FDA Advisory Committees on the Brink: More Meetings, Fewer Members
This article was originally published in RPM Report
A year ago, Congress sent FDA two very clear, somewhat contradictory messages: Hold more advisory committee meetings, but without the use of many expert panelists used in the past. The result is a system that is stretched to the limits.
You may also be interested in...
After years of widespread vacancies on advisory committees, the Food & Drug Administration appears to have tackled most of the problems. But there are a couple of significant outliers, most significantly the Dermatology & Ophthalmic Products Advisory Committee. Will changes in conflict of interest rules and a new recruitment effort help FDA find and retain advisory committee members?
Sidney Wolfe’s stint as permanent member of the Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committee ended May 31; his final meeting was the May 23 review of Xarelto for ACS. That gave him a second chance to vote against the product. A look back at Wolfe’s tenure shows he was a sure “no” vote when he sat on a panel—but that his service can hardly be construed as having damaged the industry.
Recruitment of FDA advisory committee members has been a persistent challenge for the agency—especially since the conflict of interest rules were tightened five years ago. While FDA has improved the number of vacancies on its expert panels, it has yet to meet its goals—especially in the Center for Drugs. Congress is considering loosening the restrictions. Will that help, or simply fuel criticism of the process?