In Praise of Predictability: A Virtue Revisited

More than two years ago, FDA Matters suggested that one of FDA Commissioner Hamburg’s goals would be making it easier for stakeholders to anticipate agency actions. I was looking beyond transparency (see what FDA is doing and has done). I hoped the agency would focus on the larger virtue of predictability (being able to anticipate FDA’s standards and actions).

The task has proven larger than I imagined and the volume of issues facing the agency has made progress hard. However, the agency has taken many steps forward, even as it has been pushed backward on a number of occasions. Is the glass half empty or half full?

I believed that, after the initial stage of setting new policies and assembling her team, one of Dr. Hamburg’s priorities would be to provide more guidance (published and spoken), explain more actions, and rationalize and coordinate more regulatory processes. With regard to this goal of predictable, science-based regulation, progress has definitely been made.

Once completed and enacted, the 2012 round of user fee legislation will further contribute a degree of predictability. The five-year renewal cycle allows industry and FDA to re-work ground rules for the product review process (note: these negotiations are intended to change process, not standards).  

So why doesn’t it feel like FDA is making more progress in becoming predictable and science-based in its regulatory decisionsmaking?

First, a degree of uncertainty is inherent in the nature of FDA’s work. I’ve explored this theme in two recent columns. One discussed the role of FDA staff and the necessity that People, Not Science, Make Decisions. The other examined the biological complexity that makes it impossible to provide guidance that anticipates all situations and outcomes (FDA Approvals and the Failure of the “Human Body as Machine” Metaphor).

Second, certain well-publicized areas of conflict between FDA and industry have tended to exaggerate the overall degree of unpredictability. For example, FDA faced a decision last year on three weight-loss drugs—and approved none, despite credible claims that the drugs met FDA standards.  The agency’s reasons satisfied some observers, but not others. This particular situation became something of a poster-child for critics who say that FDA is unpredictable in its decisionmaking.

The ongoing struggle between FDA and the medical device industry has also focused attention on claims that FDA’s regulatory decisions are not predictable. I have chronicled the often-heated debate in a number of columns, most recently Medical Device Melodrama: A Great Story With a New Plot Twist.

Medical devices were a conflict waiting to happen. It is not because FDA is disinterested in improving predictability in this area. Rather, the approval process is uniquely adapted to the nature of medical devices (wide range of risks, short innovation cycle for product improvements) and almost impossible to explain to someone not already familiar with medical device regulation. Ironically, the two years spent (thus far) on improving the medical device process began with FDA unexpectedly approving a device based on irregular agency procedures.  

Increasing predictability and science-based decisionmaking are still hallmarks of Dr. Hamburg’s agenda. A recent example is FDA’s new initiative to spur biomedical innovation and improve the health of Americans. Streamlining and reforming FDA regulation is one of the initiative’s goals. 

If FDA has not become more predictable in your area of interest, keep encouraging FDA to make it so. The agency is listening and making progress. They need feedback on where processes have broken down or do not produce predictable decisionmaking. In the quest to achieve this goal, I believe the glass is half-full.

Steven

Should Money Have a Seat at the FDA Table?

FDA’s traditional stakeholders are patients, consumers, health professionals, and industry.  Add Congress, media and other government agencies and you have the full set of FDA audiences. What they all have in common: a commitment to the public and individual health of Americans.

While FDA’s focus is health and safety, almost every decision has economic consequences.  Money is never far from the surface. Yet, to my knowledge, Wall Street has never been treated as a stakeholder or an audience of FDA. Now a variant has emerged: organized efforts by venture capitalists (VC) to affect how FDA evaluates drugs, biologics and devices.

Why do VCs care about FDA? Venture capital is financial capital provided to early-stage, high-potential, high risk, growth companies, usually start-ups. Such funding plays a critical role in a large number of medical products that FDA reviews for market approval.

If FDA is more open to innovation and new technology, venture capital firms are more likely to invest in medical product companies in the United States. Conversely, a hesitant, overly cautious FDA makes it more likely that venture capital monies will be used to fund information technology, telecommunications and software companies, rather than life-sciences companies.

What is the VC community doing now about FDA?  Last week, the Medical Innovation and Competitiveness Coalition held a press event, releasing a survey they had conducted in partnership with the National Venture Capital Association. www.nvca.org/vital_signs_data_slides.pdf

In attendance were Senators Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Richard Burr (R-North Carolina), both members of the Senate Committee with jurisdiction over FDA. The Senators’ interest is the prominent role that small companies and venture capital play in economic growth and job formation.

The survey of venture capital firms found a significant decreased commitment to investment in life sciences over the past 3 years, with more dollars aimed at overseas projects. According to the Wall Street Journal:

The chief reason [for decreased investment], according to most of the 156 venture firms surveyed, is dysfunction at the Food and Drug Administration, an agency investors say is so unpredictable and risk-averse that young companies are now inclined to merely give up on trying to get on the market in the U.S.

This is definitely attention-getting, but needs to be seen in context. VCs are the FDA’s natural critics. Having invested millions of dollars (and sometimes hundreds of millions of dollars) in a company’s science and product pipeline, VCs are more likely to see product failures as a result of FDA deficiencies than their own failures to back successful products.  

However, the survey may still have a point….and VCs can be a powerful voice for a stronger, more predictable, science-based FDA.

How has FDA responded?  The Obama Administration has emphasized the importance of innovation in building the US economy. There is some question about the effectiveness of that effort overall, but it has been a serious theme at FDA under Commissioner Hamburg.

Last week, Commissioner Hamburg unveiled FDA’s new initiatives to spur biomedical innovation and improve the health of Americans. According to FDA’s press release, this is FDA’s blueprint for addressing “concerns about the sustainability of the medical product development pipeline, which is slowing down despite record investments in research and development.”

Should “money” have a seat at the table among FDA stakeholders?  Companies and individuals seeking “return-on-investment” are significant contributors to making medical progress possible. VCs are the natural allies of an FDA that wants to be a strong, science-based agency and is willing to admit that its process and judgments can always be made better.

FDA needs to carefully consider the critique being offered by the VC community. FDA Matters supports FDA in its willingness to do so.   

Steven

Why is it so hard for investors to pick winners? Why is it so hard for FDA to be flexible?    

Complexity, Uncertainty, Unpredictability: Not Necessarily Bars to FDA Approvals   July 17th, 2011

In most discussions of science and medicine, there is an implicit assumption that the human body is a machine—complex and biological, but still a machine. “The human body as a machine” is a metaphor, not a fact. Once we accept this, FDA Matters believes we can become liberated from unrealistic expectations about medical discovery and FDA’s role as a gatekeeper for new products that benefit patients.  Read the rest of this entry

FDA Should Consider Cost in Some Decisions

FDA decides whether drugs, biologics and medical devices are safe and effective and can be marketed legally in the United States. The agency analyzes risk-benefit, but never cost. In contrast, public and private insurers, along with physicians and pharmacists, have the responsibility for cost-benefit decisionmaking.

FDA Matters has always felt quite strongly that this was the right way to allocate roles. Safety and efficacy determinations are difficult enough without weighing cost, so keeping a barrier between them makes sense. Two events this past week have left me wondering whether there are certain limited circumstances when FDA should be able to take product cost into consideration.

On September 26, 2011, The Oncology Commission of the British medical journal, Lancet, released a report entitled: “Delivering Affordable Cancer Care in High-Income Countries.” The 40-page report is wide-ranging, but its conclusion straightforward: as cancer care grows more expensive (and it is doing so at a rapid pace), affordability, accessibility and value are issues that need to be confronted aggressively.

Medicare, Medicaid and private payers are undoubtedly looking at this report, hoping to glean insights on cost containment strategies that can mesh with improved cancer care. They may also be looking for support and better rationales for tough decisions they may need to make in the near future.  

FDA also has a stake in affordable cancer care. The growing problem of drug shortages in the United States is heavily skewed toward oncology drugs (mostly generic injectable products). Patients suffer, research is delayed, and more expensive drugs are often substituted (or patients do without).

While ingredient shortages and manufacturing problems play a role, there are also economic drivers. In many cases, it is not sufficiently profitable for manufacturers to produce older oncology drugs. FDA cannot hope to  improve the shortage situation without considering cost—and may need to find ways to favor less effective or riskier products only because they can be made available at a market-driven price.

FDA also plays a role (however unintentionally) in exacerbating the crisis in affordable cancer care. Oncology is one of the hottest areas at FDA, with a large number of new products added to the market over the last few years. More are coming. Increasingly, they are being priced at about $100,000 per cycle. Some patients may need multiple cycles or multiple expensive drugs, all of which contribute to further cost escalation.

This brings us to the second event that occurred last week. I was asked the seemingly naïve question, what would FDA do if a drug was only 90% as good as the safest and most effective therapy on the market (the standard of care), but would be available for only 10% of the cost? I gave the stock answer: FDA only approves therapies that are as good as or better than the existing standard of care. The cost aspect is irrelevant and would never be considered or even discussed.

But then I thought about the Lancet Oncology Commission report. Wouldn’t patients benefit if FDA had some room to consider standards of care, risk-benefit and comparative cost? It scares me to write this….the whole notion of FDA putting cost on the table seems like an abandonment of principles, as well as fraught with potential misuse. Certainly, FDA should not be rejecting therapies because they would be expensive.

