Title: FDA Warns About Hand Sanitizers in Food-Like Packaging
Category: Health News
Created: 8/27/2020 12:00:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 8/28/2020 12:00:00 AM

Title: Stop Using Ivermectin Veterinary Drug to Treat COVID, FDA Urges
Category: Health News
Created: 8/23/2021 12:00:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 8/23/2021 12:00:00 AM

Title: FDA Warns Against 'Off-Label' Use of Pfizer Vaccine in Younger Children
Category: Health News
Created: 8/24/2021 12:00:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 8/24/2021 12:00:00 AM

Title: Pfizer Asks FDA to Approve Omicron-Specific Booster Shot
Category: Health News
Created: 8/22/2022 12:00:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 8/23/2022 12:00:00 AM

Title: FDA Issues Warning to Maker of Illegal Nicotine Gummies
Category: Health News
Created: 8/19/2022 12:00:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 8/19/2022 12:00:00 AM

Title: Fecal Transplant Treatments Could Transmit Monkeypox, FDA Warns
Category: Health News
Created: 8/24/2022 12:00:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 8/25/2022 12:00:00 AM

Title: FDA Warns Amazon, Other Vendors About Sale of Skin Tag Removal Products
Category: Health News
Created: 8/10/2022 12:00:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 8/10/2022 12:00:00 AM

Title: Cheaper Over-the-Counter Hearing Aids Should Be in Stores by October, FDA Says
Category: Health News
Created: 8/16/2022 12:00:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 8/17/2022 12:00:00 AM

Title: FDA Mulling Over-the-Counter Sale of Contraceptive Pill
Category: Health News
Created: 7/11/2022 12:00:00 AM
Last Editorial Review: 7/11/2022 12:00:00 AM

Federal officials are investigating a new outbreak of E. coli O121:H19. A source of the pathogen has not yet been identified. The investigation is in its early stages, and 33 patients have been discovered. The Food and Drug Administration has not released any patient information, such as where the patients... Continue Reading

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has published the 2022 Food Code Supplement. The Supplement updates the 2022 Food Code with recommendations from regulatory officials, industry, academia, and consumers at the 2023 Biennial Meeting of the Conference for Food Protection.  The Food Code and its Supplement provide the government and industry with... Continue Reading

The Food and Drug Administration uses import alerts to enforce U.S. food safety regulations for food from foreign countries. The agency updates and modifies the alerts as needed. Recent modifications to FDA’s import alerts, as posted by the agency, are listed below. Use the chart below to view import alerts.... Continue Reading

Last year, FDA advisers unanimously voted that oral phenylephrine is ineffective.

Nvision Biomedical Technologies and Invibio Biomaterial Solutions have announced that the FDA has granted clearance of the first 3D-Printed PEEK Interbody System made from PEEK-OPTIMA.

Peytant has announced that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted marketing authorisation (clearance to market in the United States as a Class II device) for the AMStent Tracheobronchial Covered Stent System, a therapy platform.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a video:

What happens after a drug is approved? And how and why do drug recalls happen? Learn more in this short video from FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a video:

What happens after a drug is approved? And how and why do drug recalls happen? Learn more in this short video from FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a video:

The FDA oversees prescription, generic, biosimilars, and over-the-counter drugs. But what is the FDA’s role when it comes to drug regulation? Learn more in this short video from FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a video:

The FDA oversees prescription, generic, biosimilars, and over-the-counter drugs. But what is the FDA’s role when it comes to drug regulation? Learn more in this short video from FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a video:

Prescription drugs go through many steps and phases before they’re approved by the FDA, from research to clinical trials. What does this process look like from beginning to end? Learn more in this short video from FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a video:

Prescription drugs go through many steps and phases before they’re approved by the FDA, from research to clinical trials. What does this process look like from beginning to end? Learn more in this short video from FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a video:

Los medicamentos de receta pasan por muchos pasos y fases importantes antes de que los aprobemos. Las investigaciones, los datos y la evidencia deben demostrar que el medicamento es seguro y eficaz para el uso previsto. Aprenda más sobre el proceso de aprobación de la FDA de principio a fin.

