Dataset Information

Trends in Bone Morphogenetic Protein Usage since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Advisory in 2008: What Happens to Physician Practices When the Food and Drug Administration Issues an Advisory?

ABSTRACT: Study Design Retrospective cross-sectional study of spinal procedures from 2002 to 2010 using the Nationwide Inpatient Sample database. Objective To determine the patterns of bone morphogenetic protein (BMP) usage in fusion surgery before and after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2008 advisory for the anterior cervical spine to understand how advisories affect U.S. physician practices. Methods Procedures were identified through International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision procedure codes and were plotted over time based on fusion procedure type, site, and area of fusion. U.S. national trends were approximated by polynomial regression analysis. Results The majority of the data trends of BMP usage reflect a second-order polynomial model. BMP usage in anterior cervical spine fusion procedures plateaued during the fourth quarter of 2007. The most apparent change in trend was noted in BMP usage pre- and postadvisory in the analysis of anterior cervical spine fusions. BMP percentage of use decreased in this area by 5% from the time of the FDA advisory to the fourth quarter of 2010. Conclusions The decrease in BMP usage in anterior cervical spinal fusion procedures coincided with the timing of the FDA advisory. The fact that BMP continued to be used in cervical spine fusion procedures, even at lower rates, despite the advisory, may reflect the availability of new clinical information that could lessen complications (i.e., lower BMP dose, perioperative steroids, BMP containment). Furthermore, factors like the natural ceiling effect of use or demand for new technology, complications, prohibitive institutional costs, access to information, and insurance compensation may have all contributed to the BMP usage trends observed.

SUBMITTER: Mckie J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4078162 | biostudies-other | 2014 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Shared Molecules

Only show the datasets with similarity scores above: 0.5

Threshold

0.5

Similar Datasets

Project description:Policy Points Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee recommendations and the agency's final actions exhibit high rates of agreement, with cases of disagreement tending to reflect the proposed action type and degree of advisory committee consensus. In the case of disagreements, the FDA tended to be less likely than its advisory committees to approve new products, approve new supplemental indications, or enact new safety changes. These findings raise important issues regarding the factors that differentially shape decision making by advisory committees and the FDA as an agency, including institutional or reputational concerns.ContextThe Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convenes advisory committees to provide external scientific counsel on potential agency actions and to inform regulatory decision making. The degree to which advisory committees and their respective agency divisions disagree on recommendations has not been well characterized across product and action types.MethodsWe examined public documents from FDA advisory committee meetings and medical product databases for all FDA advisory committee meetings from 2008 through 2015. We classified the 376 voting meetings in that period by medical product, regulatory, and advisory committee meeting characteristics. We used multivariable logistic regression to determine the associations between these characteristics and discordance between the advisory committee's recommendations and the FDA's final actions.FindingsTwenty-two percent of the FDA's final actions were discordant with the advisory committee's recommendations. Of these, 75% resulted in the FDA making more restrictive decisions after favorable committee recommendations, and 25% resulted in the agency making less restrictive decisions after unfavorable committee recommendations. Discordance was associated with lower degrees of advisory committee consensus and was more likely for agency actions focused on medical product safety than for novel approvals or supplemental indications. Statements by public speakers, advisory committee conflicts of interest, and media coverage were not associated with discordance between the committee and the agency.ConclusionsThe FDA disagrees with the recommendation of its advisory committees a minority of the time, and in these cases it tends to be less likely to approve new products or supplemental indications and take safety actions. Deviations from recommendations thus offer an opportunity to understand the factors influencing decisions made by both the agency and its expert advisory groups.

