|Articles|February 15, 2023
FDA Interactions With Industry Under the Microscope
Probe targets agency’s role in advising on drug testing and submissions.
Advertisement
A detailed report from key House Committees blasts FDA’s role advising, assessing, and providing accelerated approval in 2021 for Biogen’s controversial Alzheimer’s disease treatment Aduhelm (aducanumab). The critique calls for changes in agency interactions with manufacturers to more carefully document meetings and other communications and to clarify the agency’s role in advising sponsors on product testing and submissions.
The joint investigation by the House Energy & Commerce Committee and the House Committee on Oversight & Reform on FDA approval of Aduhelm slams FDA officials for failing to record multiple interactions with the company, particularly their assistance in developing Biogen’s briefing documents for a key advisory committee meeting. The Democrat-led panels reviewed hundreds of reports and records that document how FDA formed a working group with the sponsor that engaged in dozens of meetings and more than 100 calls, email exchanges, and other interactions to review research data on the drug. The investigators report that FDA staffers helped Biogen revise its clinical trials and then surprised all observers with its decision to adopt the accelerated approval pathway for Aduhelm despite questionable efficacy data and opposition from some agency units.
Concerns about this unusual collaboration in developing and approving Aduhelm was compounded by Biogen’s high launch price for the drug despite the limited evidence of treatment value and benefit. The Congressional report examines closely the company’s decision to set a price of $56,000 for treatment per year, along with its extensive plan for marketing the new drug and details on company board meetings to approve the program. In the end, Biogen’s strategy failed, as the potential for huge outlays for Medicare beneficiaries prompted further assessment by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) that led to highly limited coverage of the drug and similar curbs on prescribing by insurers and health plans.
The House report calls on FDA to take actions to restore public “trust in the agency’s processes and assurances of drug safety and efficacy.” This includes fully documenting “all substantive FDA interactions with drug sponsors” and developing a protocol to address the preparation of joint briefing documents for advisory committees. The legislators also recommend that FDA update industry guidance for developing new Alzheimer’s drugs.
Tightening the process
Meanwhile, FDA officials have revised the accelerated approval process by limiting time frames for manufacturers to conduct requested confirmatory studies and expanding efforts to remove from the market drugs that fail to document post-approval efficacy. The agency gained support for such action from provisions in the massive Consolidated Appropriations Act for 2023 designed to ensure that sponsors conduct required post-approval confirmatory studies in a timely manner. The legislation clarifies that FDA reviewers may require sponsors to begin post-approval studies prior to product approval and speeds up the process for the agency to withdraw from the market drugs that fail to confirm anticipated benefits in a timely manner.
Sponsors must update the agency on confirmatory trial status every six months, and a new FDA accelerated approval oversight council will review the program and its policies and explain rationales for accepting confirming evidence or pulling a product from the market.
The agency also addresses concerns about defining study requirements for drugs seeking accelerated approval in last year’s revisions to the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), which clarifies the process for FDA and industry to assess likely requirements for post-marketing studies earlier in the development process. At the same time, FDA has intensified actions on drugs granted accelerated approval that fail to provide acceptable confirmatory evidence of product efficacy in a timely manner.
Fewer new drugs?
Added concerns have been raised by the recent year-end reports of new drugs for 2022, which reveal a notable decline in innovative therapies gaining market approval. One interpretation is that FDA is going slow on speeding innovative drugs to market to avoid more criticism of its review process. Only 37 new molecular entities were approved last year, far below the usual 50 or more new therapies in recent years. Eight new biologics were cleared, including several new gene therapies and vaccines, but again fewer than in 2021.
Articles in this issue
over 2 years ago
The Benefits and Limitations of Clinical Data Platformsover 2 years ago
Progress Report: Pharma Adoption of Data Analyticsover 2 years ago
FDA Interactions With Industry Under the Microscopeover 2 years ago
2023 SCOPE: It’s an Orlando Thingover 2 years ago
Applied Clinical Trials January/February 2023 Issue (PDF)over 2 years ago
Get it Right Next Time? EU Legislation Under Critical Reviewover 2 years ago
Advances in eSource Interoperability Between EHR and EDCover 2 years ago
Identifying Patient NeedsNewsletter
Stay current in clinical research with Applied Clinical Trials, providing expert insights, regulatory updates, and practical strategies for successful clinical trial design and execution.
Advertisement
Related Articles
- What Resilient Trial Design Means for Clinical Teams
September 2nd 2025
- Why Clinical Trial Innovations Take Years to Gain Adoption
August 29th 2025
- How Research Sites Balance Funding Cuts and Efficiency Pressures
August 26th 2025
- FDA Expands Transparency With Daily Adverse Event Reporting
August 25th 2025
- DEI & Clinical Trials: Navigating Policy Shifts
August 22nd 2025
Advertisement
Advertisement
Trending on Applied Clinical Trials Online
1
Pfizer, BioNTech’s Comirnaty Shows Strong Immune Response in Phase III Trial for COVID-19
2
Summit Therapeutics’ Bispecific Antibody Shows Positive Survival Trend in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer
3
Beyond the Algorithm: How Human-Centered AI Design Can Drive Clinical Trial Success
4
ACT Brief Episode 7: Veeva and Merck Trial Efficiency, DCT Barriers, and Glucose Monitoring Strategies
5