Public Speaker Characteristics at Meetings of the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drug Advisory Committee and the Ophthalmic Devices Panel.

PURPOSE: We investigated meetings of the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drug Advisory Committee (DODAC) and the Ophthalmic Devices Panel (ODP) of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to determine whether a relationship exists between receipt of industry payments by speakers of the Open Public Hearing (OPH) portion and the nature of their recommendations regarding treatment approval. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: We reviewed publicly available transcripts of all DODAC and ODP meetings from February 2009 to December 2019. For each meeting, information about each public speaker including presence of conflict of interest (COI) and whether their testimony regarding the drug or device was positive, negative, or neutral toward treatment approval was extracted in a blinded fashion using a pilot-tested Google Form. RESULTS: Of the 86 speakers, 66 (76.7%) included a COI disclosure statement and 41 (47.7%) disclosed a COI. Regarding classification of the speakers' testimonies, 70 (81.4%) of 86 were positive, 9 (10.5%) of 86 were negative, and 7 (8.1%) of 86 were neutral. Each one of the 41 speakers with a COI gave a positive testimony. Speakers who disclosed a COI were significantly more likely to give a positive testimony than speakers who did not (P < .001). CONCLUSION: We recommend the DODAC and ODP require full disclosure of COI information and introduce stricter policies to manage COIs, allowing the committee to fully understand the context of the public speakers' comments, including the possible influence of COI on these comments.

Characteristics and conflicts of interests of public speakers at the Psychopharmacologic Drug and Advisory Committee meetings regarding psychiatric drugs.

The Psychopharmacologic Drug Advisory Committee (PDAC) is one of 33 advisory committees of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). During committee meetings, an open public hearing takes place where speakers provide testimonies about the drug in question and are asked, not required, to disclose any conflicts of interests (COIs) before speaking. These speakers may present with COIs which include, but are not limited to, reimbursement for travel and lodging by the pharmaceutical company to attend the meeting; previous or current payments for consulting from the pharmaceutical company and compensation as a paid investigator in previously conducted clinical trials for the drug under review. Our study aimed to investigate the characteristics and COIs of public speakers at PDAC meetings of the FDA. We evaluated 145 public speakers at FDA committee meetings over a 10-year period. We found a total of 52 public speakers disclosed a COI with travel and lodging being the most prominent. Among these speakers, 82.4% provided a positive testimony regarding the psychiatric drug in question. Speakers who had the condition in question were not more likely to provide a positive statement than those who did not. Our results showed that disclosing a COI was associated with increased odds of public speakers providing a favourable testimony for the recommendation of psychiatric drugs. The implications of these findings are concerning since COIs have the potential to skew public speaker's testimonies and persuade committee members to recommend a drug through emotionally charged tactics.

Assessing readability and comprehension of informed consent materials for medical device research: A survey of informed consents from FDA's Center for Devices and Radiological Health.

Legally effective informed consent has been a long-standing requirement for FDA-regulated clinical studies. However, informed consent forms (ICFs) are often thought to be too long, too complex, and too difficult for participants to understand. In this article, investigators from the FDAs Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) surveyed 399 ICFs from approved investigational device exemption (IDE) applications for fiscal years 2015 and 2016 to evaluate the readability of ICFs. The investigators collected data from the ICFs, using variables related to structure, readability, and comprehension. The investigators found that the mean grade-reading levels of the ICFs ranged from 10th grade to college level (Table 2), higher than the recommended 6th to 8th grade level, when measured by major readability evaluation tools (the SMOG readability grade level formula, the Flesch-Kincaid Index Grade Level Readability Formula, the Flesch Reading Ease test, and the Dale-Chall readability formula). Overall, the ICFs and informed consent (IC) processes, as described in the IDE application, lacked components that enhanced participants' comprehension, such as short sentences (e.g., no more than 8 to 10 to words) and the use of pictures, tables, and diagrams. CDRH investigators believe that information about ICFs' readability, comprehension, and structure will help support current and future efforts to improve the IC process. The intent of the article is to demonstrate that improvements are needed in the IC process and to encourage clinical trial stakeholders to consider implementing those approaches that optimize patient comprehension in the development of their IC processes.

We are what we eat: Regulatory gaps in the United States that put our health at risk.

The American diet has changed dramatically since 1958, when Congress gave the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authority to ensure the safety of chemicals in food. Since then, thousands of chemicals have entered the food system. Yet their long-term, chronic effects have been woefully understudied, their health risks inadequately assessed. The FDA has been sluggish in considering scientific knowledge about the impact of exposures-particularly at low levels and during susceptible developmental stages. The agency's failure to adequately account for the risks of perchlorate-a well-characterized endocrine-disrupting chemical-to vulnerable populations is representative of systemic problems plaguing the regulation of chemicals in food. Today, we are faced with a regulatory system that, weakened by decades of limited resources, has fallen short of fully enforcing its mandates. The FDA's inability to effectively manage the safety of hundreds of chemicals is putting our children's health at risk.

Truth in research labelling.

This report describes the background and context of a currently circulating petition to the US Congress that seeks amendment of Section 801 of the Public Health Services Act (42 U.S.C. 282) to close a loophole in existing law which makes possible post hoc adjustment of randomised controlled trial (RCT) results reported to the Food and Drug Administration that differ from those reported to ClinicalTrials.gov and to medical journals. The report describes the petition's rationale, underlying assumptions, and support for its proposed remedy in deontological, consequentialist, and casuist philosophical ethics theories. It addresses the several reservations of the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) with citations of evidence for the petition's assertions. The report suggests that some medical journals are not unknowing victims but rather complicit enablers of the post hoc adjusted RCT results that they publish. Its closing remarks dwell on the negative impact that embrace of a neoliberal, anti-regulatory philosophy of government will likely have on any regulatory reform to promote the integrity of biomedical science and the future of evidence-based medicine.