Association of Advisory Committee Votes With US Food and Drug Administration Decision-Making on Prescription Drugs, 2010-2021
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 transp...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | JAMA health forum 2023-07, Vol.4 (7), p.e231718-e231718 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | e231718 |
---|---|
container_issue | 7 |
container_start_page | e231718 |
container_title | JAMA health forum |
container_volume | 4 |
creator | Daval, C Joseph Ross Teng, Theodore W Russo, Massimiliano Kesselheim, Aaron S |
description | 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.
To assess the frequency, purposes, and voting outcomes of human drug advisory committees convened from 2010 to 2021 and the FDA's corresponding actions.
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.
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.
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%).
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 shou |
doi_str_mv | 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.1718 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10329213</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2835270347</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-e55cdf14d2580eba307611cbdc0c0f72c3e5831fe31ebee52b5163a446d4d51f3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpdkUFv1DAQhS0EolXpX0BGXDiQrceOk-wJrbaUVipqJSgcLcee7HpJ4q3tVOqB_45X21alJ4883zy9mUfIB2AzYAxONnrQa9R9Wnc-TMOMMy5mUEPzihzyqpkXDJrq9bP6gBzHuGGMcQlQ1eItORB1CQ2v2SH5u4jRG6eT8yP1HV3YOxd9uKdLPwwuJUT6yyeM9LdLa3rzg555b6keLT0N0yrjgxtdTGEvcIrGxVwU3_UfN65o_roOGE1w230_z8TPlDNgRfYN78ibTvcRjx_eI3Jz9vXn8ry4vPp2sVxcFqaUPBUopbEdlJbLhmGrBasrANNawwzram4EykZAhwKwRZS8lVAJXZaVLa2EThyRL3vd7dQOaA2O2XGvtsENOtwrr536vzO6tVr5OwVM8DkHkRU-PSgEfzthTGpw0WDf6xH9FBVvhMwHFWWd0Y8v0I2fwpj3y1SZsWrOWabme8oEH2PA7skNMLULWr0IWu2CVrug8-z75-s8TT7GKv4BJRKppw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2843526920</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Association of Advisory Committee Votes With US Food and Drug Administration Decision-Making on Prescription Drugs, 2010-2021</title><source>DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals</source><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><creator>Daval, C Joseph Ross ; Teng, Theodore W ; Russo, Massimiliano ; Kesselheim, Aaron S</creator><creatorcontrib>Daval, C Joseph Ross ; Teng, Theodore W ; Russo, Massimiliano ; Kesselheim, Aaron S</creatorcontrib><description>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.
To assess the frequency, purposes, and voting outcomes of human drug advisory committees convened from 2010 to 2021 and the FDA's corresponding actions.
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.
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.
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%).
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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 2689-0186</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2689-0186</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.1718</identifier><identifier>PMID: 37418270</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Medical Association</publisher><subject>Comments ; Decision making ; FDA approval ; Meetings ; Online Only ; Original Investigation ; Prescription drugs ; Qualitative research</subject><ispartof>JAMA health forum, 2023-07, Vol.4 (7), p.e231718-e231718</ispartof><rights>2023. This work is published under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><rights>Copyright 2023 Daval CJR et al. .</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-e55cdf14d2580eba307611cbdc0c0f72c3e5831fe31ebee52b5163a446d4d51f3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-e55cdf14d2580eba307611cbdc0c0f72c3e5831fe31ebee52b5163a446d4d51f3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,864,885,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37418270$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Daval, C Joseph Ross</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Teng, Theodore W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russo, Massimiliano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kesselheim, Aaron S</creatorcontrib><title>Association of Advisory Committee Votes With US Food and Drug Administration Decision-Making on Prescription Drugs, 2010-2021</title><title>JAMA health forum</title><addtitle>JAMA Health Forum</addtitle><description>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.
To assess the frequency, purposes, and voting outcomes of human drug advisory committees convened from 2010 to 2021 and the FDA's corresponding actions.
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.
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.
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%).