Para obtener más información sobre el papel de la FDA en la regulación y la aprobación de medicamentos, visite nuestro sitio web en www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients-drug...

Vea esta serie de tres partes: www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0AE2C851E6968546

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a video:

Quizás sepa que la FDA es responsable de aprobar los medicamentos nuevos, como medicamentos de receta, genéricos, biosimilares y de venta libre, y de garantizar que esos medicamentos sean seguros, de alta calidad y funcionen como se supone que deben hacerlo. Pero nuestro trabajo no termina ahí. Continuamos monitoreando la seguridad y calidad de los medicamentos aprobados en los años venideros. Aprenda más sobre nuestro papel en la regulación de estos medicamentos.

Para obtener más información sobre el papel de la FDA en la regulación y la aprobación de medicamentos, visite nuestro sitio web en www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients-drug...

Vea esta serie de tres partes: www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0AE2C851E6968546

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a video:

La FDA monitorea continuamente datos en tiempo real de pacientes, fabricantes de medicamentos y profesionales de la salud, incluyendo informes de reacciones adversas a los medicamentos de receta. Según estos datos, podemos actualizar las etiquetas de los medicamentos o, en casos excepcionales, solicitar la retirada del mercado. Aprenda más sobre el proceso de la FDA para el monitoreo continuo de los medicamentos aprobados.

Para obtener más información sobre el papel de la FDA en la regulación y la aprobación de medicamentos, visite nuestro sitio web en www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients-drug...

Vea esta serie de tres partes: www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL0AE2C851E6968546

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a video:

Quizás sepa que la FDA es responsable de aprobar los medicamentos nuevos, como medicamentos de receta, genéricos, biosimilares y de venta libre, y de garantizar que esos medicamentos sean seguros, de alta calidad y funcionen como se supone que deben hacerlo. Pero nuestro trabajo no termina ahí. Continuamos monitoreando la seguridad y calidad de los medicamentos aprobados en los años venideros. Aprenda más sobre nuestro papel en la regulación de estos medicamentos.

Para obtener más información sobre el papel de la FDA en la regulación y la aprobación de medicamentos, visite nuestro sitio web en www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients-drug...

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a video:

Los medicamentos de receta pasan por muchos pasos y fases importantes antes de que los aprobemos. Las investigaciones, los datos y la evidencia deben demostrar que el medicamento es seguro y eficaz para el uso previsto. Aprenda más sobre el proceso de aprobación de la FDA de principio a fin.

Para obtener más información sobre el papel de la FDA en la regulación y la aprobación de medicamentos, visite nuestro sitio web en www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients-drug...

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a video:

La FDA monitorea continuamente datos en tiempo real de pacientes, fabricantes de medicamentos y profesionales de la salud, incluyendo informes de reacciones adversas a los medicamentos de receta. Según estos datos, podemos actualizar las etiquetas de los medicamentos o, en casos excepcionales, solicitar la retirada del mercado. Aprenda más sobre el proceso de la FDA para el monitoreo continuo de los medicamentos aprobados.

Para obtener más información sobre el papel de la FDA en la regulación y la aprobación de medicamentos, visite nuestro sitio web en www.fda.gov/drugs/information-consumers-and-patients-drug...

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a photo:

Catherine Dasenbrock, director of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s National Forensic Chemistry Center, speaks to guests prior to officially reopening the center during a ribbon-cutting ceremony, Sept. 24, 2024, celebrating the completion of the 64,000-square-foot expansion and renovation of the facility in Cincinnati, Ohio. The NFCC is a specialty laboratory that serves as the FDA’s national forensic laboratory providing specialized laboratory services in analytical chemistry and molecular/microbiology related to adulteration/contamination, counterfeiting, and product tampering of FDA regulated commodities including drugs, dietary supplements, foods, cosmetics, veterinary feeds, and medical devices.

