Regulating in Real Time: Avandia and the Challenges of Making "Sound Decisions" Under Heavy Scrutiny
This article was originally published in RPM Report
Executive Summary
Office of New Drugs Director John Jenkins recommended against new restrictions on GlaxoSmithKline's type 2 diabetes therapy Avandia. He was over-ruled in this case, but his meditation on the difficulties of making regulatory decisions in a highly charged environment-and measured judgment about the tradeoffs in FDA's new regulatory authority-serves as a testament to the dilemmas facing regulators in the current era.
You may also be interested in...
Pradaxa Medicare Study: Observing a Slow Attitude Change at FDA on Observational Studies
CDER Deputy Director Bob Temple is a confirmed skeptic of the value of observational trial data to FDA’s regulatory decisions. A recent Medicare study on the bleeding risks associated with Boehringer-Ingelheim’s Pradaxa, however, confirmed an earlier position on the drug by FDA and meets with Temple’s approbation.
Lessons Learned: How Avandia is Changing the Way FDA Does Business
FDA learned two important lessons from the Avandia debacle. First, the agency needs to be a better communicator—which means telling the public more about what it knows (and doesn’t know) about the safety of marketed products. But Avandia is also leading the agency to rethink what should be required to demonstrate safety, especially for chronic care therapies. Both could mean big changes for industry.
Lessons Learned: How Avandia is Changing the Way FDA Does Business
FDA learned two important lessons from the Avandia debacle. First, the agency needs to be a better communicator—which means telling the public more about what it knows (and doesn’t know) about the safety of marketed products. But Avandia is also leading the agency to rethink what should be required to demonstrate safety, especially for chronic care therapies. Both could mean big changes for industry.