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.</description><subject>Comments</subject><subject>Decision making</subject><subject>FDA approval</subject><subject>Meetings</subject><subject>Online Only</subject><subject>Original Investigation</subject><subject>Prescription drugs</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><issn>2689-0186</issn><issn>2689-0186</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2023</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><recordid>eNpdkUFv1DAQhS0EolXpX0BGXDiQrceOk-wJrbaUVipqJSgcLcee7HpJ4q3tVOqB_45X21alJ4883zy9mUfIB2AzYAxONnrQa9R9Wnc-TMOMMy5mUEPzihzyqpkXDJrq9bP6gBzHuGGMcQlQ1eItORB1CQ2v2SH5u4jRG6eT8yP1HV3YOxd9uKdLPwwuJUT6yyeM9LdLa3rzg555b6keLT0N0yrjgxtdTGEvcIrGxVwU3_UfN65o_roOGE1w230_z8TPlDNgRfYN78ibTvcRjx_eI3Jz9vXn8ry4vPp2sVxcFqaUPBUopbEdlJbLhmGrBasrANNawwzram4EykZAhwKwRZS8lVAJXZaVLa2EThyRL3vd7dQOaA2O2XGvtsENOtwrr536vzO6tVr5OwVM8DkHkRU-PSgEfzthTGpw0WDf6xH9FBVvhMwHFWWd0Y8v0I2fwpj3y1SZsWrOWabme8oEH2PA7skNMLULWr0IWu2CVrug8-z75-s8TT7GKv4BJRKppw</recordid><startdate>20230707</startdate><enddate>20230707</enddate><creator>Daval, C Joseph Ross</creator><creator>Teng, Theodore W</creator><creator>Russo, Massimiliano</creator><creator>Kesselheim, Aaron S</creator><general>American Medical Association</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88C</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M0T</scope><scope>PIMPY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20230707</creationdate><title>Association of Advisory Committee Votes With US Food and Drug Administration Decision-Making on Prescription Drugs, 2010-2021</title><author>Daval, C Joseph Ross ; Teng, Theodore W ; Russo, Massimiliano ; Kesselheim, Aaron S</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c452t-e55cdf14d2580eba307611cbdc0c0f72c3e5831fe31ebee52b5163a446d4d51f3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2023</creationdate><topic>Comments</topic><topic>Decision making</topic><topic>FDA approval</topic><topic>Meetings</topic><topic>Online Only</topic><topic>Original Investigation</topic><topic>Prescription drugs</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Daval, C Joseph Ross</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Teng, Theodore W</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Russo, Massimiliano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kesselheim, Aaron S</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database (Alumni)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Healthcare Administration Database</collection><collection>Publicly Available Content Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>JAMA health forum</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Daval, C Joseph Ross</au><au>Teng, Theodore W</au><au>Russo, Massimiliano</au><au>Kesselheim, Aaron S</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Association of Advisory Committee Votes With US Food and Drug Administration Decision-Making on Prescription Drugs, 2010-2021</atitle><jtitle>JAMA health forum</jtitle><addtitle>JAMA Health Forum</addtitle><date>2023-07-07</date><risdate>2023</risdate><volume>4</volume><issue>7</issue><spage>e231718</spage><epage>e231718</epage><pages>e231718-e231718</pages><issn>2689-0186</issn><eissn>2689-0186</eissn><abstract>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.
To assess the frequency, purposes, and voting outcomes of human drug advisory committees convened from 2010 to 2021 and the FDA's corresponding actions.
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.
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.
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%).
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.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Medical Association</pub><pmid>37418270</pmid><doi>10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.1718</doi><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 2689-0186 |
ispartof | JAMA health forum, 2023-07, Vol.4 (7), p.e231718-e231718 |
issn | 2689-0186 2689-0186 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_10329213 |
source | DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals; Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals |
subjects | Comments Decision making FDA approval Meetings Online Only Original Investigation Prescription drugs Qualitative research |
title | Association of Advisory Committee Votes With US Food and Drug Administration Decision-Making on Prescription Drugs, 2010-2021 |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-05T06%3A30%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Association%20of%20Advisory%20Committee%20Votes%20With%20US%20Food%20and%20Drug%20Administration%20Decision-Making%20on%20Prescription%20Drugs,%202010-2021&rft.jtitle=JAMA%20health%20forum&rft.au=Daval,%20C%20Joseph%20Ross&rft.date=2023-07-07&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=e231718&rft.epage=e231718&rft.pages=e231718-e231718&rft.issn=2689-0186&rft.eissn=2689-0186&rft_id=info:doi/10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.1718&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2835270347%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2843526920&rft_id=info:pmid/37418270&rfr_iscdi=true |