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.
| Original language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 142-149 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | Journal of the American Board of Family Practice |
| Volume | 17 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| State | Published - Mar 2004 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
Cite this
Gaps, tensions, and conflicts in the FDA approval process : Implications for clinical practice. / Deyo, Richard (Rick).
In: Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, Vol. 17, No. 2, 03.2004, p. 142-149.Research output: Contribution to journal › Article
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Gaps, tensions, and conflicts in the FDA approval process
T2 - Implications for clinical practice
AU - Deyo, Richard (Rick)
PY - 2004/3
Y1 - 2004/3
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=3242880319&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=3242880319&partnerID=8YFLogxK
M3 - Article
VL - 17
SP - 142
EP - 149
JO - Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
JF - Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine
SN - 1557-2625
IS - 2
ER -