Boost Faith in Accelerated Approvals: Researchers
Yale University researchers say that as FDA broadens its use of accelerated approvals, it should be taking steps to increase public trust in that approval pathway. Writing in the New England Journal of Medicine, the researchers say the agency’s empowered stance on using accelerated approvals resonates with those who think it should prioritize timely access to innovative medical products, but raises serious concerns for clinicians, patients, and caregivers.
Previously, they write, FDA approval signaled that the drugs were safe and effective for use and that their benefits outweighed their risks. “But with more aggressive adoption of the accelerated approval pathway, particularly in areas other than oncology,” they write, “clinicians, patients, and caregivers are being asked to make individual decisions about whether ‘reasonably likely’ to predict benefit outweighs personal risk, despite substantial residual uncertainty. Their decisions are complicated by the considerable financial costs of these new medicines, the effort needed to navigate health insurance plans, the time and money spent traveling to receive treatment, and the products’ potential harms.”
The article notes that the recently passed Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act included FDA-supported modifications to the accelerated approval program that give the agency the power to request that companies start confirmatory triaks before they receive accelerated approval. It also streamlines the process for withdrawing drugs when postmarket studies are negative or delayed, and requires companies to provide confirmatory trial status reports to FDA every six months.
In addition to those changes, the researchers suggest that to better support clinicians, patients, and caregivers, the agency consider:
- determining whether the pathway is appropriate for common diseases associated with substantial morbidity and mortality, even if other program conditions are met;
- establishing opportunities for public input whenever new surrogate markers are being considered “reasonably likely” to predict clinical benefit and establishing standardized reevaluation periods, such as every five years, for all surrogate markers to ensure that scientific evidence continues to support their use;
- asking external advisory committees to weigh in on all potential accelerated approvals to foster transparency and build public trust;
- preparing informational manuals to support patients and clinicians that leverage validated decision-support tools to communicate anticipated benefit and potential harm; and
- shortening the period allowed for fulfilling postmarketing requirements.