The Need for Speed: GAO Reports on Accelerated Approval

by

Several blog posts ago, I wrote about the policy of accelerated approval (briefly, a mechanism whereby new drugs can be approved for sale by the FDA before definitive evidence of efficacy and safety are available). In that post, I reported on a recent paper where the authors claimed that, all things considered, accelerated approval enabled patients to get quicker access to life saving drugs without major adverse impacts on patient safety.


Last week, the Government Accounting Office issued a report on the subject that took a less favorable view of the program. Rules require that companies receiving accelerated approval for new drugs complete post-marketing studies confirming their efficacy. The GAO investigated the frequency with which companies fail to submit post-marketing trial data. They found that over a third of FDA-required post-marketing studies aimed at confirming efficacy had not yet been completed. Many of these studies might be incomplete because accelerated approval was only recently granted, and it can take as long as five years to complete requested studies. Disturbingly, however, the report found that a quarter of these studies had been incomplete for over five years; other studies have been completed but not yet reviewed by the agency. The figures are worse for other types of post-marketing studies requested by the agency.

The “poster boy” drug singled out in the GAO report is the hypertension drug Proamatine, which earned Shire Pharmaceuticals $257M since it was approved under accelerated approval 13 years ago. Apparently, the drug has not been subject to adequate confirmatory testing in all this time, though FDA has issued warning letters to the company over its promotion practices.

The report saves its criticism for the FDA, which it says has not reviewed sponsors’ submissions in a timely manner, does not adequately monitor progress of post-marketing studies, and has neither specified conditions under which it would exercise its authority to withdraw drugs from market, nor has it ever exercised its authority to do so. But isn’t some criticism also warranted for companies exploiting FDA’s deficiencies? (photo credit: lindsay kay photography 2009)

BibTeX

@Manual{stream2009-81,
    title = {The Need for Speed: GAO Reports on Accelerated Approval},
    journal = {STREAM research},
    author = {Jonathan Kimmelman},
    address = {Montreal, Canada},
    date = 2009,
    month = nov,
    day = 2,
    url = {http://www.translationalethics.com/2009/11/02/the-need-for-speed-gao-reports-on-accelerated-approval/}
}

MLA

Jonathan Kimmelman. "The Need for Speed: GAO Reports on Accelerated Approval" Web blog post. STREAM research. 02 Nov 2009. Web. 16 Apr 2021. <http://www.translationalethics.com/2009/11/02/the-need-for-speed-gao-reports-on-accelerated-approval/>

APA

Jonathan Kimmelman. (2009, Nov 02). The Need for Speed: GAO Reports on Accelerated Approval [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.translationalethics.com/2009/11/02/the-need-for-speed-gao-reports-on-accelerated-approval/


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Search STREAM


All content © STREAM research

admin@translationalethics.com
Twitter: @stream_research
3647 rue Peel
Montreal QC H3A 1X1