FDA On What Aduhelm AdCom Got Wrong: Statistics, Investigational Drugs, Patient Perspective
After a searing advisory committee on aducanumab, FDA reviewers undertook an extensive effort to counter or discount the panel’s criticisms, newly released review documents show. Among the unusual moves by the agency was the citation of data from two investigational products, Lilly’s donanemab and Biogen/Eisai’s BAN2401, as evidence in support of aducanumab.
You may also be interested in...
Amidst bipartisan congressional pressure to approve ALS drugs, Billy Dunn, head of FDA’s neuroscience division, told advisory committee members that the law ‘demands’ flexibility in review of Amylyx’s AMX0035, and he came prepared with the citations.
Citing numerous concerns about design of the Phase II CENTAUR trial and statistical robustness of the results, agency reviewers question whether a single study provides substantial evidence of efficacy for approval of AMX0035.
US FDA’s new draft guidance on benefit-risk assessments for new drugs highlights cases where it can take into account broader public health implications than just the pros and cons calculus for the patients described in a drug's label. While not a new policy perse, it is one the agency seems to have only grudgingly employed in the past.