In a sense, there are already two possible exceptions. To demonstrate bio-equivalence, generic drugs must have a bio-availability profile within the range of 80% to 125% of the innovator drug. For potentially expensive new products, there is the possibility of approval based on clinical trials that show the product is “non-inferior” to the best therapy on the market. It is possible that a product could be approved as non-inferior with a 10% margin of error, setting up a “90% as good” paradigm. 

But neither of these situations gives FDA explicit permission to say: we are approving a drug, biologic or device that is not quite as effective or safe because it will make care more affordable and accessible. I am not yet an advocate for this….but I think it is one of the possibilities that we need to be discussing. 

Steven

The Lancet Oncology Commission Report is available only as a reprint from Lancet, which charges for it. http://www.thelancet.com/commission/delivering-affordable-cancer-care-in-high-income-countries. If any reader knows of a site where it is available without charge, please let me know.   

US press coverage of the Lancet Oncology Commission Report was thin. Here is the Reuter’s story: http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/26/us-cancer-costs-idUSTRE78P26B20110926

A prior column with some relevance:

Drug Product Pricing 101   March 26th, 2011

A thousand good deeds of the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries have been washed away by the decision of K-V Pharmaceuticals to charge $1500 per dose for Makena, a drug that reduces the risk of pre-term delivery in pregnant women. There is an easy comparator: the same therapy has been compounded in pharmacies for years at a cost of $10 to $30 per dose. Congressional and public reaction has, quite understandably, been one of outrage.

No one knows the right price for this drug, but there are ways to find out. In conversations this week, FDA Matters discovered that many knowledgeable people don’t know that there are tools to rationally evaluate and guide product pricing decisions. Read the rest of this entry

Can FDA Survive the Next Round of User Fee Legislation?

If FDA is to have sufficient money to operate in fiscal year 2013 (and thereafter), drug and device user fee legislation must pass Congress next Spring. That is the immovable object of the agency’s future. To pass legislation, Congress will need to plow through dozens of amendments touching every aspect of FDA and the industries it regulates. This is the irresistible force of Congress.

What happens when this irresistible force meets this immovable object? Something will need to give. FDA Matters hopes it will not be FDA’s ability to carry out its mission.   

The threat to FDA is created by two constraints imposed on the legislative process to reauthorize drug and medical device user fees.

First, the legislation needs to pass at least 90 days before the existing user fee programs expire on September 30, 2012 (i.e. by June 2012). During the last renewal cycle five years ago, the legislation wasn’t signed into law until September 21. As a result, FDA had to delay hiring new staff and the agency was compromised in its ability to implement the new law during the first year of the cycle.  

This time, there may be greater awareness by Congress of the problems created by delayed passage of the user fee legislation. However, this Congress has (thus far) a poor track record of reaching compromises on even simple matters and has demonstrated serious problems meeting deadlines.

Second, the user fee legislation is likely to be the only FDA-related legislation that “must pass” during this Congress (2011-2012). It provides Members of Congress a “one-time only” opportunity to advance their favorite issue or concern about FDA.

A partial list might include: drug re-importation; the exclusivity provisions of the new biosimilars law; approval of genetically-engineered salmon; regulation of dietary supplements; changes in the way that medical devices are regulated; and the use of Bisphenol A (BPA) in consumer products.  In addition, Congress now has some Members who might offer more fundamental amendments, such as revising FDA’s authority to review the efficacy of drug products.

The user fee reauthorization legislation will essentially have two parts. The core bill (“the inner bill”) will include renewals of drug and device user fees and adoption of new fees for generic drugs and other programs. In the best case, disagreements on these programs will be negotiable and compromises found.

Any additional amendments (“the outer bill”) are problematic. There may be some areas of agreement, such as new authority for drug import inspections, incentives for development of antibiotics, and provisions for addressing drug shortages.

However, as mentioned above, the outer bill will face a pent-up demand for resolution of controversial FDA-related issues. The House and Senate committees and leadership are going to have to deal with the onslaught—by allowing votes, negotiating compromises or adopting procedural barriers to prevent consideration of their colleagues’ amendments.

The risk for FDA is twofold. Even if “the inner bill” can be moved without problems, a lot of time will be required to deal with “the outer bill.” The clock will be ticking and June 2012 will arrive quickly. If Congress misses, FDA will be hurt. The longer it takes, the greater the damage.

Second, no one can predict which of the items proposed for “the outer bill” might be adopted. Some may make important and possibly undesirable changes in the agency’s mission and activities.   

Reauthorization of FDA’s user fee programs is essential, but difficulties are unavoidable and extend well beyond the fees themselves. FDA needs to be talking now with its many Congressional friends—not just about the details of the inevitable clash, but how to control the battle so it doesn’t get out of hand.

Steven

“Must-Pass Legislation” Key to FDA’s Future     December 12th, 2010

FDA Matters believes that the 2010 election will profoundly affect the FDA’s mission, priorities, funding, standards and work flow. Eighteen months from now, FDA’s leadership team will probably be the same, but the agency won’t be.

Identifying and understanding the likely changes to FDA requires examining the meaning of “must-pass legislation” and its escalating importance as a quarrelsome Congress turns into a divided Congress. At the moment, there is only one “must-pass” item on Congress’ FDA agenda: the next round of user fee renewals that will come before Congress in the Spring of 2012.  Read the rest of this entry

It’s Time to Change CDER Funding   September 17th, 2009

I did some crunching of FDA budget numbers for my column earlier this week on the Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA). A by-product of my efforts was an analysis of how the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) is funded. We often hear how dependent CDER is on user fees. The actual numbers are startling and deserve to be well-aired. Read the rest of this entry

FDA and Things that Might Go Bump in the Night

FDA’s everyday business requires balancing risk and benefit as these might apply to a particular medical product or a new food.  Occasionally, FDA is faced with a much larger responsibility: judging a breakthrough technology that could bring great benefit or great sorrow to humankind. Who can confidently know in advance which it will be?

Still, FDA must decide.  If they say “yes,” whole new industries and benefit may be created for patients and consumers. Or, the world and humankind may be subject to devastation. Today, the agency is faced with just such challenges in dealing with nanotechnology, genetically-engineered (GE) animals, and synthetic biology.   

Thirty years ago, FDA gave a cautious “yes” to the first biotechnology studies that eventually became important medical products to treat cancer, arthritis, MS and many other diseases. The world is a better place as a result.

In retrospect, the decision was right, but at the time, it wasn’t clear. Scary visions of mad scientists and technology run amok were powerful forces in the early days of biotechnology. In response, FDA took great care in setting up an appropriate regulatory environment.[1]

Not surprisingly then, FDA proceeds carefully when new areas of science and technology have great potential, but could also be the source of great harm.  

One such area is nanotechnology, “the science involving manipulation of materials on an atomic or molecular scale.” The agency is concerned because: “materials at the nanoscale can have different chemical, physical, or biological properties compared to their conventionally-scaled counterparts.” What we consider safe may not be safe if made from nano-particles.[2]

FDA responded in 2006 by forming a Nanotechnology Task Force, which still exists. It released an assessment and recommendations in 2007 that have guided FDA’s subsequent actions. These include the first draft guidance on nanotechnology in regulated products, published earlier this year. More extensive guidance is expected in the future.[3]

Yet another science with great potential for benefit, but also possible risks, is genetically-engineered (GE) animals. FDA has been monitoring this field for two decades and accelerated its efforts over the last 5 years as GE animal products have gotten closer to filing for approval.[4]

Currently, the agency is working (slowly and carefully) on GE Atlantic salmon that have been modified to grow faster.[5] If approved, it would also be the first GE animal to become part of our food supply. Opponents call it “Franken-fish” and allege that it will be dangerous to humans and the environment.

The agency has held hearings, sought feedback from advisory committees and tried to solicit all viewpoints. When it finally decides, it wants to be certain that the result will be beneficial and not harmful to our society.

While nanotechnology and GE salmon are well-along in the decisionmaking process, the FDA is only just beginning a similar cycle regarding “synthetic biology.” While “synthetic biology” can be defined a number of ways, it is generally considered to be “the use of molecular biological techniques and chemical synthesis to mimic and even redesign natural biological systems.”[6]

Synthetic biology raises the specter of artificial life (more mad scientists running amok?). The Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues released a report in December 2010[7] and NIH is also deeply involved. FDA is watching, adding staff with appropriate backgrounds and planning carefully, knowing that product-specific questions about synthetic biology are coming its way.

As with biotechnology thirty years ago, FDA continues to make tough decisions about dramatic new technologies that can alter our way of life—for good or bad. Some fear will always be with us, if only because a wrong decision might be catastrophic. Past experience shows us the agency will be appropriately deliberative before coming to a conclusion.

Steven

 [1] http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/WhatWeDo/History/ProductRegulation/SelectionsFromFDLIUpdateSeriesonFDAHistory/ucm081964.htm

 [2] “There is a virtual consensus among scientists that the toxicology of engineered nanomaterials is largely unknown, and that toxicity data cannot be extrapolated from existing toxicology studies conducted on larger-scale materials.” http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/Nanotechnology/NanotechnologyTaskForce/ucm118910.htm

[3] http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm258377.htm

[4] http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/GeneticEngineering/GeneticallyEngineeredAnimals/default.htm

[5] For more information on GE salmon: http://www.fda.gov/AdvisoryCommittees/CommitteesMeetingMaterials/VeterinaryMedicineAdvisoryCommittee/ucm222635.htm

[6] Testimony of Dr. Anthony Fauci on synthetic biology: http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/2010/05/t20100527a.html

[7] http://www.scribd.com/doc/47350129/NEW-Directions-the-Ethics-of-Synthetic-Biology-and-Emerging-Technologies

FDA’s Busy Summer of 2011

Once upon a time, Washington slowed a little over the summer. Those days are long gone…and this was a particularly busy summer. Congress went down to the deadline on the debt limit/deficit reduction legislation, then left town for August. There was a continuous stream of FDA headlines in June, July and August.