FDA photo by Matthew MacRoberts

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a photo:

U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials and General Services Administration leaders officially reopen the National Forensic Chemistry Center during a ribbon-cutting ceremony, Sept. 24, 2024, highlighting the completion of the 64,000-square-foot expansion and renovation of the center in Cincinnati, Ohio. The NFCC is a specialty laboratory that serves as the FDA’s national forensic laboratory providing specialized laboratory services in analytical chemistry and molecular/microbiology related to adulteration/contamination, counterfeiting, and product tampering of FDA regulated commodities including drugs, dietary supplements, foods, cosmetics, veterinary feeds, and medical devices.

(From left)
Marie Maguire, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, Headquarters Operations, Office of Criminal Investigations, FDA
James Sigg, Deputy Commissioner for Operations and Chief Operating Officer, Office of the Commissioner, FDA
Catherine Dasenbrock, Director, National Forensic Chemistry Center, Office of Inspections and Investigations (OII), FDA
Duane Satzger, Associate Director, Office of Medical Products and Specialty Laboratory Operations, OII, FDA
Katy Kale, Deputy Administrator, GSA
Douglas Stearn, Principal Deputy Associate Commissioner, OII, FDA

FDA photo by Matthew MacRoberts

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a photo:

Scientists explain the work they do to guests attending a ribbon-cutting ceremony celebrating the completion of a 64,000-square-foot expansion and renovation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s National Forensic Chemistry Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, Sept. 24, 2024.

The NFCC is a specialty laboratory that serves as the FDA’s national forensic laboratory providing specialized laboratory services in analytical chemistry and molecular/microbiology related to adulteration/contamination, counterfeiting, and product tampering of FDA regulated commodities including drugs, dietary supplements, foods, cosmetics, veterinary feeds, and medical devices.

FDA photo by Matthew MacRoberts

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a photo:

Scientists explain the work they do to guests attending a ribbon-cutting ceremony celebrating the completion of a 64,000-square-foot expansion and renovation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s National Forensic Chemistry Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, Sept. 24, 2024.

The NFCC is a specialty laboratory that serves as the FDA’s national forensic laboratory providing specialized laboratory services in analytical chemistry and molecular/microbiology related to adulteration/contamination, counterfeiting, and product tampering of FDA regulated commodities including drugs, dietary supplements, foods, cosmetics, veterinary feeds, and medical devices.

FDA photo by Matthew MacRoberts

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration posted a photo:

Scientists explain the work they do to guests attending a ribbon-cutting ceremony celebrating the completion of a 64,000-square-foot expansion and renovation of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s National Forensic Chemistry Center in Cincinnati, Ohio, Sept. 24, 2024.

The NFCC is a specialty laboratory that serves as the FDA’s national forensic laboratory providing specialized laboratory services in analytical chemistry and molecular/microbiology related to adulteration/contamination, counterfeiting, and product tampering of FDA regulated commodities including drugs, dietary supplements, foods, cosmetics, veterinary feeds, and medical devices.

FDA photo by Matthew MacRoberts

Looking back over the last 40 years at FDA (as I have), there are three characteristics that create a more progressive environment at the agency: continuity of leadership, presidential support, and increased funding. For FDA in 2013 (as the saying goes): 2 out of 3 ain’t bad. In particular, medical innovation seems poised to flourish in an FDA environment where there is continuity of policy and leadership, instead of a new team learning the ropes. I explore this and other themes in the latest issue of Pharmaphorum.com. You can read my thoughts at: http://www.pharmaphorum.com/2013/01/29/fda-post-election-continuity-and-progress-likely-to-mark-2013/.

FDA is the only federal agency that touches the lives of every American several times every day. Despite this, FDA will probably not be mentioned when President Obama delivers his State of the Union (SOTU) address to Congress on February 12. Instead, FDA Matters provides its third annual “State of the FDA.” As reflected in last week’s column, I think that FDA did well in 2012. And 2013 is very promising. Potential funding cutbacks are the primary impediment to future successes.

