Trust and Regulation: Assuring Scientific Independence in the FDA's Emergency Use Authorization Process.

Since 2004, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has had the authority to allow access to unapproved medical products via the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) pathway during times of emergency. It was rarely used until the COVID-19 pandemic, when concerns arose regarding the role of political pressure in the FDA's issuance of some EUAs, such as for hydroxychloroquine. Although US government officials should be responsive to the public, democratic accountability must be balanced against the need for thoughtful science-based decision-making. Inadequate agency independence can diminish public confidence in government leaders and the FDA. To consider whether reform of the EUA process might be appropriate, we considered three possible sources of inspiration for balancing independence and accountability in government scientific decision-making: models in other countries, models in other US agencies, and models within the FDA itself. Strategies used in these settings include: (1) expanding the role of advisory committees, (2) increasing transparency of the agency's decision-making process and supporting rationale, and (3) improving management of internal agency disagreement. Such reforms could improve public trust in public health regulation both related to and separate from future emergencies.

Two views of cancer medicines: Imagery versus evidence.

Despite advertising imagery portraying cancer medicines as offering substantial improvement or cure, most patients can expect modest or no incremental benefit from most new treatments, according to pre-specified criteria. When improvements in overall survival are demonstrated, they average just 2.1 months. Despite limited benefits, drug prices have risen while median household incomes have remained largely unchanged, and these higher prices are poorly correlated with improved outcomes. Better alignment of perception with demonstrated drug benefit could be achieved by limitations on advertising and improved labeling or other disclosures. Reforms are also needed to remove financial incentives to prescribe costlier drugs.

Experts' Views on FDA Regulatory Standards for Drug and High-Risk Medical Devices: Implications for Patient Care.

BACKGROUND: Drugs and high-risk medical devices are increasingly likely to receive Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval through expedited pathways, which has implications for informed treatment consent (i.e., consent in clinical practice). OBJECTIVE: To obtain expert opinion about the clinical and ethical implications of the increasing availability of new drugs and devices approved through expedited development and regulatory review pathways. DESIGN: Qualitative study using individual semi-structured videoconference interviews. PARTICIPANTS: National leaders in medicine, ethics, and law (n=12) with expertise in medical product regulation, payor policymaking, bioethics, physician practice, patient advocacy, public health expertise/advocacy, clinical trials, the pharmaceutical and device industry, institutional review board oversight, and real-world evidence. MAIN MEASURES: Principal themes in 3 domains: expedited regulatory pathways, physician and patient understanding of and reliance on FDA approval, and informed treatment consent. KEY RESULTS: Respondents pointed out that more common use of expedited pathways translates to increased reliance on surrogate measures, some with uncertain clinical significance. While expedited development and review can have advantages, participants expressed worry that physicians were unaware when medical products were expedited and did not communicate about uncertainties in knowledge about new drug or device approvals effectively with patients. Many participants felt that informed treatment consent discussions about new drugs or devices should include some explanations of expedited pathways and use of surrogate measures. CONCLUSIONS: Experts identified advantages of expediting development and of FDA flexibility in applying its standards to new drugs and medical devices, but highlighted concerns that patients may not be adequately informed about the risks of shorter review times or about uncertainties in the evidence that result. There is a need to identify approaches to ensure effective clinical use of drugs and devices when approved through expedited pathways.

Trends in the Quality of Evidence Supporting FDA Drug Approvals: Results from a Literature Review.

CONTEXT: New drug approvals in the United States must be supported by substantial evidence from "adequate and well-controlled" trials. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has flexibility in how it applies this standard. METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic literature review of studies evaluating the design and outcomes of the key trials supporting new drug approvals in the United States. They extracted data on the trial characteristics, endpoint types, and expedited regulatory pathways. FINDINGS: Among 48 publications eligible for inclusion, 30 covered trial characteristics, 23 covered surrogate measures, and 30 covered regulatory pathways. Trends point toward less frequent randomization, double-blinding, and active controls, with variation by drug type and indication. Surrogate measures are becoming more common but are not consistently well correlated with clinical outcomes. Drugs approved through expedited regulatory pathways often have less rigorous trial design characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: The characteristics of trials used to approve new drugs have evolved over the past two decades along with greater use of expedited regulatory pathways and changes in the nature of drugs being evaluated. While flexibility in regulatory standards is important, policy changes can emphasize high-quality data collection before or after FDA approval.