FDA Matters focused on a number of the most pressing issues: post-market safety and surveillance; barriers and opportunities for increased drug discovery and approvals; the rising tide of imports; prospects for biosimilars and medical devices; FDA funding; and various crises facing the agency.

Here is a recap of the summer’s stories:

FAQ: How Biosimilars Will Transform the Marketplace      August 21st, 2011

Biosimilars will be a huge success--used by most prescribers at least some of the time. Much of the current negativity about the market for biosimilars is fed by a mismatch of expectations: the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) is barely 18 months old, while the transformation of the marketplace will take a decade or longer. FDA Matters explores the likely evolution of the marketplace in a set of FAQs.  Read the rest of this entry

FDA Funding Prospects Altered by the Budget Control Act     August 14th, 2011

The Budget Control Act of 2011 (BCA) will have a heavy impact on FDA’s future. Under this new law, most discretionary spending programs will shrink—not merely cease to grow. Yet, FDA’s growing responsibilities and resource needs are not diminished because federal spending is being reduced. Our nation is less safe and less healthy if FDA cannot excel at its mission. Read the rest of this entry

People, Not Science, Make Decisions  August 8th, 2011

To FDA Matters, the people making the decisions at FDA are its strength. They are smart, conscientious and committed. Yet, when asked about bottlenecks at FDA, I have to admit that people slow the process down. There are good reasons why this is so. Read the rest of this entry

Medical Device Melodrama: A Great Story With a New Plot Twist  August 1st, 2011

Two years ago, FDA Matters urged FDA and Congress to review the 510(k) approval process for moderate-risk medical devices and predicted meaningful changes that would work for FDA, industry and consumers. FDA and industry have been proceeding along these lines (albeit with some tough negotiating and lots of rhetoric)…until the Institute of Medicine (IOM) declared that the current system is so flawed that a new regulatory framework is needed.  Read the rest of this entry

FDA, Reorganization and the Four Crises    July 24th, 2011

Dr. Hamburg’s reorganization plan addresses four crises that beset the agency: industry discontent with the medical product review process; public concern about import safety; implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act; and Congressional concerns that the agency is inefficient in its use of resources. The new structure should drive better decisonmaking and greater productivity…. at a time when the agency is struggling to fulfill its growing mission and faces the potential for budget cuts.  Read the rest of this entry

Complexity, Uncertainty, Unpredictability: Not Necessarily Bars to FDA Approvals      July 17th, 2011

In most discussions of science and medicine, there is an implicit assumption that the human body is a complex biological machine. “The human body as a machine” is a metaphor, not a fact. Once we accept this, FDA Matters believes we can become liberated from unrealistic expectations about medical discovery and FDA’s role as a gatekeeper for new products that benefit patients. Read the rest of this entry

Should FDA Have an Independence Day?     July 4th, 2011

FDA Matters thinks that making FDA an independent agency will not make FDA more effective or more efficient. Although the idea is not truly harmful, proposing independent agency status is a seductive distraction from the tough job of improving FDA. Read the rest of this entry

Imports: FDA Issues a Cry for Help   June 26th, 2011

 No challenge to FDA’s mission looms larger than the rapid globalization of the world markets for food, drugs, medical devices and other FDA-regulated products. By way of making this point, the FDA released a special report, entitled “Pathway to Global Product Safety and Quality.”  FDA Matters read the report carefully and heard a cry for help, if not an actual primal scream. Read the rest of this entry

Post-Market Safety: Getting the Most Out of Inferences That Aren’t Proofs   June 21st, 2011

FDA has expanded its post-market efforts, including development of a monitoring system (called Sentinel) that will be able to track drug usage and medical history information on tens of millions of patients. Although such information will be useful, it can only provide post-hoc inferences, not proof of causation. Even with this limitation, FDA Matters thinks developing the system is worthwhile and may provide multiple benefits.  Read the rest of this entry
Steven

FAQ: How Biosimilars Will Transform the Marketplace

FDA Matters thinks biosimilars will be a huge success. FDA-approved products similar to off-patent biologics (“biosimilars”) will be available in the US by 2014 or 2015, with more added each year. There will eventually be price competition in the range of 20% to 40% discounts. Biosimilars will be used in most health care settings with most prescribers using them at least some of the time.

Much of the current negativity about biosimilars is fed by a mismatch of expectations: the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) is barely 18 months old, while the transformation of the marketplace will take a decade or longer.

Will the biosimilar market be similar to the generic drug market? Over the last 25 years, generic drugs have grown from 12% of all prescriptions to nearly 75%. Discounts can be as great as 80% off the original innovator price. Because of their greater complexity and higher production costs, biosimilars will never achieve similar market penetration nor sell at such a steep discount.

However, generic drugs and biosimilars share a common premise: the willingness of physicians and pharmacists to use alternative products (generic and biosimilars) instead of the innovator (or reference) product with which they are most familiar. As generic drugs have become accepted by prescribers, so too will biosimilars.

Will biosimilars fail if they don’t generate substantial discounts?  Biological products are more expensive than drugs and at the extreme end may cost $100,000 to $300,000 in a year. In order to gain market share, biosimilar manufacturers will have to provide discounts to purchasing groups, wholesalers and benefits managers of at least 20% off the originator’s prices. Deeper discounts are likely if there is more than one biosimilar competing for sales. To payers and purchasers, saving $20,000 on a $100,000 medication is both substantial and significant.  

If physicians and pharmacists don’t accept biosimilars, how will the market grow? It took more than 25 years for generic drugs to reach 75% of all prescriptions. As with generics, physicians will gain experience with biosimilars as they become available. Meantime, powerful forces of change--led by payers, purchasing groups and formulary committees--will start to narrow the choice of products easily available to physicians and pharmacists. This will become evident by 2015, although it may take as long as a decade for the pace of new biosimilars to transform the marketplace.

Why is therapeutic substitution important in understanding the market for biosimilars?  Increasingly, payers and purchasing groups have treated drugs within a therapeutic class (e.g. statins) as interchangeable and insisted on use of the least expensive one or two. Similarly, biosimilars are eventually going to be judged in the marketplace by safety and efficacy within a therapeutic class, rather than the degree of similarity to the reference product. FDA will create the basis for this approach by looking at the totality of the evidence before deciding the testing requirements for a biosimilar….but has already made clear that some clinical trials (i.e. more concrete proof of safety and efficacy) will be needed as part of the first generation of biosimilar applications.

Why does the success of biosimilars seem so certain to FDA Matters, even in the face of their slow evolution and the many unanswered questions about details? Knowing that it may be months before the first guidance is issued, key FDA leaders are making clear that they are active and serious. Agency leaders recently authored a “perspectives” article, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, that explains their approach.  In June 2011, the head of CDER’s Office of New Drugs indicated that FDA had already held 15 drug development meetings with representatives of 21 companies interested in nine different biosimilar products.

Bio-pharmaceutical companies are not just asking for meetings with FDA. Large sums of money are being invested in the belief that a substantial and profitable biosimilars market will evolve. For example, a large pharmaceutical company recently closed a deal worth up to $720 million for the rights to a biosimilar version of another company’s blockbuster biologic product.

Biosimilars will transform the drug marketplace. We are just in the early stages, which makes it hard for some to see the degree of change that is coming.  

Steven

The FDA’s August 3, 2011 article on biosimilars in the New England Journal of Medicine is at: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1107285.

FDA, Reorganization and the Four Crises

In previous posts, FDA Matters has expressed its disdain for efforts to solve problems by reorganizing government agencies. So, it may be surprising that I am giving Commissioner Hamburg an “A” for her recent reorganization of FDA’s senior management.

In the reorganization, she is addressing four crises that beset the agency: industry discontent with the medical product review process; public concern about import safety; implementation of the Food Safety Modernization Act; and Congressional concerns that the agency is inefficient in its use of resources. The new structure should drive better decisonmaking and greater productivity…. at a time when the agency is struggling to fulfill its growing mission and faces the potential for budget cuts.  

Until the beginning of this year, Dr. Hamburg has relied upon Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, a trusted deputy and alter-ego, to assist in managing the agency. In addition, he had served as a buffer between the agency and external forces, particularly Congress.  Instead of replacing Dr. Sharfstein, the Commissioner has chosen a new organizational approach that responds to the agency’s most difficult challenges:

Crisis #1: Growing discontent among the medical product industries. They allege that unreasonable FDA requirements and the agency’s overly-cautious approach to potential safety issues are keeping innovative and effective products from becoming available to patients. For more details, see my columns at:  http://www.fdamatters.com/?p=1428 and http://www.fdamatters.com/?p=1401.

Response: Create a new Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco and appoint Stephen P. Spielberg, MD., PhD, a distinguished physician and researcher and former dean of Dartmouth Medical School. He also spent 11 years in industry, working for Merck and then J&J.