FDA’s mission is “at risk” because of inadequate funding. So says Alliance for a Stronger FDA President Diane Dorman, testifying before the FDA Science Board. Her remarks come 5 years after the Science Board made a similar declaration, concluding that decades of underfunding had left FDA without the resources to fulfill its mandate and make science-based decisions. Congress responded with more monies for the agency, but since then the FDA’s workload has increased even faster. The current threat to FDA comes from two sources: four major new laws to implement since 2009; and changes in the environment in which FDA operates, notably acceleration of globalization and increasing scientific complexity. Ms. Dorman’s remarks are reprinted below. If you care about FDA, FDA Matters urges you to read her testimony, go to the Alliance’s site (www.StrengthenFDA.org) and join.

At a time when FDA’s responsibilities continue to grow rapidly, the agency has been caught in an across-the-board reduction (sequester) in federal discretionary spending, effective March 2, 2013. Although Congress may yet reverse course and restore money to affected federal agencies, this is not considered a high probability. Altogether, FDA will lose about $209 million between now and September 30, 2013. This will reduce inspections, slow drug and device approvals, and restrict implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act and other recent legislation. Because of the many questions about the process and outcome, this is FDA Matters’ primer on the sequester of FDA funds.

The FDA doesn’t care about the First Amendment rights of the companies it regulates. It cares even less about the “free speech” rights of those companies’ sales and marketing representatives. And why should the agency care? One of FDA’s primary missions is to protect the public health and safety of the American people from illegal, adulterated and misbranded products. Doing so involves restraining food, drug, device and cosmetics companies from committing fraudulent and deceptive acts that are not protected by companies’ commercial free speech rights. Nonetheless, FDA Matters envisions opportunities for FDA and industry to broaden permissible product communications. The key is understanding history, not constitutional law.

FDA Matters appreciates your patience. New columns will be coming in June, with fresh insights into FDA and the FDA-regulated world.  Meantime, I write a weekly column in the Friday Update, published by the Alliance for a Stronger FDA. If you want to receive the Friday Update when it's published each week, you can sign […]

“The Hill” newspaper recently reported that: “a survey of federal budgets devoted to developing and enforcing regulations found that many agencies will spend more in 2013 and 2014 than in previous years, indicating that the writing and enforcing of new regulations is largely unimpeded by the massive cuts, known as sequestration.” That certainly sounds authoritative…until you look at the analysis. In fact, the report’s authors appear to know nothing about the federal budget and have used inherently unreliable data in calculating FY 13 and FY 14 spending levels. One can only hope that the authors—allegedly academic experts--know more about regulatory policy than they do about federal budgets.

<p>The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval for two&nbsp;biosimilars, Formycon’s FYB202/Otulfi (ustekinumab-aauz) and Samsung Bioepis’ Soliris biosimilar, Epysqli (eculizumab-aagh), on 27 September and 22 July 2024, respectively. FYB202/Otulfi, a biosimilar referencing&nbsp;Johnson &amp; Johnson’s Stelara, while Epysqli is a biosimilar referencing Alexion’s Soliris.</p>

PDUFA V commitments signal a strong commitment to tolerance of open debate in the face of uncertainty.

I can admit to a rather powerful lack of enthusiasm when reading about interpersonal squabbles. It’s even worse in the scientific world: when I read about debates getting mired in personal attacks I tend to simply stop reading and move on to something else.

However, the really interesting part of this week’s meeting of an FDA joint Advisory Committee to discuss the controversial diabetes drug Avandia – at least in the sense of likely long-term impact – is not the scientific question under discussion, but the surfacing and handling of the raging interpersonal battle going on right now inside the Division of Cardiovascular and Renal Products. So I'll have to swallow my distaste and follow along with the drama.

