Media Does Poor Job of Disseminating Info on Pharma, FDA
May 17th, 2011 // 12:04 pm @ jmpickett
FDA’s regulations, policies and actions are multi-faceted and complicated. Oftentimes, it is hard to interpret what the agency is doing and why. We all depend on good analysis to understand where the agency has been and where it is headed. Unfortunately, some of what we read about FDA is poorly reasoned or distorted by the media and others.
New Webinar – July 28 – Dangerous Documents: How to Avoid Landmines in Your FDA Documents and Emails
Speaker: Nancy Singer, President, Compliance-Alliance LLC, former DOJ attorney
Save $100 w/Offer Code 59100
Three recent analyses have particularly been troubling for close followers of the industry.They claimed to draw broad and important conclusions about FDA behavior and were uncritically circulated through mainstream and trade press. Yet, the analyses they offer are unremarkable or misleading.
One example is a recent analysis from a healthcare research firm analyzing the number of FDA refuse-to-file (RTF) letters over the last dozen years. These involve situations where companies file drug and biological applications for approval and the FDA returns them to the company rather than accepting them for evaluation.
There is a methodological problem: FDA does not disclose RTF’s and traditionally companies have not disclosed them. Thus, any analysis of trend data (“more now, fewer a decade ago) is speculative.
Likewise, not knowing which companies received RTF’s means there is no basis to conclude that RTF’s were previously associated with small, inexperienced firms, but now are being received by larger companies. The shift, we are told, might reflect the agency’s enforcement mentality under the new commissioner. And maybe standards have been raised. A commentator (not the author) even suggests that the alleged uptick may be FDA maneuvering to improve its success rate under the user fee program (while, presumably, returning meritorious applications?).
To its credit, the analysis does mention that “the wave of RTF’s†may be related to FDA’s 21st Century Review Initiative. One aspect of that initiative is for FDA to weed out applications that are likely to be rejected later in the process. This is more efficient for companies, as well as FDA.
Front-loaded reviews are going to create more RTF’s. This seems obvious, if not unassailable. But trying to embellish this with time/trend data and allusions to changing standards raises issues that have no bearing on the question of whether RTF’s are becoming more important in the review process…and whether this is a good trend.
A second example occurred earlier this year with a rash of stories about how orphan drug applications and designations have increased, while orphan drug approvals are down slightly. The original story was straightforward enough, a table showing the progression of these numbers over a period of years.
However, the implication picked up by the media was that increased industry interest in orphan drugs was not being met by increased commitment by FDA to get these drugs approved. But is that really the case? I don’t know and, despite appearances, the numbers don’t answer the question.
Showing same-year data for applications, designations and approvals implies that they relate to each. However, any given year’s orphan drug approvals reflect designations that were made 2 to 6 years previously. The meaning of the surge in the number of designations in 2010 cannot be assessed until we see if there are more orphan drugs approved in a few years.
Lastly, there is this week’s headline that: Biopharmaceutical Product Approvals in the U.S. Rose Dramatically in the 2000’s.†As a result of a Tufts University study, we are told that “during the 2000-09 period, 65 biopharmaceutical products received U.S. marketing, approval, up from 39 in the 1990s and 13 in the 1980.†Media seemed to treat this as a revelation.
However, there was no biotechnology industry to speak of in 1980 and no products. As chronicled in previous columns (link below), the growth of this new industry has occurred over several decades. Is anyone surprised there were more approvals in the 2000’s?
These three examples are a reminder that those of who write about and critique the FDA have an obligation to be accurate and not misleading. All of us will fail sometimes. The media that report on our analyses rarely check to see if our conclusions are valid or make sense.
