MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Three common misconceptions about the FDA

2019· article· en· W2940358380 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Daniela Drago

Bibliographic record

VenueJAAPA · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgency (philosophy)Quality (philosophy)BusinessPublic relationsRegulatory agencyMedicineInternet privacyProcess (computing)MarketingPolitical scienceComputer sciencePublic administration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

FigureSeveral clinicians have asked me, as a regulatory expert, about the drug approval process in the United States and the role that the FDA plays. Bedside clinicians believe that knowing about the FDA could provide them with information that they could use to treat their patients more effectively. This knowledge also would help them understand the implication of the many FDA-related articles published in the popular press. Many professionals, however, do not focus on the activities of the agency that is responsible for ensuring the safety, quality, and efficacy of drugs until it directly affects them, one of their patients, or someone close to them. Globalization, new types of innovative products, and the digitalization of healthcare present the FDA with new challenges. Increasingly, drugs are being developed overseas and are manufactured with ingredients sourced outside of the United States. Often, commentators complain that the FDA serves as a barrier to innovation because of burdensome requirements and an inefficient review process.1–5 Some people argue that the excessive oversight hurts the ability of companies to bring new drugs to market. They maintain that companies pay too much in user fees to be able to sell their drugs in the United States. As a regulatory professional, I find it important to set the record straight. Whether you are just now learning the truth or have known all along, the following are three of the most common misconceptions about the FDA. MISCONCEPTION 1 Industry provides all of the funds for the FDA to rush a new drug to market6–10 FACT: The taxpayer also subsidizes the drug approval and monitoring process. The Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) of 1992 lets the FDA collect user fees from drug companies. The law was enacted to supplement the FDA's budget outside of appropriations, so drugs can be approved and marketed more quickly. The law is renegotiated and approved by Congress every 5 years. In 1992, the revenue that was collected from PDUFA and added to the FDA's budget accounted for 9.7% of the total funding for the Human Drugs Program.11 For fiscal year 2019, which started October 1, 2018, the requested user fees would provide 43% of the total funding: the fiscal year 2019 budget request was $5.8 billion, of which $2.5 billion is user fees. MISCONCEPTION 2 The FDA fails to protect and promote the public health, as patients are forced to wait years for access to innovative products1–5 FACT: Patient groups and journalists claim that FDA reviewers spend more time reviewing product applications than do reviewers working at foreign regulatory agencies. In reality, over the past decade, approval times have converged in six major regulatory agencies: FDA, European Medicines Agency, Japan Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency, Health Canada, Swissmedic, and Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration.12 I believe regulators are gatekeepers and enablers. As gatekeepers, they ensure compliance and protect the public. As enablers, they facilitate drug development and speed the approval of new products so new therapies can reach patients in need. MISCONCEPTION 3 The cost-effectiveness of a new drug is the FDA's responsibility13–16 FACT: The FDA makes no judgment about the cost-effectiveness of drugs, and the approval process does not require companies to submit evidence that the new drug is better than the products already on the market. FDA's requirements for new drugs focus on product quality, safety, and effectiveness. To prove effectiveness, a company should provide data that support that its product is better than placebo. In other words, the FDA does not require head-to-head comparisons of new drugs with the current standard of care. At times, a drug that has been on the market for years might be more effective than a newly approved drug. I believe that FDA's gatekeeping and enabling roles are both critical. As healthcare professionals—those working at the patient's bedside as well as in other areas of the translational spectrum—we should advocate that Congress provides more resources to the FDA so the agency can protect the public. We should not fall for arguments that have no basis in fact and are only myths. By better understanding the functions of the agency and its approval process, we can know how this directly affects our patients' safety.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesResearch integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.698
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.005

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.487
GPT teacher head0.568
Teacher spread0.080 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAAPASame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207