In his new role, Dr. Spielberg will oversee the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, the Center for Devices and Radiological Health and the Center for Tobacco Products.

The intent is for him to serve as a “senior partner” to the four center directors, facilitating decisions that might otherwise wait for the Commissioner. When appropriate, he would also stand-in for the Commissioner on their behalf. Right now, these center directors can’t be getting very much of Dr. Hamburg’s time and they are quite vulnerable on the Congressional side.

In addition to the stature he brings, Dr. Spielberg’s bio describes his research interests as: mechanisms of idiosyncratic adverse drug reactions, human pharmacogenetics and personalized medicine, and pediatric clinical pharmacology. This background is germane to the areas of industry concern about pre- and post-market review of medical products and also positions him to be one of the agency’s chief advocates for improvements in regulatory science.

Crisis # 2: The safety and quality of imported food and medical products.  The American people and Congress want safe products and expect FDA to use its very limited resources to make it so. For more details, see my column at: http://www.fdamatters.com/?p=1408.

Response: Create a new Deputy Commissioner for Global Regulatory Operations and Policy and appoint Deborah Autor, now Director of CDER’s Office of Compliance. Her “directorate” will oversee the Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) and the Office of International Programs.

The intent is to increase coordination and greatly reduce the number of decisions that would otherwise wait for the Commissioner’s availability. Just as importantly, the new structure brings together FDA’s overseas relationship and capacity-building successes with a tougher, more regulatory posture to assure that imports meet the same standards for safety and quality as domestic goods.

Crisis #3: Implementation of the new Food Safety Modernization Act to create a sophisticated risk-based food safety system. This is a complex multi-faceted task being made more difficult by inadequate funding.

Response: Continue the existing position of Deputy Commissioner for Foods, which oversees the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition and the Center for Veterinary Medicine. Michael Taylor, who will continue in this post, has already demonstrated the advantages of Dr. Hamburg’s new organizational approach….by his general leadership and his representation of the agency with Congress on food issues.

Crisis #4: FDA’s ability to sustain and grow its FY 2011 funding level is being challenged in the Congressional appropriations process.

Response: Create a new Office of Operations, headed by a Chief Operating Officer (COO) to oversee human resources, facilities, information technology and finance. This will strengthen the agency’s ability to respond to Congress on administrative matters and, in particular, assure Congress that the agency is under tight fiscal management.

Conclusion: FDA has many problems, some of which are reaching crisis-proportion. While more resources are necessary, good leadership is essential.

Regardless of the demands, Commissioner Hamburg can never have more than 24 hours each day to address the agency’s needs. The new organizational arrangement—with four deputy commissioners providing span of control over most of the agency--seems well-suited to address this limitation.

Steven

Here is a link to read the Commissioner’s message to agency employees conveying the new organizational structure:  http://carl1anderson.wordpress.com/2011/07/14/major-reorganization-at-fda/.

I would hope in the future that FDA would post these types of communications directly onto the agency website, rather than relying on the Commissioner’s messages to be reprinted in newsletters and blogs.

Is the Human Body Just An Exquisitely Intricate Machine?

In most discussions of science and medicine, there is an implicit assumption that the human body is a machine—complex and biological, but still a machine. If we could only understand all the mechanisms, processes and parts of that machine, then we could prevent and cure disease.  Yet, the further we travel into the biology of life, the more complexity we find and the less certainty and predictability.

“The human body as a machine” is a metaphor, not a fact. Once we accept this, FDA Matters believes we can become liberated from unrealistic expectations about medical discovery and FDA’s role as a gatekeeper for new products that benefit patients.

Medical progress is the direct result of basic and clinical research conducted according to rules of scientific evidence and proof that have been refined over several decades. Our knowledge grows and our methods of discovery improve through our nation’s support for medical research at NIH and regulatory science at FDA, as well as billions invested by industry. 

Even still, we can’t consistently or logically explain why good scientific hypotheses tested in well-controlled trials often produce unimpressive clinical outcomes. Or why some medical products are clearly helpful for some patients in a clinical trial, but of no benefit to other patients who appear indistinguishable in baseline characteristics.  

Researchers, medical products companies and FDA would love to know the answers to these questions. Until we do, we are powerless to explain, predict or prevent the persistent and expensive discovery failures that are frustrating patients (and investors) who are desperate for medical successes.

We imagine the failures come from the imperfection of our knowledge. This is certainly true, but not a complete answer.

For several hundred years, physicists assumed the world was a machine, a so-called clock-work universe. This was logical and worked remarkably well to explain and predict physical phenomena. Then quantum mechanics demonstrated unpredictable, random, counterintuitive outcomes in the physical world. Ultimately, quantum mechanics increased our knowledge of the physical world, but only after its uncertainty and inconstancy became part of the calculations.

Similarly, there is no clock-work biology just waiting for us to discover all the mechanisms, processes and parts. Some complex biological responses may prove to be “explainable” only through unpredictable, random, counterintuitive activity.*

This may be true of individual responses, as well. If each of us has a unique fingerprint and a unique personality, why should it be hard to imagine that we each have our own biology that can never be fully defined or predicted, even if we could identify all the unique machine-like (e.g. genetic) elements?

If the metaphor (man as machine) is incomplete--and some degree of biological response is inherently unpredictable, uncertain, unknowable, as well as individualized—then FDA’s current standards of evidence and proof are not optimum for stimulating medical discovery. Many products that would benefit patients may not reach the market.

FDA Matters believes the FDA understands this is a problem, at least at the senior management level. However, the agency currently lacks the culture or impetus to incorporate complexity, uncertainty and unpredictability into its approaches to approving medical products. Admittedly, it also operates in an environment where it is gently praised for approvals when they occur….and harshly vilified later if an unresolved or unexpected issue (i.e. uncertainty) is a source of clinical problems.

Patients, physicians, researchers and medical products companies want an environment where a higher level of patient benefit can be achieved, even at the cost of a slightly larger degree of uncertainty and unpredictability. FDA needs to accept and act on this challenge or face rising discord with those stakeholders.

Steven

* Note: there is some work specifically on how quantum mechanics may explain certain biological processes, such as photosynthesis, but the analogy here is only that random, unpredictable biological responses play a very large confounding role in biological discovery, even greater than commonly attributed. See also: “Biology faces a quantum leap into the incomprehensible” http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/blog/2010/nov/12/biology-quantum-leap

Earlier columns from FDA Matters that are related:

Post-Market Safety: Getting the Most Out of Inferences That Aren’t Proofs  June 21st, 2011

In the FDA-regulated world, success is often defined as approval of a new product or indication based on two, well-controlled clinical trials. However, the scrutiny doesn’t end there. FDA’s mission includes determining whether already-approved drugs perform safely and effectively when used by large numbers of patients in routine medical practice.

To understand what happens under these “real world conditions,” FDA has expanded its post-market efforts, including development of a monitoring system (called Sentinel) that will be able to track drug usage and medical history information on tens of millions of patients. Although such information will be useful, it can only provide post-hoc inferences, not proof of causation. Even with this limitation, FDA Matters thinks developing the system is worthwhile and may provide multiple benefits. Read the rest of this entry

Scientific Reductionism and the End of Medicine      December 27th, 2009

“For the last 400 years, science has advanced by reductionism … The idea is that you could understand the world, all of nature, by examining smaller and smaller pieces of it. When assembled, the small pieces would explain the whole.” (John Holland)

Have you ever heard someone accused of “reductionist thinking?” You probably will in 2010 because scientific reductionism is a critical, but rarely articulated, foundation of personalized medicine.   Read the rest of this entry

Should FDA Have an Independence Day?

Years ago, while helping an incoming administration evaluate the public health service agencies at HHS, I became captivated by the idea that a series of reorganizations would solve many of the problems. I eventually snapped out of my trance and learned a life-long lesson: redrawing organizational boxes and altering reporting relationships are rarely effective solutions.

FDA Matters thinks that making FDA an independent agency will not make FDA more effective or more efficient. Although the idea is not truly harmful, proposing independent agency status is a seductive distraction from the tough job of improving FDA.    

Making FDA an independent agency has been proposed many times before. The issue has come up now because Jim Greenwood, CEO of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), included it last week among a number of proposals in his “state of the industry” speech. The industry is to be applauded for its commitment to new thinking, which focuses on ways to stimulate investment in biosciences, as well as improve FDA. While I think there may be some great ideas in BIO’s proposals, an independent FDA is not one of them.

An” independent agency” is a federal government organization that is not located within one of the 15 executive departments.  While most independent agencies are commission-type organizations run by a board, some are structured in a manner similar to the executive departments.  Examples include the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Being independent sounds great, but would it really help FDA become a more effective or better-resourced agency?

Independent agencies do not run independently of the President and the Executive Branch. Whether part of HHS or independent, FDA’s authority derives from the President, its money comes through the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), its manpower is cleared by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and its office space and purchases are controlled by the General Services Administration (GSA).

The chief advantage to FDA of being independent would be the ability to by-pass HHS leadership and bureaucracy. While HHS may be a problem, does anyone want to argue that it is so bad that it requires FDA to be uprooted? Historically, it is OMB that has pushed FDA budget requests downward and objected to FDA regulations. That wouldn’t change.