Two words that make us mistrust Duke:  Anil Potti Christian Laettner

Not that the scientific question at hand – does Avandia pose significant heart risks? – isn't interesting. It is. But if there’s one thing that everyone seems to agree on, it’s that we don’t have good data on the topic. Despite the re-adjudication of RECORD, no one trusts its design (and, ironically, the one trial with a design to rigorously answer the question was halted after intense pressure, despite an AdComm recommendation that it continue).  And no one seems particularly enthused about changing the current status of Avandia: in all likelihood it will continue to be permitted to be marketed under heavy restrictions. Rather than changing the future of diabetes, I suspect the committee will be content to let us slog along the same mucky trail.

The really interesting question, that will potentially impact CDER for years to come, is how it can function with frothing, open dissent among its staffers. As has been widely reported, FDA reviewer Tom Marciniak has written a rather wild and vitriolic assessment of the RECORD trial, excoriating most everyone involved. In a particularly stunning passage, Marciniak appears to claim that the entire output of anyone working at Duke University cannot be trusted because of the fraud committed by Duke cancer researcher Anil Potti:

I would have thought that the two words “Anil Potti” are sufficient for convincing anyone that Duke University is a poor choice for a contractor whose task it is to confirm the integrity of scientific research. 

(One wonders how far Marciniak is willing to take his guilt-by-association theme. Are the words “Cheng Yi Liang” sufficient to convince us that all FDA employees, including Marciniak, are poor choices for deciding matter relating to publicly-traded companies? Should I not comment on government activities because I’m a resident of Illinois (my two words: “Rod Blagojevich”)?)

Rather than censoring or reprimanding Marciniak, his supervisors have taken the extraordinary step of letting him publicly air his criticisms, and then they have in turn publicly criticized his methods and approach.

I have been unable to think of a similar situation at any regulatory agency. The tolerance for dissent being displayed by FDA is, I believe, completely unprecedented.

And that’s the cliffhanger for me: can the FDA’s commitment to transparency extend so far as to accommodate public disagreements about its own approval decisions? Can it do so even when the disagreements take an extremely nasty and inappropriate tone?

• Rather than considering that open debate is a good thing, will journalists jump on the drama and portray agency leadership as weak and indecisive?
• Will the usual suspects in Congress be able to exploit this disagreement for their own political gain? How many House subcommittees will be summoning Janet Woodcock in the coming weeks?

I think what Bob Temple and Norman Stockbridge are doing is a tremendous experiment in open government. If they can pull it off, it could force other agencies to radically rethink how they go about crafting and implementing regulations. However, I also worry that it is politically simply not a viable approach, and that the agency will ultimately be seriously hurt by attacks from the media and legislators.

Where is this coming from?

As part of its recent PDUFA V commitment, the FDA put out a fascinating draft document, Structured Approach to Benefit-Risk Assessment in Drug Regulatory Decision-Making. It didn't get a lot of attention when first published back in February (few FDA documents do). However, it lays out a rather bold vision for how the FDA can acknowledge the existence of uncertainty in its evaluation of new drugs. Its proposed structure even envisions an open and honest accounting of divergent interpretations of data:

When they're frothing at the mouth, even Atticus doesn't let them publish a review

A framework for benefit-risk decision-making that summarizes the relevant facts, uncertainties, and key areas of judgment, and clearly explains how these factors influence a regulatory decision, can greatly inform and clarify the regulatory discussion. Such a framework can provide transparency regarding the basis of conflicting recommendations made by different parties using the same information.

(Emphasis mine.)

Of course, the structured framework here is designed to reflect rational disagreement. Marciniak’s scattershot insults are in many ways a terrible first case for trying out a new level of transparency.

The draft framework notes that safety issues, like Avandia, are some of the major areas of uncertainty in the regulatory process. Contrast this vision of coolly and systematically addressing uncertainties with the sad reality of Marciniak’s attack:

In contrast to the prospective and highly planned studies of effectiveness, safety findings emerge from a wide range of sources, including spontaneous adverse event reports, epidemiology studies, meta-analyses of controlled trials, or in some cases from randomized, controlled trials. However, even controlled trials, where the evidence of an effect is generally most persuasive, can sometimes provide contradictory and inconsistent findings on safety as the analyses are in many cases not planned and often reflect multiple testing. A systematic approach that specifies the sources of evidence, the strength of each piece of evidence, and draws conclusions that explain how the uncertainty weighed on the decision, can lead to more explicit communication of regulatory decisions. We anticipate that this work will continue beyond FY 2013.

