The full texts of all prior PDUFA reauthorization bills and all submitted public comments and meeting minutes for the 2022 reauthorization were reviewed. Provisions affecting FDA regulatory authority and processes were identified.

FINDINGS

PDUFA legislation has instituted a broad range of changes to FDA policy, including evidentiary standards for drug approval, accelerated pathways for approval, industry involvement in FDA decision-making, rules regarding industry information dissemination to providers, and market entry of generic drugs. Negotiations over the 2022 reauthorization suggest that industry priorities include increased application of real-world evidence, regulatory certainty, and increased communication between FDA and industry during the drug application process.

CONCLUSIONS

The need for PDUFA reauthorization every 5 years has created a recurring legislative vehicle through which far-ranging changes to FDA have been enacted, reshaping the agency's interactions and relationship with the regulated industry. The majority of policy changes enacted through PDUFA legislation have favored industry through decreasing regulatory standards, shortening approval times, and increasing industry involvement in FDA decision-making. FDA's budgetary dependence on the industry, the urgency of each PDUFA reauthorization's passage to maintain uninterrupted funding, and the industry's required participation in PDUFA negotiations may advantage the industry.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration Reasoning in Approval Decisions When Efficacy Evidence Is Borderline, 2013-2018

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has substantial flexibility in its approval criteria in the context of life-threatening disease and unmet therapeutic need.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the FDA's evidentiary standards when flexible criteria are employed.

DESIGN

Case series.

SETTING

Applications submitted between 2013 and 2018 that went through multiple review cycles because the evidence for clinical efficacy was initially deemed insufficient.

MEASUREMENTS

Information was obtained from the approval package (available on Drugs@FDA), including advisory committee minutes, FDA reviews, and complete response letters.

RESULTS

Of 912 applications reviewed, 117 went through multiple review cycles; only 22 of these faced additional review primarily because of issues related to clinical efficacy. Concerns about the end point, the clinical meaningfulness of the observed effect, and inconsistent results were common bases for initial rejection. In 7 of the 22 cases, the approval did not require new evidence but rather new interpretations of the original evidence. No FDA decisions cited reasoning used in previous decisions.

LIMITATION

The conclusions rely on the authors' interpretation of the FDA statements and on a series of "close calls."

CONCLUSION

The FDA has no mechanism to find or tradition to cite similar cases when weighing evidence for approvals, resulting in standalone, bespoke decisions. These decisions show highly variable criteria for "substantial evidence" when flexible evidential criteria are used, highlighted by the recent approval of aducanumab. A precedential tradition and suitable information system are required for the FDA to improve institutional memory and build upon past decisions. These would increase the FDA's decisional transparency, consistency, and predictability, which are critical to preserving the FDA's most valuable asset, the public's trust.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Transparency in European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration Decision Making: Is It Possible to Identify the Rationale for Divergences in Approved Indication From Public Assessment Reports?

Although it cannot be expected that different medicines' regulatory agencies always reach the same review outcome, it is important that decision making is documented and communicated to ensure transparency. This study examines whether justification for divergences between the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) regarding approved indications could be identified from the agencies' public assessment reports (PARs). We focused on 9 products previously identified to have been submitted simultaneously to both agencies with the same indication but had a different indication approved; there were 15 differences in indications. Our analysis confirms that the rationale for observed divergent indication decisions was predominantly found in the benefit-risk section of the PAR (9 of 15 cases for the FDA and 10 of 15 for the EMA). If not found in the benefit-risk section, the rationale for these decisions was found in other PAR sections (eg, labeling or clinical efficacy section) or not at all. Our study found a small number of inconsistencies or gaps in how, where, and whether regulatory decision making on approved indications are documented by the FDA and the EMA. We believe it is important for regulators to standardize their approach and systematically and transparently document their rationale for the approved indication, using a structured benefit-risk assessment format within the PAR. This process is especially important for innovative products for which experience in evaluating similar products worldwide is limited, particularly as agencies are striving to build effective regulatory processes by leveraging assessments by trusted reference agencies through approaches such as reliance. Clear and systematic communication and documentation of the decisions in the PAR are central and should continue to evolve as a best practice; an enabling step toward this would be a harmonized PAR template for use by agencies globally.

Regulators, Pivotal Clinical Trials, and Drug Regulation in the Age of COVID-19

Medicine regulators rely on pivotal clinical trials to make decisions about approving a new drug, but little is known about how they judge whether pivotal trials justify the approval of new drugs. We explore this issue by looking at the positions of 3 major regulators: the European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada. Here we report their views and the implications of those views for the approval process. On various points, the 3 regulators are ambiguous, consistent, and demonstrate flexibility. The range of views may well reflect different regulatory cultures. Although clinical trial information from pivotal trials is becoming more available, regulators are still reluctant to provide detailed information about how that information is interpreted. As medicines and vaccines come up for approval for treatment of COVID-19, transparency in how pivotal trials are interpreted will be critical in determining how these treatments should be used.