FDA Regulation and Approval of Medical Devices: 1976-2020.

Importance: US law generally requires testing of high-risk medical devices prior to approval, as well as premarket evaluation of moderate-risk medical devices, with the goal of ensuring that the benefits of these products exceed their risks. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempts to balance the need for evidence generation with an approval process that facilitates access and encourages innovation. Objective: To review the development of laws and standards affecting the evaluation and oversight of medical devices by the US regulatory system and the outcomes of this system from 1976 to 2020. Evidence Review: Laws enacted by US Congress and regulations promulgated by the FDA through 2020; databases maintained by the FDA of device authorizations from 1976 to 2020; and annual reports of user fees paid to the FDA by industry. Findings: Since Congress and the FDA initiated premarket review of medical devices in 1976, some fundamental innovations in the device regulation system have included special pathways to accelerate availability of investigational devices, more flexible evidence and review requirements, and increased funding to the FDA through industry-paid user fees. From 1987 to 2020, the annual number of novel devices granted premarket approval (which excludes supplements) ranged from 8 to 56 (median, 32), and the number of clearances for 510(k) devices (those that are "substantially equivalent" to marketed devices) ranged from 2804 to 5762 (median, 3404). User fee funding for devices was established in 2002 and annual fees collected increased from $30 million in 2003 (in 2019 dollars) to more than $208 million in 2019; this represented 43% of FDA funding related to the review of medical devices. Although many new devices have led to considerable patient benefit, such as hypodermic needles and magnetic resonance imaging machines, important adverse events caused by some devices, such as an implanted device for birth control and a surgical mesh implant for pelvic organ prolapse, have led to calls to reexamine the regulatory system for such products. Conclusions and Relevance: Over the last 45 years, medical device regulation has become more complex, with more regulatory pathways and greater variations in the evidence and controls required for authorization. Increased FDA support from industry and concern about flexible authorization requirements reflect the tension between efficient access and the need for assurances that products will safely benefit patients.

Understanding when real world data can be used to replicate a clinical trial: A cross-sectional study of medications approved in 2011.

PURPOSE: To determine how commonly pre-approval clinical trials could potentially be replicated using real-world data from insurance claims databases. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of medications approved by the FDA in 2011. For each medication, we reviewed the drug's label and the details of the pivotal clinical trials supporting its approval. We assessed whether each clinical trial could be replicated using an insurance claims databases by determining whether the following pivotal trial features could be reliably captured in claims data: study outcome, inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria, and the presence of an appropriate active comparator. RESULTS: In 2011, 28 new medications were approved. The most common disease areas were oncology (N = 8, 29%), infectious disease (N = 5, 18%), and neurology (N = 4, 14%). The primary outcome of pre-approval clinical trials was identifiable in claims databases for six (21%) of the medications. Two (ticagrelor and linagliptin) had at least 80% of inclusion and exclusion criteria that could be identified in claims databases and had an available active comparator. The non-identifiable primary outcomes were related to patient-reported symptoms (N = 9, 32%), imaging findings (N = 5, 18%), laboratory values (N = 5, 18%), or other measurements (eg, blood pressure) not typically available in insurance claims databases (N = 4, 14%). CONCLUSIONS: Among drugs FDA-approved in 2011, two (7%) had a pre-approval trial that could be replicated using insurance claims databases. In such qualifying trials, replication using claims databases could be useful in assessing whether they provide concordant results.

FDA Approval and Regulation of Pharmaceuticals, 1983-2018.

