FDA not heeding advisory committees
Advisory committee recommendations are not followed by FDA as often as generally thought, Public Citizen asserts in a recent letter in The Lancet. The public interest group claims the agency's regulatory actions were inconsistent with committee recommendations 28 percent of the time based on an analysis of FDA advisory committees from Jan. 1, 1997 through June 30, 2006. The study also finds the frequency of committee meetings prior to approval of new molecular entities declined from 40 and 52 percent in 1998 and 1999 to 24 percent for the 2000-2006 period. FDA's advisory committee process has come under heavy criticism in the past year, with editorials by advisory committee members, a Public Citizen study on conflicts of interest, and a negative report from the National Research Center for Women and Families (1"The Pink Sheet" Sept. 11, 2006, p. 22)...
You may also be interested in...
In response to concerns about conflicts of interests involving advisory committee members, FDA has started to examine possible metrics to assess panelists' expertise and relationships with regulated companies
The Environmental Working Group and Scientific Analytical Institute say inadequate testing of talc-containing personal-care products is to blame for findings of asbestos in cosmetics, including three of 21 powder-based cosmetics SAI analyzed at EWG’s request. They continue to push for updated testing standards that include electron microscopy as a core component.
Commissioner Hahn’s tweet announcing a return to inspections, while not a new policy, may be signal that FDA understands sponsor concerns with the agency’s limited ability to conduct onsite inspections. Effort may be aimed at reassuring industry even as CRLs related to manufacturing increase.