What Did US FDA Do Wrong In Its Review Of Aducanumab? AdCom Members Have A List
Committee members rebuked FDA for its positive review of Biogen’s Alzheimer’s disease drug, objecting to its ‘terrifically one-sided’ analysis of data, the short shrift given the contrary conclusions of its own statistician, and its interpretation of a dosing study to support the sole positive Phase III study.
You may also be interested in...
Dunn’s participation at the panel meeting ended speculation that he left the US FDA.
Public Citizen proposal that FDA staff who provide presubmission advice on a development program not be involved in reviewing the subsequent product application would cause significant public health repercussions and delay drug development, acting commissioner says; Public Citizen had cited ‘close collaboration’ between the FDA and Biogen on aducanumab in calling for the separation.
Review divisions strongly encouraged filing of both the Novartis and Biogen drugs despite trials that missed their primary endpoints; with the heart failure drug, the agency took a more even-handed approach to presenting the data and was commended for its willingness to look beyond the narrowly missed p-value, in contrast to the barrage of criticism it faced with the Alzheimer’s drug.