Importance: US law requires testing of new drugs before approval to ensure that they provide a well-defined benefit that is commensurate with their risks. A major challenge for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is to achieve an appropriate balance between rigorous testing and the need for timely approval of drugs that have benefits that outweigh their risks. Objective: To describe the evolution of laws and standards affecting drug testing, the use of new approval programs and standards, expansions of the role and authority of the FDA, and changes in the number of drugs approved from the 1980s to 2018. Evidence: Sources of evidence included principal federal laws and FDA regulations (1962-2018) and FDA databases of approved new drugs (1984-2018), generic drugs (1970-2018), biologics (1984-2018), and vaccines (1998-2018); special development and approval programs (Orphan drug [1984-2018], Fast-Track [1988-2018], Priority Review and its predecessors [1984-2018], Accelerated Approval [1992-2018], and Breakthrough Therapy [2012-2018]); expanded access (2010-2017) and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (2008-2018); and user fees paid to the FDA by industry (1993-2018). Findings: From 1983 to 2018, legislation and regulatory initiatives have substantially changed drug approval at the FDA. The mean annual number of new drug approvals, including biologics, was 34 from 1990-1999, 25 from 2000-2009, and 41 from 2010-2018. New biologic product approvals increased from a median of 2.5 from 1990-1999, to 5 from 2000-2013, to 12 from 2014-2018. The median annual number of generic drugs approved was 136 from 1970 to the enactment of the Hatch-Waxman Act in 1984; 284 from 1985 to the enactment of the Generic Drug User Fee Act in 2012; and 588 from 2013-2018. Prescription drug user fee funding expanded from new drugs and biologics in 1992 to generic and biosimilar drugs in 2012. The amount of Prescription Drug User Fee Act fees collected from industry increased from an annual mean of $66 million in 1993-1997 to $820 million in 2013-2017, and in 2018, user fees accounted for approximately 80% of the salaries of review personnel responsible for the approval of new drugs. The proportion of drugs approved with an Orphan Drug Act designation increased from 18% (55/304) in 1984-1995, to 22% (82/379) in 1996-2007, to 41% (154/380) in 2008-2018. Use of Accelerated Approval, Fast-Track, and Priority Review for new drugs has increased over time, with 81% (48/59) of new drugs benefiting from at least 1 such expedited program in 2018. The proportion of new approvals supported by at least 2 pivotal trials decreased from 80.6% in 1995-1997 to 52.8% in 2015-2017, based on 124 and 106 approvals, respectively, while the median number of patients studied did not change significantly (774 vs 816). FDA drug review times declined from more than 3 years in 1983 to less than 1 year in 2017, but total time from the authorization of clinical testing to approval has remained at approximately 8 years over that period. Conclusions and Relevance: Over the last 4 decades, the approval and regulation processes for pharmaceutical agents have evolved and increased in complexity as special programs have been added and as the use of surrogate measures has been encouraged. The FDA funding needed to implement and manage these programs has been addressed by expanding industry-paid user fees. The FDA has increasingly accepted less data and more surrogate measures, and has shortened its review times.

A Method for Approximating Future Entry of Generic Drugs.

OBJECTIVES: To develop and test a method for approximating generic entry of top-selling drugs. METHODS: The procedure involved 1) identifying products' key patents as those with a patent term restoration extension (whenever relevant) or otherwise as the first expiring patent listed in the US Food and Drug Administration's patent register, 2) determining whether the key patent had been extended through an associated pediatric extension, 3) identifying other regulatory exclusivities associated with the drug, and 4) categorizing key patents as active ingredient (or extended) patents versus secondary patents. The accuracy and precision of the procedure's predictions were then tested against a database containing the timing of generic entry for 170 top-selling drugs that lost market exclusivity between 2000 and 2012, on the basis of Medicaid data. RESULTS: Overall, the procedure predicted a median market exclusivity period of 12.5 years (interquartile range [IQR] 7.25-14.5) compared with the median actual period of 12.5 years (IQR 8.5-14.75 years). Among the 131 drugs (77%) with active ingredient patents, the median predicted market exclusivity was 12.25 years (IQR 7.5-14.5) compared with a median actual period of 13.0 years (IQR 10.0-14.75). Among the 38 (22%) drugs protected only by secondary patents, the median predicted market exclusivity was 16.0 years (IQR 6.75-19.5), but the median actual market exclusivity was only 8.25 years (IQR 6.25-13.5). CONCLUSIONS: The procedure approximated median actual exclusivity with reasonable accuracy and precision for drugs with active ingredient patents, but substantially overestimated exclusivity for drugs with only secondary patents.

