FDA Approves Drugs Faster Than Ever But Relies On Weaker Evidence, Researchers Find
The Food and Drug Administration has gotten faster at approving new prescription drugs over the past four decades, but the evidence it relies on in making those decisions is getting weaker, according to new research published Tuesday.
As a result, there are more cures and treatments on the market but less proof that they are safe and effective.
"There has been a gradual erosion of the evidence that's required for FDA approval," says lead study author Jonathan Darrow, a lawyer with Harvard Medical School's Program on Regulation, Therapeutics and Law. As a result, patients and physicians "should not expect that new drugs will be dramatically better than older ones."
Almost half of recent new drug approvals were based on only one pivotal clinical trial instead of the two or more that used to be the norm, according to the study published Tuesday in JAMA, the journal of the American Medical Association. And the reliance on surrogate measures — stand-ins for presumed patient benefits — has increased. In the case of cancer drugs, a surrogate measure could be shrinkage of tumors instead of improvements in survival after treatment.
Darrow and his colleagues analyzed FDA drug approvals, changes in laws and regulations and the rise in industry funding of the agency's reviews from 1983 through 2018.
The researchers found that the average number of new drug approvals per year increased from 34 in the 1990s to 41 in the 2010s, after a dip to 25 a year in the 2000s.
New drugs are getting through the FDA process faster. In 2018, the median review time for standard drug applications was 10.1 months compared with 2.8 years for standard and priority applications for the period from 1986 and 1992.
Faster approval was the goal of many legislative and regulatory changes starting in the 1980s. For instance, in 1983, Congress passed the Orphan Drug Act to encourage drugmakers toward developing rare disease treatments that otherwise might not be profitable. The FDA allowed approval for these drugs based on smaller trials with more flexible evidence standards, and it offered more time on the market for the medicines without generic competition.
Drugmakers also began paying the FDA fees to fund the review process after AIDS activists protested the agency's sluggishness in the 1980s.
The FDA collected $29 million in fees in 1993, the year after Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act for the first time. The fees rose to $908 million in 2018. That year, industry fees amounted to about 80% of the money spent on FDA employee salaries for drug reviews, according to the study.
"There is some concern about the incentives that this is created within the FDA," Darrow says. "And whether it has created a culture in the FDA where the primary client is no longer viewed as the patient, but as the industry."
Former FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Dr. Joshua Sharfstein says the FDA has succeeded in approving more drugs, but he also says that more changes are needed to make sure the medicines are worthwhile for patients.
"Some of them are really great, and some of them [are] not so great," says Sharfstein, now a professor at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. "And a lot of them are very expensive."
In an accompanying editorial in JAMA, Sharfstein offers several suggestions for change, including a reevaluation of the FDA's expedited approval programs to see which ones are working and which ones are mainly driving up health care costs.
"We've kind of reached a point where it makes sense to pause and see whether we can do things better," Sharfstein says. "And I think we can." Copyright 2020 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.
ARI SHAPIRO, HOST:
The Food and Drug Administration is approving drugs more quickly than ever. Some researchers say this faster action comes with a tradeoff - less reliable evidence. NPR health correspondent Sydney Lupkin reports.
SYDNEY LUPKIN, BYLINE: The FDA is approving more new drugs than ever, and it's doing this faster than in previous decades. This is according to a new study published in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association. About 30 years ago, it took almost three years for the FDA to approve a new drug. And by 2018, it had dropped to a little over 10 months. But there may be a downside. Here's lead study author Jonathan Darrow of Harvard Medical School.
JONATHAN DARROW: There has been a gradual erosion of the evidence that's required for FDA approval.
LUPKIN: The agency has added programs to allow it to approve drugs based on fewer clinical trials. The FDA also relied on more things like lab tests and scans. For cancer, that might mean testing whether a drug shrinks tumors instead of whether it improves survival after treatment. Darrow says that may mean new, expensive drugs aren't necessarily better than the drugs already on the market.
DARROW: Patients who are seeking treatment from their physicians should recognize that there's greater uncertainty with the new drugs. And they may want to ask whether an older drug is available that might do just as well in this particular case.
LUPKIN: Dr. Joshua Sharfstein was FDA principal deputy commissioner during the Obama administration. He says there's a sense in Congress that to get more cures on the market, you need to offer drugmakers incentives.
JOSHUA SHARFSTEIN: In some cases, that may actually help, you know, great products make it through. In other cases, it may be lowering the standards for evidence in a way and making it actually less likely that doctors and patients will know whether products work.
LUPKIN: Sharfstein wrote an accompanying editorial in JAMA about the study.
SHARFSTEIN: We've kind of reached a point where it makes sense to pause and see whether we can do things better. And I think we can.
LUPKIN: He offered several suggestions for change. For example, Congress needs to reevaluate FDA expedited approval programs to see what's working and what's driving up health care costs.
Sydney Lupkin, NPR News.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.