Defining 'Substantial Efficacy': Post Hoc Analysis OK (When US FDA Does It)
This article was originally published in SRA
The US Food and Drug Administration's approach to weighing "non-positive" efficacy data against the results from two successful clinical trials for an antidepressant drew protests from some members of its Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee on Dec. 1. The development could have implications beyond antidepressant drug development and highlights the potential need for FDA guidance on this issue.
You may also be interested in...
Biogen and Eisai's surprise decision to advance Alzheimer’s antibody despite mixed clinical results could follow a similar path as pioneering neurodegenerative therapies Xenazine and Rilutek, or more recent Parkinson’s drug Nourianz – or could end with suspended development, like Kyndrisa.
‘If I had been in the room, I would have voted yes,’ CDC director says of ACIP. ‘This was a scientific close call. ... And that was how my recommendations came out after listening to all of their scientific deliberations.’
One Down, Two To Go: Pfizer/BioNTech Booster Decision Creates Pressure For More Extra Shot Authorizations
Inequity created by limiting the mRNA vaccine’s third dose to only those individuals who received a primary series of the same vaccine, as well as resulting operational complexities, warrant consideration of a mix-and-match approach with Moderna and J&J products, CDC advisors say; however, FDA appears most focused on vetting manufacturer-specific data on homologous boosting.