Project description:ImportanceThe US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) often relies on independent advisory committees when making decisions about the approval of prescription drugs or their withdrawal from the market. These committees provide the FDA with valuable insight and an opportunity to build public trust through transparent deliberation, but recent controversies have raised questions about the optimal use of FDA advisory committees.ObjectiveTo assess the frequency, purposes, and voting outcomes of human drug advisory committees convened from 2010 to 2021 and the FDA's corresponding actions.Design, setting, and participantsThis qualitative study used a manual review of meeting summaries prepared by FDA staff for the 18 human drug advisory committees active at any time from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2021, as well as FDA announcements and press releases, drug labels and approval data, industry publications, and company press releases.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes of votes on regulatory questions were recorded using meeting minutes. Alignment of FDA action with advisory votes for new drugs and indications was judged as of 1 year after the vote was held and as of November 30, 2022.ResultsThe FDA held 409 human drug advisory committee meetings from 2010 to 2021. Committees were convened less frequently over time, from a high of 50 in 2012 to a low of 18 in 2020 and 2021. Much of this decrease occurred at committee meetings involving votes on initial approvals, which declined from a high of 26 in 2012 to a low of 8 in 2021. Overall, FDA regulatory actions aligned with 262 of 298 advisory committee votes on initial approvals, supplemental approvals, withdrawals of approval, and safety actions (88%). Approval followed 142 of 147 positive votes for initial approvals (97%) and 33 of 36 positive votes for supplemental indications (92%), while nonapproval followed 40 of 60 negative votes on initial approvals (67%) and 18 of 21 negative votes on supplemental indications (86%).Conclusions and relevanceIn this qualitative study, there was consistent alignment between advisory votes and FDA action across years and subject areas, but the number of meetings decreased over time. Discordance between FDA actions and advisory committee votes was most frequently an approval after a negative vote. This study demonstrated that these committees have played a key role in the FDA's decision-making process but that the FDA sought independent expert advice less frequently over time even as it continued to follow it. The role of advisory committees in the current regulatory landscape should be more clearly and publicly defined.

Project description:Introduction: Tobacco control policies have helped to reduce the health, social, and economic burden of commercial tobacco use worldwide. Little is known about the long-term impact of regulatory policies and functioning bodies that make recommendations to inform policies. The Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC) of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was formed in 2009 to evaluate the safety, health, and dependence of tobacco products and provide related advice and recommendations to the FDA and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This article describes the first 10 years of the TPSAC activities and reflects on the impact of their service on regulatory actions.Methods: We reviewed public documents from the 2010-2019 TPSAC meetings to examine the purposes, TPSAC decisions, public health participation in meetings, and concordance of the TPSAC recommendations with regulatory actions. Meeting agendas, transcripts, public testimony, and presentations were reviewed to obtain this information.Results: Since 2010, the TPSAC held 25 public meetings with 178 speakers who provided oral public testimony. Sixty-four percent of meetings were held from 2010 to 2012, when three congressionally mandated reports were due on the topics of menthol cigarettes, harmful and potentially harmful constituents in tobacco products, and dissolvable tobacco products. Forty-four percent of meetings focused on menthol cigarettes, 32% on modified risk tobacco products, 16% on harmful and potentially harmful constituents, 12% on dissolvable tobacco, and 4% on tobacco addiction/dependence. FDA regulatory actions were largely nonconcordant with voting decisions by TPSAC.Conclusions: The TPSAC has evaluated an enormous amount of science during the first 10 years, but their influence on regulatory policies has been limited. The TPSAC roles and functioning should be reevaluated to determine how TPSAC can better fulfill its mandate to inform the FDA's regulatory decision making, which could ultimately reduce the burden of tobacco use in the United States.

Project description:The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved enzalutamide for the treatment of patients with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). At the prespecified interim analysis, a statistically significant improvement in overall survival was demonstrated for patients in the enzalutamide arm compared with patients in the placebo arm. The overall benefit-risk profile supports the expanded indication for enzalutamide. On September 10, 2014, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved enzalutamide for the treatment of patients with chemotherapy-naïve metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Enzalutamide was initially approved in 2012 for use in patients with mCRPC who had previously received docetaxel. The current approval was based on the results of a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial conducted in 1,717 asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic patients with chemotherapy-naïve mCRPC. Patients were assigned to receive either enzalutamide 160 mg or placebo orally once daily. The coprimary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and radiographic progression-free survival (rPFS), which was assessed by independent central radiology review. At the prespecified interim analysis, a statistically significant improvement in OS was demonstrated for patients in the enzalutamide arm compared with patients in the placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.71; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.60-0.84). The median OS was 32.4 and 30.2 months in the enzalutamide and placebo arms, respectively. A statistically significant prolongation of rPFS was observed in patients in the enzalutamide arm (HR, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.14-0.21). In addition, the time to initiation of cytotoxic chemotherapy was prolonged in the enzalutamide arm (HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.30-0.40), with median times of 28.0 and 10.8 months in the enzalutamide and placebo arms, respectively. The safety profile was similar to that previously reported for enzalutamide. Adverse reactions of interest included seizure, hypertension, and falls. Enzalutamide should be discontinued if a seizure occurs during treatment. The overall benefit-risk profile supports the expanded indication for enzalutamide.