Being an independent agency does not necessarily improve access to the President. Because only heads of executive departments are cabinet members, the HHS secretary currently speaks for FDA when the cabinet meets.  The head of EPA has the status of “cabinet-rank,” along with OMB. I am not sure whether EPA gets much out of this honor, but similar standing for FDA would seem unlikely.  

Being an independent agency does not move an organization to a different appropriations committee. EPA is funded by the Interior, Environment and Related Agencies subcommittee. NASA and NSF are funded by the Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies subcommittee. Independent or not, FDA will be funded as part of the Agriculture appropriations bill.

Independent agencies haven’t necessarily prospered, either. NASA had a good track record while it embodied a national aspiration, but it is clearly on the decline now. The National Science Foundation has never enjoyed the level of support given the National Institutes of Health.

That leaves us, perhaps, EPA as the embodiment of an independent agency with regulatory and scientific responsibilities. Has science triumphed at the agency because its independent status shields it from politics? It seems unlikely that anyone would make that argument. EPA, too, appears to be an agency on the decline.  

Maybe FDA would benefit from being an independent agency, although I don’t think so. At best, it would take enormous political effort to accomplish….energy that could be applied toward more effective ways to improve the agency.

Steven

Jim Greenwood, President and CEO, 2011 BIO STATE OF THE INDUSTRY ADDRESS. “Unleashing the Promise of Biotechnology to Cure Disease and Save Lives”  http://www.bio.org/news/speeches/2011_greenwood_convention_speech.pdf

A more in-depth description of the BIO proposals is at: http://www.bio.org/aboutbio/promiseofbiotech.pdf

List of independent agencies: http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Independent.shtml 

Post-Market Safety: Getting the Most Out of Inferences That Aren’t Proofs

In the FDA-regulated world, success is often defined as approval of a new product or indication based on two, well-controlled clinical trials. However, the scrutiny doesn’t end there. FDA’s mission includes determining whether already-approved drugs perform safely and effectively when used by large numbers of patients in routine medical practice. 

To understand what happens under these “real world conditions,” FDA has expanded its post-market  efforts, including development of a monitoring system (called Sentinel) that will be able to track drug usage and medical history information on tens of millions of patients. Although such information will be useful, it can only provide post-hoc inferences, not proof of causation. Even with this limitation, FDA Matters thinks developing the system is worthwhile and may provide multiple benefits. 

There are multiple tools for assessing post-approval safety and efficacy that fit loosely under the rubric of pharmacovigilance. When approving medical products, FDA mostly relies on data that comes from pre-specified hypotheses that are tested through randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind clinical trials. In contrast, the data that comes from pharmacovigilance is inherently less rigorous; indeed it constitutes a form of “data dredging” that FDA abhors. The heart of the problem is that:  

Real world data sets = uncontrolled variables + inconsistent data collection + questionable data accuracy.

When FDA and manufacturers collect adverse events reports, they know there will be underreporting of incidents, as well as limited ability to judge whether problems are drug-related. When FDA looks at the Medicare database, they know that information submitted as part of medical claims is unreliable and subject to systemic bias (e.g. medical coding is designed to support reimbursement, not public health analysis).

The Sentinel database should be superior because it incorporates medical records and patient registry information, along with claims data. Still it provides inferences, not proof.

Active surveillance—continuously monitoring millions of health records---is only worthwhile if these limitations are acknowledged. It can never provide certainty about whether drugs are safe and effective. It can tell you what is worth further examination…but can never tell you the cause of any problem that is identified.

As the FDA mantra goes: association is not causation. No matter how many health records and claims data are reviewed, this is still true.

Clinical trials have limitations, also. Trials don’t tell us how a drug will be used by prescribers. They can never provide complete information about patient outcomes for those individuals with several medical conditions (i.e. multi-morbidity) or who take many medications simultaneously (i.e. poly-pharmacy).

By inference (although not with certainty), pharmacovigilance and active surveillance could bring us closer to addressing potential problems that can’t be resolved by clinical trials. For example, many years ago, I worked on a drug to treat pre-term labor. As I recollect, there were two instances of respiratory problems in a trial of several hundred women. No one could say for sure whether this effect was caused by the drug or occurred at random. A study large enough to find out was infeasible.

Based on the potential respiratory problem, FDA rejected the drug despite the benefits it might have provided to women experiencing pre-term labor. If this same situation were to come up today…maybe FDA would decide differently, knowing it could collect patient outcomes information through pharmacovigilance, particularly active surveillance.

Ideally, FDA would know everything it needs to know about a drug at the time of its approval. Information derived from review of real world data sets can never be as good. But properly understood and carefully analyzed, the inferences derived from pharmacovigilance can add to our understanding about safety, efficacy, drug interactions and side effects.

Instead of just using that capacity to identify post-approval problems, FDA needs to incorporate pharmacovigilance into its thinking about when to approve drugs and with what conditions. FDA’s capacity to do pharmacovigilance and active surveillance should lead to a greater willingness by FDA to approve drugs, particularly those with otherwise solid benefit-risk equations, but burdened by questions that cannot be resolved prospectively or through clinical trials (even in phase 4).

Patients would benefit if FDA made this one of the Sentinel priorities.

Steven

Forget the Hype: Change Takes Time

FDA Matters is always impressed by how much FDA does. The everyday tasks are overwhelming: reviewing, approving, monitoring and inspecting the products and facilities responsible for 80% of our food supply and 100% of drugs, biologics, medical devices, vaccines, and animal drugs. Then there are the policy issues, big and small, that must be tended to.

These are largely functional tasks—someone has a job (or several) and does them. Yet, FDA has another life, as the bridge to the future of foods, drugs and devices. This responsibility is vitally important to our nation. It also takes time to bear fruit.

FDA is determined to help develop the fields of personalized medicine, nanotechnology, biomarkers, population-based adverse event tracking, safe use of genetically-modified foods, and regulatory science. By statutory directive, the agency is also helping to develop the fields of generic biologics (formerly bio-similars), medical countermeasures against bio-terrorist threats, and antibiotics for emerging infectious diseases. Advocates usually offer these activities as the rationale for strengthening science at the agency.

There is something more that connects these initiatives--the role of FDA in accelerating public benefits from the increasingly complex science generated by medical and food product companies, academia and federal agencies. There is understandable impatience from stakeholders. While there is a resource issue (more people working on these issues equals faster progress), there is also a rate-limiting aspect--procedural and scientific--to success.

Some have wondered (including me) as to why FDA did not appear more ready to take on generic biologics when the new legislation passed….or why the agency’s subsequent action have exhibited more energy than urgency.

One reason is that FDA has unveiled new complexities of interpretation and implementation each time it has moved forward on generic biologics. Since this is, arguably, the first new approval pathway for medical products in 20 years, perhaps we should all take a deep breath…and acknowledge that a viable program (with regulations, guidances, scientific support and usable precedents) might take four to six years or more to implement. The field itself will be developing for years to come.

Patience is also needed for personalized medicine, biomarkers, antibiotics, etc. At a minimum, we know that clinical trials often fail, sometimes quite miserably, just when everyone is surest that the solution is logical, success is guaranteed and progress is certain. The human body is almost always more complex and subtle than we can discern, even with the best tools.

My yardstick is the history of biotechnology. As with all great transformative achievements, latecomers might imagine that success was inevitable and progress was smooth and relatively trouble-free. The reality has been quite different:

·         A rocky childhood, including efforts to restrict or ban experiments (1970′s)

·         The “next big thing,”  with a very limited number of successes (1980′s)

·         Finally a significant impact, but also several “near death” experiences (1990′s)

·         Some biotechs mature and big pharma swallows small biotechs for their knowledge, capacity and pipeline (2000′s)

There was almost 20 years between childhood and impact…and about the same amount of time between initial successes and a track record of success. Nearly forty years later, biotechnology is still as much about promise as it is about accomplishments.

So, forget the hype and re-calibrate your expectation about how fast the future will arrive. FDA is fully committed and only needs sufficient resources to hasten that day. Just as importantly, don’t lessen your own (or your organization’s) commitment to the future. Despite frustrations with the seemingly slow pace of change, the benefits to patients and other stakeholders will come in due time.

Steven

 

Some related columns:

FDA: An Honest Broker on the Slow Path to Biosimilars

October 24th, 2010

FDA Matters’ enthusiasm for biosimilars is a matter of public record. The market will build slowly, but 10 years from now the new law will be seen as ushering in a new age of biopharmaceutical product development. FDA will be satisfied (and successful) if the new law stimulates biosimilars, bio-betters, and innovative new biological products, along with a dramatic increase in knowledge about the nature and characterization of biologic products.  Read the rest of this entry

Long-term Challenges Need Short-term Attention

December 13th, 2009

FDA Matters  sees seven long-term challenges for FDA. Some of these challenges may take years to accomplish; all need to be started now. Three or four years from now, the Commissioner will be judged by whether she moved the agency forward in these areas. I think she has gotten off to a very good start, but there is immense amount of work still required. Read the rest of this entry     

Will the Real FDA Please Stand Up?

This e-mail grabbed my attention this week:

TAKE ACTION: FDA Whistleblowers being Fired - HELP THEM.

[Organization] has received an appeal for help to prevent the firing of courageous, honest FDA scientists who risked their careers to save lives by informing Congress about serious safety concerns involving dangerous, FDA-approved drugs and medical devices.