Hatch-Waxman Turns 30: Do We Need a Re-Designed Approach for the Modern Era?

In 1984, Congress passed the Hatch-Waxman Act, which catalyzed the creation of the modem generic drug industry. Generic drugs today account for eighty-four percent of all prescriptions dispensed, but less than twenty percent of drug costs. Despite this success, numerous problems in the generic drug market have emerged. Some involve the deliberate manipulation of the Hatch-Waxman system, while others have arisen more unexpectedly, such as the Supreme Court's 2011 decision in Pliva v. Mensing that could undermine consumer confidence in generic drugs. We discuss these emerging challenges and propose updates to the Hatch-Waxman Act to continue support for the timely emergence of safe generic drugs.

A New Wave of Vaccines for Non-Communicable Diseases: What Are the Regulatory Challenges?

Vaccines represent one of the greatest achievements of medicine, dramatically reducing the incidence of serious or life-threatening infectious diseases and allowing people to live longer, healthier lives. As life expectancy has increased, however, the burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs) such as cancer, hypertension, atherosclerosis, and diabetes has increased. This shifting burden of disease has heightened the already urgent need for therapies that treat or prevent NCDs, a need that is now being met with increased efforts to develop NCD vaccines. Like traditional vaccines, NCD vaccines work by modulating the human immune system, but target cells, proteins or other molecules that are associated with the NCD in question rather than pathogens or pathogen-infected cells. Efforts are underway to develop NCD vaccines to address not only cancer and hypertension, but also addiction, obesity, asthma, arthritis, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, and Crohn's disease, among others. NCD vaccines present an interesting challenge for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which is tasked with approving new treatments on the basis of efficacy and safety. Should NCD vaccines be evaluated under the same analytic frame as traditional vaccines, or that of biologic drugs? Despite the borrowed nomenclature, NCD vaccines differ in important ways from infectious disease vaccines. Because infectious disease vaccines are generally administered to healthy individuals, often children, tolerance for adverse events is low and willingness to pay is limited. It is important to have infectious disease vaccines even for rare or eradicated disease (e.g., smallpox), in the event of an outbreak. The efficacy of infectious disease vaccines is generally high, and the vaccines convey population level benefits associated with herd immunity and potential eradication. The combination of substantial population-level benefits, low willingness to pay, and low tolerance for adverse events explains the need for the federal National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act, which encourages production and uptake by providing immunity from liability to industry and compensation to injured patients. These characteristics and considerations contrast sharply with those of NCD vaccines, raising the question of whether the term "vaccine" is appropriate for this new category of drugs. The article explores the emerging class of NCD vaccines, explains how they differ from traditional vaccines, and describes some regulatory implications of this innovative type of therapeutic.

Leah Z. Rand, Daniel P. Carpenter, Aaron S. Kesselheim, Anushka Bhaskar, Jonathan J. Darrow, and William B. Feldman Reply.

The authors respond to a letter by Mitchell Berger in the March-April 2024 issue of the Hastings Center Report concerning their essay "Securing the Trustworthiness of the FDA to Build Public Trust in Vaccines."

Physicians' Perspectives On FDA Regulation Of Drugs And Medical Devices: A National Survey.

Physicians' knowledge of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval processes is important in informing clinical decisions and patient discussions. Among a randomly selected national sample of 509 internists, cardiologists, and oncologists, 41 percent reported moderate or better understanding of the FDA's drug approval process, and 17 percent reported moderate or better understanding of the FDA's medical device approval process. Nearly all physicians thought that randomized, blinded trials that met primary endpoints should be very important factors required to secure regulatory approval. Also, nearly all physicians thought that the FDA should revoke approval for accelerated-approval drugs or breakthrough devices that did not show benefit in postapproval studies. Our findings suggest that physicians commonly lack familiarity with drug and medical device regulatory practices and are under the impression that the data supporting FDA drug and high-risk device approvals are more rigorous than they often are. Physicians would value more rigorous premarket evidence, as well as regulatory action for drugs and devices that do not demonstrate safety and effectiveness in the postmarket setting.