FDA More Restrictive than its Outside Advisors: Study
FDA tends to be more restrictive than its advisory committees when approving new products, new supplemental indications and new safety changes, according to New York University School of Medicine and Yale School of Medicines writing in Milbank Quarterly. A new study has examined advisory committee meetings where FDA and panel members disagree on the recommended regulatory action (approval, label change, etc.). Their study examined FDA advisory committee meetings from 2008 through 2015 and found that 22% of FDA’s final actions were “discordant with the advisory committee's recommendations. Of these, 75% resulted in the FDA making more restrictive decisions after favorable committee recommendations, and 25% resulted in the agency making less restrictive decisions after unfavorable committee recommendations. Discordance was associated with lower degrees of advisory committee consensus and was more likely for agency actions focused on medical product safety than for novel approvals or supplemental indications.”
The study authors say there were 21 decisions where the agency took a less restrictive position (e.g. FDA took a more favorable action following an advisory committee recommendation that sought an unfavorable action on the submission). They also documented 62 actions where FDA took a more restrictive action — 48 (77%) concerned novel product approvals. The authors note that 29 of these novel products later gained approval.
The researchers note that their findings “raise important issues regarding the factors that differentially shape decision making by advisory committees and the FDA as an agency, including institutional or reputational concerns.”