FDA employees should not be afraid to speak honestly and freely about misconduct that threatens the health and safety of all Americans.

This isn't the FDA that FDA Matters has known and followed for 30 years. Yet claims like the one in this e-mail are persistent and come from many sources.

Many FDA critics—inside and outside the agency—believe the FDA is corrupt, industry-beholden, and arbitrary in its decisions. They allege that the agency is insufficiently concerned about safety and that managers have too much power to overrule staff and suppress dissent.

FDA Matters has itself raised questions about workplace problems at FDA. There are links below to columns on "Dissent and Efficiency: Difficult Trade-offs for FDA," "Why Do Some People Dislike the FDA?" and "FDA: A Hit and a Miss" (about Avandia). Nobody would take the position that all 12,000 FDA employees are happy, fulfilled or satisfied with their work.

Nonetheless, I have always found FDA employees to be committed to the American people and dedicated to the public health needs of patients and consumers.

After spending four years as a government manager in the 1980's and over a decade as a manager in the private sector, I believe FDA is like most companies or organizations: encompassing a broad range of competency and commitment and having its fair share of job dissatisfaction. From my government experience, I also remember how hard it can be to re-assign government workers who lack commitment or are incompetent or disruptive.

So, would the real FDA please stand up? Is it my very positive experiences or the dark accusations of ethical lapses, industry coziness and harmful suppression of disagreements? How can two such disparate views co-exist?

Forming a consensus and "speaking with one voice" are logical and sensible for FDA, but not an accurate reflection of what usually happens when well-trained, analytically-oriented people with different perspectives gather to make a decision. For example, reviewers focused on the risk-benefit of a medical product are often at odds with reviewers whose focus is safety.

The situation can become more confused when data is open to different interpretation. In such a clash, some people will feel they were not heard or that their views were not considered seriously enough. This is understandable and inevitable. Further, no one can deny that FDA has made some bad decisions and might have done better if it had listened to dissenting views.

However, aggrieved employees may also feel that malicious agency thinking and dictatorial managers have kept their views from becoming the FDA's position. It is this generalization--from a single instance to the entire agency--that fosters the corrupt image of FDA propounded by agency critics.

I am not persuaded that these critics are right. FDA is making progress in handling dissent and in encouraging managers to be more open-minded. As happened with the Avandia decision, the agency is trying to be honest about disagreements. I am still impressed by the FDA's self-evaluation of its poor performance in the ReGen medical device approval.

To me, these are hopeful signs, as well as indications that FDA values the nation's public health above all other interests. FDA makes mistakes, but there is no conspiracy. The agency is fully committed to serving the American people. 

Steven

Some related columns:

Dissent and Efficiency: Difficult Trade-offs for FDA
May 9th, 2010

FDA has a reputation for being tough on dissent, whether it comes from employees or regulated companies. It is often alleged that FDA employees with contrary views are re-assigned, marginalized or ousted. Within the regulated industries, there is a widespread belief that arguing with FDA has adverse consequences for a company.

 

Whatever the truth has been in the past, FDA is trying to develop an institutional cultural that welcomes and accepts dissent from employees, industry and other stakeholders. It is difficult, even messy, to do this. Yet, FDA’s reputation and authority rests on showing that it listened to all competing views–without unreasonably slowing the decisionmaking process. Read the rest of this entry

Why Do Some People Dislike FDA?
October 15th, 2009

Yesterday, I received separate posts from three organizations that are anti-industry, one of which dislikes FDA and one of which hates FDA. They are not alone in these feelings. There are many groups and individuals who believe that industry and physician professional societies run FDA. I don’t accept their premise or the “facts” from which they launch attacks. Read the rest of this entry

FDA: A Hit and A Miss
September 26th, 2010

FDA Matters has watched FDA handle the Avandia decision differently from any prior controversy. I like the new approach. In the same week, FDA provided a status report on its long-overdue social media and Internet communications policy. Because the agency’s efforts have been glacial, the prospect of useful guidance is dim. I think this is a serious problem. Read the rest of this entry

The State of the FDA—January 2011

FDA's touches the lives of every American at least 6 to 10 times each day. The agency oversees 80% of the nation's food supply, all of human/animal medical products and cosmetics, and almost all radiation-emitting devices. Altogether, the agency is responsible for about 20% of all consumer dollars spent in the United States.

With the President set to deliver his State of the Union address to Congress in 10 days, it seemed a good time for FDA Matters to provide its view of the "State of the FDA." At the beginning of 2011, the agency is doing well, but has a lot of catching-up to do and faces a number of threats.

Strengths: FDA's most important strength is the dedication of the agency's staff and the leadership of Commissioner Hamburg's team. They have made great strides in advancing the public health mission of the FDA, aided by increasing appropriations and the momentum of a new presidency. The renewed emphasis on public health has become a core strength of the FDA.

The agency's commitment to science is another strength. Not every decision can be answered with science (e.g. policy on social media), but a substantial number can. The FDA is successfully building its scientific capabilities, although it is a work in progress. Similarly, the agency's new initiatives to establish an international presence represent a strong response to the challenges of globalization.

Weaknesses: While FDA has been doing better, it is still an organization with workplace issues. Within the agency, barriers still exist to sharing knowledge across offices and divisions. To the broader world, the whole agency seems insular. In particular, the FDA makes inadequate use of expertise that lies outside the agency, particularly in academia.

FDA's information technology (IT) systems are grossly inadequate for an agency with such large, far-flung responsibilities. Some major, badly needed databases aren't going to be available anytime soon, preventing the agency from making the best, most well-supported decisions.It also dooms staff to perform tedious work that could be done in seconds with better tools.

Opportunities: Within FDA, there is the potential for a 21st century regulatory and public health agency that could be the world's benchmark for decades. While such standing is a goal in itself, it is also true that the world-wide use of FDA standards opens up export markets and can contribute to our nation's economic growth.

To realize this opportunity, FDA needs to do a better job in explaining regulatory science to Congress, the media and the public. The tools and standards FDA uses every day are still largely anchored in the last century. Public investment in improving regulatory science is what will bring the agency into the new century.

Another opportunity for the agency is to break the secrecy of how decisions are made. Observers often wonder about the agency's rationale. Industry needs the benefit of understanding the agency's actions. Dr. Hamburg and other senior FDA leaders have taken an important step by publishing more articles in mainstream journals. The handling of internal dissent in FDA's ranks was accomplished deftly in last summer's Avandia decision. In doing so, honestly and forthrightly, FDA increased it credibility and was better able to defend its ultimate decision.

A very different type of opportunity is presented by FDA's ongoing consolidation of personnel at just two locations, White Oak and College Park. This provides the opportunity for a more cohesive workforce, as well as a more efficient one.

Threats: FDA's largest threat relates to its funding and the possibility of being dragged back by budget cutting. Several years of increases have greatly helped the agency, but it is not enough to offset decades of budgetary neglect or carry the agency forward without more money. The gap can widen quickly because FDA's responsibilities keep increasing: more complex science, globalization and two major new laws to implement, food safety and bio-similars.

Another looming threat comes from the ongoing negotiations for re-authorization of pharmaceutical and medical device user fees. FDA needs the funding, but not the likely hit on its public credibility. When Congress considers renewal legislation in 2012, the agency is likely to be caught in the crossfire between those who think FDA is too industry-friendly and those who think the agency impedes FDA-regulated industries in bringing new, sometimes life-saving products to market.

Compounding this threat, user fee re-authorization will probably be the only FDA legislation that must pass Congress over the next two years. Dozens of legislator are going to try to get their FDA-related concerns addressed in the legislation. No one knows how much damage the final legislation might do to FDA.

Steven

Success is Uncertain for FDA’s Regulatory Science Initiative

FDA Matters was an early advocate for regulatory science. It has been exciting to see the concept grow from the Commissioner's first public speech to the President's request for $25 million in FY 2011. And now, FDA has released a White Paper describing the Regulatory Science Initiative (RSI).

It is an excellent report and I applaud those who worked hard to create it. Still, I have misgivings about the way the White Paper characterizes regulatory science, leading to concerns about whether RSI will develop the necessary political and public support to be a long-term, permanent part of FDA.

According to the report:

"Regulatory science is the science of developing new tools, standards, and approaches to assess the safety, efficacy, quality and performance of FDA-regulated products." (emphasis added).

I would suggest that:

"Regulatory science is the tools, techniques and knowledge needed by food, medical product and other FDA regulators to carry out their public responsibilities."

FDA's definition makes regulatory science about what FDA develops (new tools, standards, etc.) and about regulated products. Instead, it should be about how regulatory science makes it possible for FDA to carry out its public health mission in an increasingly complex scientific and global environment. It needs to be clear that consumers, patients and regulated industries benefit when regulators have sophisticated, state-of-the-art capabilities and use them transparently, so that no stakeholder has to guess about the agency's approach. These are public purposes for which it is possible to gather broad support.

Most agency funds are spent to carry out applied regulatory science. A smaller, but not insignificant part of the agency budget is already being spent to create and improve regulatory science. For example, much of the budget of the Center for Food Safety and Nutrition that is not spent on inspections and enforcement is focused on better tools and knowledge to create a safer food supply. Most of the work of the National Center for Toxicological Research is devoted to improving regulatory science through the creation of science-based standards.

