Lost in Translation: Interpreting Advisory Committees
This article was originally published in RPM Report
Executive Summary
FDA's advisory committee process has long been criticized for conflict of interest issues. But now those on the inside are questioning whether change is needed. At the same time, some FDA officials don't believe advisory committees add much to the review process. And given resource constraints, FDA is holding committees less and less often. That may be good news for drug sponsors. The public disclosure of an NDA as part of the committee process leaves sponsors vulnerable to attacks that can undermine the future of a drug. Given the sway advisory committees in the court of public opinion, a re-examination of the system is coming.
You may also be interested in...
Advisory Committee Reformers
FDA's Advisory Committee Oversight & Management Staff is charged with developing policies and guidelines for the 30 expert panels across the agency. The staff has been busy developing four separate guidance documents that revamp the advisory committee system. Here are the principle players in that effort.
FDA Advisory Committees on the Brink: More Meetings, Fewer Members
A year ago, Congress sent FDA two very clear, somewhat contradictory messages: Hold more advisory committee meetings, but without the use of many expert panelists used in the past. The result is a system that is stretched to the limits.
FDA Advisory Committees on the Brink: More Meetings, Fewer Members
A year ago, Congress sent FDA two very clear, somewhat contradictory messages: Hold more advisory committee meetings, but without the use of many expert panelists used in the past. The result is a system that is stretched to the limits.