I hope that work will continue beyond 2013. Thoughtful, open discussions of real uncertainties are one of the most worthwhile goals FDA can aspire to, even if it means having to learn how to do so without letting the Marciniaks of the world scuttle the whole endeavor.

Results reporting requirements are pretty clear. Maybe critics should re-check their methods?

Ben Goldacre has rather famously described the clinical trial reporting requirements in the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 as a “fake fix” that was being thoroughly “ignored” by the pharmaceutical industry.

Pharma: breaking the law in broad daylight?

He makes this sweeping, unconditional proclamation about the industry and its regulators on the basis of  a single study in the BMJ, blithely ignoring the fact that a) the authors of the study admitted that they could not adequately determine the number of studies that were meeting FDAAA requirements and b) a subsequent FDA review that identified only 15 trials potentially out of compliance, out of a pool of thousands.


Despite the fact that the FDA, which has access to more data, says that only a tiny fraction of studies are potentially noncompliant, Goldacre's frequently repeated claims that the law is being ignored seems to have caught on in the general run of journalistic and academic discussions about FDAAA.

And now there appears to be additional support for the idea that a large percentage of studies are noncompliant with FDAAA results reporting requirements, in the form of a new study in the Journal of Clinical Oncology: "Public Availability of Results of Trials Assessing Cancer Drugs in the United States" by Thi-Anh-Hoa Nguyen, et al.. In it, the authors report even lower levels of FDAAA compliance – a mere 20% of randomized clinical trials met requirements of posting results on clinicaltrials.gov within one year.

Unsurprisingly, the JCO results were immediately picked up and circulated uncritically by the usual suspects.

I have to admit not knowing much about pure academic and cooperative group trial operations, but I do know a lot about industry-run trials – simply put, I find the data as presented in the JCO study impossible to believe. Everyone I work with in pharma trials is painfully aware of the regulatory environment they work in. FDAAA compliance is a given, a no-brainer: large internal legal and compliance teams are everywhere, ensuring that the letter of the law is followed in clinical trial conduct. If anything, pharma sponsors are twitchily over-compliant with these kinds of regulations (for example, most still adhere to 100% verification of source documentation – sending monitors to physically examine every single record of every single enrolled patient - even after the FDA explicitly told them they didn't have to).

I realize that’s anecdotal evidence, but when such behavior is so pervasive, it’s difficult to buy into data that says it’s not happening at all. The idea that all pharmaceutical companies are ignoring a highly visible law that’s been on the books for 6 years is extraordinary. Are they really so brazenly breaking the rules? And is FDA abetting them by disseminating incorrect information?

Those are extraordinary claims, and would seem to require extraordinary evidence. The BMJ study had clear limitations that make its implications entirely unclear. Is the JCO article any better?

Some Issues

In fact, there appear to be at least two major issues that may have seriously compromised the JCO findings:

1. Studies that were certified as being eligible for delayed reporting requirements, but do not have their certification date listed.

The study authors make what I believe to be a completely unwarranted assumption:

In trials for approval of new drugs or approval for a new indication, a certification [permitting delayed results reporting] should be posted within 1 year and should be publicly available.

It’s unclear to me why the authors think the certifications “should be” publicly available. In re-reading FDAAA section 801, I don’t see any reference to that being a requirement. I suppose I could have missed it, but the authors provide a citation to a page that clearly does not list any such requirement.

But their methodology assumes that all trials that have a certification will have it posted:

If no results were posted at ClinicalTrials.gov, we determined whether the responsible party submitted a certification. In this case, we recorded the date of submission of the certification to ClinicalTrials.gov.