Regulatory science is not new and is much larger than an agency initiative. Rather, it is a re-conceptualization of who the agency is and what it does. Without this larger and more visionary framework, I fear that RSI is going to be underfunded by Congress and pushed aside when dollars are tight.

What reason is there to think so? The Critical Path Initiative (CPI) was launched with significant fanfare. The original report was one of the most lucid statements I have ever read from a government agency. The projects that Critical Path supported appear to have been well-conceived and responsive to broad, serious regulatory science needs within FDA.

Yet, the Critical Path completely failed to capture Congress' imagination. It received very modest financial support from Congress, even in the last few years when the FDA's budget expanded significantly.

RSI risks the same failure if Congress and other policymakers can neither explain "regulatory science" nor understand why it is fundamental to FDA's mission success. As judged by CPI funding and the limited enthusiasm that it generated, Congress saw it as a nice add-on, but not a necessity.

If RSI can't do better than this, it will not grow and prosper once the initial excitement fades. This would be a great shame because improving regulatory science is essential to making FDA into a 21st century regulatory agency.

That's why it matters what FDA says now about the RSI. Undoubtedly, the agency wants regulatory science to be seen as a better, more holistic way to understand and improve the agency. At the moment, it still looks more like a collection of worthwhile agency improvements that have been bundled into a new initiative.

Steven

The FDA White Paper, Advancing Regulatory Science for Public Health, can be found here, along with the Commissioner's speech on the topic at the National Press Club: http://www.fda.gov/ScienceResearch/SpecialTopics/RegulatoryScience/default.htm

One of several earlier FDA Matters' columns on regulatory science:

CARS: The Vehicle for FDA's Future October 25th, 2009

Since Labor Day, Commissioner Hamburg has spoken a number of times about the importance of regulatory science. She is right. FDA must have the scientific tools and methodologies to be a 21st century regulatory agency. FDA needs to define regulatory science, develop programs to support it, and package them in a way that will quickly bring recognition and funding. Read the rest of this entry »

FDA: A Hit and A Miss

FDA Matters has watched FDA handle the Avandia decision differently from any prior controversy. I like the new approach. In the same week, FDA provided a status report on its long-overdue social media and Internet communications policy. Because the agency's efforts have been glacial, the prospect of useful guidance is dim. I think this is a serious problem.

FDA's Handling of the Avandia Situation. A HIT

FDA Matters was heartened by the agency's deft handling of the Avandia situation. Previous columns have explored how hard it is to achieve cultural change at FDA and why it requires the Commissioner and the agency's senior leadership to be role models.

With the Avandia decision, the agency has demonstrated progress toward two related changes: improved transparency and allowing internal dissent to become part of the public dialog.

Transparency is not part of the FDA's DNA. Despite this, the agency has responded to the President's government-wide transparency initiative with a serious effort. In doing so, it has struggled--mostly against itself--in making its processes and decisions more readily available within and outside FDA.

The Avandia advisory committee meeting and the FDA website were remarkably transparent about the controversy and the details. To clarify the ultimate decision, Drs. Woodcock, Sharfstein and Hamburg authored a 1500-word explanation, which appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine.

Embracing dissent has always been hard for FDA. Its customary position of "speaking with one voice" is not an accurate reflection of what happens when well-trained, analytically-oriented people gather to make a decision. With Avandia, Commissioner Hamburg has conspicuously incorporated dissent into the process.

Cultural change at FDA is difficult and always takes time. The Avandia decision is a significant step forward, demonstrating that agency leadership is committed to changes and understands that it must serve as role models.

FDA's Handling of Policy Development for New Media: A MISS

As a rule, businesses do not like additional regulation. There are two exceptions: where it levels the playing field with competition and when it creates certainty on how companies should conduct their activities. These are the exact reasons why FDA-regulated medical products companies have repeatedly asked FDA to issue policy guidance on Internet activities.

As best I can tell, FDA's first hearing, "FDA and the Internet: Advertising and Promotion of Medical Products" occurred on October 16 and 17, 1996. http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm175775.htm. That's 14 years ago!

While FDA has studiously ignored the opportunity to provide policy guidance and regulation, the Internet has become a primary means of written and visual communication. Search engines control an ever expanding numbers of online interactions. Social media has flourished.

Apart from agency action against some companies for activities that many consider ethical and reasonable and a two-day hearing in November 2009…not much progress seems to have occurred toward providing more direction to industry. At a Food and Drug Law Institute meeting last week, the agency suggested a draft guidance--the first of many--may be issued later this year. Even assuming this occurs on schedule, it will take at least a year to finalize.

I suggested last year that FDA was mistaken to see Internet policy development as overwhelming. Rather, it is a number of smaller issues that can be addressed separately without a broad Internet policy. An additional advantage of this approach: it recognizes that any Internet policy guidance will be outdated before FDA can ever issue it.

After 14 years, this calls for the intervention of agency leadership, not continued delays.

Steven

Gardner Harris of the New York Times also observed the changes at FDA that have occurred as part of the Avandia decision. His column is at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/25/health/policy/25avandia.html?_r=1&emc=eta1.

For those interested in more coverage of FDA and social media, I recommend Mark Senak's Eye on FDA column at www.eyeoffda.com.

Is the New FDA Different than the Old FDA?

June 13th, 2010

Two weeks ago, FDA Matters explored Dr. Hamburg's legacy, focusing on advocacy for resources, prioritizing regulatory science and upgrading enforcement. These will be accomplished before she leaves office. But is she making similar progress in creating "a new FDA, including changes in agency culture?" Read the rest of this entry »

Dissent and Efficiency: Difficult Trade-offs for FDA
May 9th, 2010

FDA has a reputation for being tough on dissent, whether it comes from employees or regulated companies. Whatever the truth has been in the past, FDA is trying to develop an institutional cultural that welcomes and accepts dissent from employees, industry and other stakeholders. It is difficult, even messy, to do this. Read the rest of this entry »

Internet Communications: FDA Needs to Divide the Issues to Conquer the Problem
December 2nd, 2009

Creating an Internet communications policy for regulated medical product companies is so daunting that FDA has largely ignored the responsibility. New policy will not be announced anytime soon. FDA needs a different approach. This is not a matter of a large, complicated problem with many facets. Rather, it is a number of smaller problems that can be addressed separately. Read the rest of this entry »

ACRA: Little Attention to an Important Appointment

For more than a year, FDA Matters has talked about the position of Associate FDA Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs (ACRA), who is the agency's chief officer for inspections, enforcement and compliance. Of FDA's appropriated (non-user fee) budget, the ACRA oversees one-third of the agency's monies and more than 40% of the staff. It is FDA Matters that dubbed the ACRA the "uncrowned prince" of FDA.

Because of the importance of ACRA and the level of resources it receives, we have been awaiting a new appointee to this long-vacant position. This has now occurred, but the announcement was so unassuming as to raise concerns.

Dara Corrigan, JD, will be the new ACRA and run the Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA). She is a veteran of the HHS Inspector General's office and has also held policy positions at HHS. We wish her well. We also hope that she and the Commissioner can return this position to the visibility it needs.

Congressional and media attention are increasingly focused on FDA's capacity to perform effective inspections and rigorously enforce the law. The agency's good name and public credibility are tied to success in these areas.

Since the Commissioner has so many roles, she needs someone to be the highly-visible, public face of tough enforcement at FDA. Two decades ago, when I worked at HHS, the Inspector General was a former professor who had become the supervisor of the organized crime units in the FBI's Chicago Office. He was a good, smart man and a friend…but you knew immediately that you didn't want to be a target of one of his investigations.

FDA needs Ms. Corrigan to perform this function on behalf of ORA and FDA.

Well run, conscientious companies have little to fear. If you run a solid plant operation, import ingredients with care, use multiple system controls, and renew your commitment to pedigree and chain of custody, you are unlikely to be affected by a stronger ORA. If you have an inspections or enforcement problem: cooperate with FDA and correct it quickly.

On the other hand, if you are cutting corners, heedless of consumer and patient risk, or stonewalling the agency, you deserve what you get from FDA.

Commissioner Hamburg is working to make the agency more scientifically knowledgeable, more innovation-oriented and a more reliable partner in its interactions with industry and other stakeholders. She doesn't have the leeway to accomplish these goals if she doesn't continue to strengthen inspections and enforcement.

It makes sense to take ORA out of the FDA shadows and make it a more visible force. The initial announcement did not live up to this.

Steven

Commissioner Hamburg's Most Important Personnel Decision
February 21st, 2010

With due respect to the many fine individuals that Commissioner Hamburg has recruited, FDA Matters thinks the most important appointment needs to be made soon: choosing the right person to be Associate Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs. Read the rest of this entry »

The Uncrowned Prince of FDA
September 15th, 2009

Which FDA line manager has the most appropriated resources to work with in FY 09? Is it Janet Woodcock, head of the drug center or Stephen Sundlof, [then]head of the food center? The correct answer: neither. Read the rest of this entry »

FDA and Quran Burning: Trouble Can Start With a Tweet

Bravo! Florida Pastor Terry Jones has decided not to burn a copy of the Quran. The next danger is that the Pastor's "success" will be seen narrowly as the unique confluence of 9/11, the Ground Zero mosque, and the readiness of millions to take to the streets at signs of American intolerance toward Muslims.

FDA Matters thinks the lessons are larger and urges FDA to pay attention to how this reflects changes in the way crises develop and decisions are made.

