HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Rapid Responses: Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Deyo, R. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Deyo, R. A. Social Bookmarking                      What's this?

Gaps, Tensions, and Conflicts in the FDA Approval Process: Implications for Clinical Practice

From the Departments of Medicine and Health Services and the Center for Cost and Outcomes Research, University of Washington, Seattle

Correspondence: Address correspondence to Richard A. Deyo, Department of Medicine, Box 356429, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195 (e-mail: deyo{at}u.washington.edu)

Abstract

Despite many successes, drug approval at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is subject to gaps, internal tensions, and conflicts of interest. Recalls of drugs and devices and studies demonstrating advantages of older drugs over newer ones highlight the importance of these limitations. The FDA does not compare competing drugs and rarely requires tests of clinical efficacy for new devices. It does not review advertisements before use, assess cost-effectiveness, or regulate surgery (except for devices). Many believe postmarketing surveillance of drugs and devices is inadequate. A source of tension within the agency is pressure for speedy approvals. This may have resulted in "burn-out" among medical officers and has prompted criticism that safety is ignored. Others argue, however, that the agency is unnecessarily slow and bureaucratic. Recent reports identify conflicts of interest (stock ownership, consulting fees, research grants) among some members of the FDA’s advisory committees. FDA review serves a critical function, but physicians should be aware that new drugs may not be as effective as old ones; that new drugs are likely to have undiscovered side effects at the time of marketing; that direct-to-consumer ads are sometimes misleading; that new devices generally have less rigorous evidence of efficacy than new drugs; and that value for money is not considered in approval.

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us

Digg

Reddit

Technorati

This article has been cited by other articles:

				G. C. Alexander and R. S. Stafford Does Comparative Effectiveness Have a Comparative Edge? JAMA, June 17, 2009; 301(23): 2488 - 2490. [Full Text] [PDF]