If a sponsor gets approval from FDA to delay reporting (as is routine for all drugs that are either not approved for any indication, or being studied for a new indication – i.e., the overwhelming majority of pharma drug trials), but doesn't post that approval on the registry, the JCO authors deem that trial “noncompliant”. This is not warranted: the company may have simply chosen not to post the certification despite being entirely FDAAA compliant.

2. Studies that were previously certified for delayed reporting and subsequently reported results

It is hard to tell how the authors treated this rather-substantial category of trials. If a trial was certified for delayed results reporting, but then subsequently published results, the certification date becomes difficult to find. Indeed, it appears in the case where there were results, the authors simply looked at the time from study completion to results posting. In effect, this would re-classify almost every single one of these trials from compliant to non-compliant. Consider this example trial:

• Phase 3 trial completes January 2010
• Certification of delayed results obtained December 2010 (compliant)
• FDA approval June 2013
• Results posted July 2013 (compliant)

In looking at the JCO paper's methods section, it really appears that this trial would be classified as reporting results 3.5 years after completion, and therefore be considered noncompliant with FDAAA. In fact, this trial is entirely kosher, and would be extremely typical for many phase 2 and 3 trials in industry.

Time for Some Data Transparency

The above two concerns may, in fact, be non-issues. They certainly appear to be implied in the JCO paper, but the wording isn't terribly detailed and could easily be giving me the wrong impression.

However, if either or both of these issues are real, they may affect the vast majority of "noncompliant" trials in this study. Given the fact that most clinical trials are either looking at new drugs, or looking at new indications for new drugs, these two issues may entirely explain the gap between the JCO study and the unequivocal FDA statements that contradict it.

I hope that, given the importance of transparency in research, the authors will be willing to post their data set publicly so that others can review their assumptions and independently verify their conclusions. It would be more than a bit ironic otherwise.
Thi-Anh-Hoa Nguyen, Agnes Dechartres, Soraya Belgherbi, and Philippe Ravaud (2013). Public Availability of Results of Trials Assessing Cancer Drugs in the United States JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2012.46.9577

Acadia Pharmaceuticals did not disclose the buyer of the priority review voucher. The biotech received the voucher last year alongside the regulatory decision that made its drug Daybue the first FDA-approved treatment for the rare disease Rett syndrome.

The post Acadia Pharma Sells Voucher for Speedier FDA Drug Review for $150M appeared first on MedCity News.

The FDA has proposed removing oral phenylephrine from its guidelines for over-the-counter drugs due to inefficacy as a decongestant. Use of this ingredient in cold and allergy medicines grew after a federal law required that pseudoephedrine-containing products be kept behind pharmacy counters.

The post FDA Takes Step Toward Removal of Ineffective Decongestants From the Market appeared first on MedCity News.

Autolus Therapeutics’ Aucatzyl is now FDA approved for treating advanced cases of B-cell precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia. While it goes after the same target as Gilead Sciences’ Tecartus, Autolus engineered its CAR T-therapy with properties that could improve safety, efficacy, and durability.

The post ‘Serial Killing’ Cell Therapy From Autolus Lands FDA Approval in Blood Cancer appeared first on MedCity News.

In vitro diagnostics (IVDs) play an indispensable role in modern medicine. Health care providers routinely rely on these tests—which analyze samples such as blood or saliva—to help diagnose conditions and guide potentially life-altering treatment decisions. In 2017, for example, clinicians ordered blood tests during about 45% of emergency room visits in the United States, according to the Centers...

The Food and Drug Administration published a concept paper in early January that describes a preliminary proposal for how the agency will ensure that companies developing antibiotics for administration to animals establish defined, evidence-based durations of use for all medically important antibiotics.

Given his views on vaccines, pharma companies, and medical science, if Robert F. Kennedy Jr. assumed control of […]

The post The Danger of An RFK Jr Leading The FDA appeared first on World of DTC Marketing.