According to the Washington Post, on July 12 the Pastor sent a simple message on Twitter: "9/11/2010 Int Burn a Koran Day." From that beginning, he became the focus of international concern and one of the most watched people on the planet. All news sources—print, television and internet—were filled with stories about his intended actions. The situation most resembled a dramatic, high-stakes hostage negotiation. In a sense, it was, with Pastor Jones'copy of the Quran as hostage.

If we are imaginative, there is much more to concern us than Pastor Jones. We now know that one man's temper tantrum (or cause?)—distributed via Internet, Twitter, YouTube, 24/7 news outlets, etc.—can leave the world's leaders pleading for a favorable outcome. The power to capture the public eye, move public sentiment and galvanize the world...now belongs to all us. As Pastor Jones demonstrated, not everyone has the restraint to use that power responsibly.

In the late 1980's, AIDS activists staged a large demonstration that caused a multi-day lock-down situation at FDA. Patients and their friends were expressing their desperate need for access to drugs in development. It was a scary time at the FDA. No one wanted to create the precedent that FDA "would bend to a mob," but there also was a lot of sympathy for the plight of HIV patients.

Soon thereafter and over the next few years, FDA made a number of significant changes to the drug approval process. For example, the demonstrations eventually led to an accelerated approval process and "fast-tracking" of certain new drug applications. FDA began to treat surrogate endpoints seriously (e.g. CD4 viral load count rather than HIV disease progression). Most of these changes have been judged "good" with the passage of time, but there was a lot of uncertainty at the time.

With all the new avenues for communication, this scenario could easily repeat itself today on behalf of any number of diseases that are life-threatening or crippling. Could a group of parents with dying children try to force FDA to grant compassionate use access to a drug in pre-clinical (animal) testing? To make their point, the parents could create a vigil for the children with countdown clocks, while posting daily video showing their deterioration.

Yet another scenario might blend the skills of the Tylenol poisoner with the long-term persistence of the Unabomber. Every three months, anonymous videos might be posted that show gloved hands adulterating some additional batches of a food, drug or device. This would be a corporate nightmare that would also bring all FDA-regulated products under suspicion. FDA would be at the center of an enormous public health crisis.

I know I have not reflected the depth or breadth of challenges FDA could face. Hopefully, these few make the point that FDA is increasingly vulnerable as an agency. It must prepare for risks well beyond those faced by most federal agencies.

Commissioner Hamburg ought to meet soon with senior staff to review, extend, and refresh FDA's crisis plans. Even if they met two weeks ago, they should do it again because Pastor Jones has proven that the world has changed.

And while senior staff is having this discussion, they should also plan some simulations and practice drills. A crisis plan is only as good as the ability to implement it.

Steven

The Washington Post story describing the escalation after the tweet is at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/09/10/AR2010091007033.html?hpid=topnews

FDA’s Pivotal Role Fighting Bioterrorism and Emerging Infectious Diseases

With Congress out of session until September 13, the Executive Branch has the opportunity to gain extra column inches and media bandwidth. Thus, last week's report on medical countermeasures (MCM), released by HHS Secretary Sebelius, drew a lot of interest and a minimum of Congressional comment.

The Secretary released the findings and recommendations from a top-to-bottom review of the Department's efforts with regard to the development of MCM. In the view of FDA Matters, the report thrusts FDA back into its rightful place as a key agency deserving more resources and respect for its national security responsibilities.

MCM are products that will decrease morbidity and mortality from a bioterror attack or from naturally occurring emerging infectious diseases. Think anthrax or radioactivity from an improvised nuclear device for the first, think H1N1 influenza for the second.

Scientifically and medically, these are difficult products to discover and develop. Financially, they won't ever be developed without:

• federal assistance to promising research; and
  
• a strategic national stockpile and government contracts that will buy proven MCM's.
  

As with the larger promise of moving medical therapies from "bench to bedside," there is no progress without FDA. The agency encourages companies by helping them to define appropriate safety and efficacy endpoints for their particular MCM and works with them to resolve questions of animal models, lab standards, statistical plans, quality manufacturing, etc.  

Then, the agency evaluates the testing results and determines whether to approve the product. This work has an additional wrinkle. With most MCM's (maybe all) it is unethical to do human efficacy trials (e.g. intentionally expose a human being to anthrax to see if the MCM works). Instead, the agency (and the company) must make the difficult evaluation as to whether efficacy in animals is a sufficient surrogate for efficacy in humans.

The Secretary (and the underlying report) found that FDA's efforts in this area are insufficiently funded. Perhaps for the first time, there was a more global recognition of FDA's central role in making us safer from bioterrorism and naturally occurring emerging infectious diseases. The Secretary also recognized that FDA needs resources above its current level to do this job well.

The Administration placed a price tag--$170 million in funds to be available until expended--on the size and scope of the monies needed to upgrade FDA's efforts in this area.  The monies will come from dollars previously appropriated to HHS to combat pandemic flu. HHS and OMB have agreed that the monies can be transferred administratively as long as they retain their original purpose of helping to deal with pandemic flu.

However, the Secretary's recommendation is for the transferred funds to also be used for non-pandemic medical countermeasures. This requires a budget amendment to be sent to Congress to broaden the permitted uses of these funds. How likely is Congress to approve this? We probably won't know until after September 13.

What we do know for sure is that FDA can use the additional resources and America will ultimately be safer as a result.

Steven

FDA Matters' most recent (and still accurate) assessment of FDA and the FY 2011 appropriations process:

Update on FDA's Appropriation for FY 11 July 18th, 2010

On July 1, the House Appropriations Agriculture/FDA Subcommittee marked up it FY 11 bill. The bottomline was good for FDA: $2.571 billion, a $214 million increase over FY 10, about 9%. No further details will be released until the full committee marks up.

On July 15, the Senate Appropriations Committee marked up its version of the Agriculture/FDA funding bill. The good news is that the Senate agreed that FDA needs better funding….and provided $2.516 billion, a $158 million in new monies. This is a bit more than 6%. Here is FDA Matters' analysis of this critical budget battle. Read the rest of this entry »

Late Friday Afternoon: FDA, Politics, and Scientific Integrity

When my Smartphone delivered an e-mail at 5:12 p.m. on Friday: "FDA approv…," I knew that FDA had just announced something controversial. All public relations people (including those at FDA) have been taught that late Friday is the time to release stories you don't want to receive much attention.

Indeed, it was the 5-day emergency contraceptive pill, Ella, that was approved. So far, FDA seems to have achieved its goal of less coverage. But I was left wondering if the announcement required that treatment and why it led one advocate to describe the decision as "further evidence that the FDA is committed to restoring scientific integrity in its decisions."

Abortion is, of course, one of the so-called "third rails" in American politics. For politicians, this means: if you touch it, you will get burned politically. It has never been easy for FDA either. For many years, they were caught in the middle of Congressional and societal fights over the abortifacient, RU-486.

As I have written before (link below), FDA has been a master of little-noticed decisions that create or re-position a disease category. With the new approval, they seem on relatively safe ground in deciding it is an emergency contraceptive. Apparently, there is a nuance as to whether the drug's mechanism of actions solely delays ovulation or also makes the womb less receptive to implantation. There may be a theological difference, but I don't see any practical difference.

Ella's approval doesn't seem to have been a hard decision and I can't imagine FDA found it particularly difficult. By announcing the decision late on Friday afternoon, they probably made it seem more consequential and controversial than if they had sent out a more complete press release at a time more conducive to news coverage.

That brings me back to whether this approval is really about "restoring scientific integrity" in FDA decisions. The comparison is being made to the controversy over Plan B, an emergency contraceptive with a much shorter window of efficacy than Ella.

The main issues for FDA regarding Plan B were: should the drug be available over-the-counter (OTC) without the input of a prescribing physician and whether it should be available OTC for women under 18. In my opinion, these were not primarily scientific issues, but social and societal ones. It is completely unlike the current approval of Ella, which will be dispensed only by prescription and doesn't raise the same societal issues or maybe doesn't raise any at all.

I am not defending the Bush administration's handling of Plan B. They could not have done a worse job and they deserve the criticisms they received. But the administration was probably right that the issues were not primarily scientific ones and required input from politically-accountable levels of the government and elected officials—people who have responsibility for public policy that impacts social and societal interests. The Bush Administration should have been more honest about that, rather than pushing the decision down to FDA officials.

Apart from a couple of decisions like Plan B, which are rare, controversial and were badly mishandled, I don't see that the agency made scientific decisions during those years that lacked integrity. There are always controversies about application of "safe" and "effective" standards….and accusations that science is being ignored. Ella is science-based decisionmaking and business as usual for FDA, not some restoration of agency integrity.

Steven

The FDA press release and the WP and NYT coverage:

http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm222428.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/13/AR2010081305098.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/14/health/policy/14pill.html?scp=1&sq=ella%20contraceptive&st=cse

An earlier column that is relevant. It includes a brief comment on FDA and pregnancy.

FDA: Invisible Arbiter of What Constitutes Disease

November 19th, 2009

According to Wikipedia, "disease" refers to any condition that causes pain, dysfunction, distress and social problems. What constitutes disease is more varied and changeable than this definition might suggest.

The nature of disease and its constant changes are pertinent to FDA, which often makes decisions on behalf of society that reshape our understanding of disease. Read the rest of this entry »