Conflict-of-interest restrictions needed to ensure strong FDA review, analysis suggests

June 6, 2013

A 2012 law that loosened conflict-of-interest restrictions for FDA advisory panels could weaken the agency's review system and could allow more drugs with safety problems to gain market approval, says a new analysis published June 7 in Science by researchers at the George Washington University School of Public Health and Health Services (SPHHS).

The 2012 removed measures put in place by an earlier law passed in 2007, according to the report by Susan F. Wood, PhD, an associate professor of at SPHHS and Jillian K. Mador, a at the GW School of Medicine & Health Sciences (SMHS). The 2007 FDA Amendments Act put caps on the number of experts with who could serve on FDA advisory panels in order to ensure an impartial review of new drugs, the authors said.

They say there is good reason to worry about the revisions in the law that now allow FDA panels to have more members who report a conflict—such as consulting fees from companies. The removal of the requirement for "caps" on advisory committee members with financial conflicts was seen as a top priority of the pharmaceutical industry during the 2012 passage of the FDA Safety and Innovation Act.

"Panels top-heavy with experts who have financial ties to industry might be more likely to dismiss or ignore scientific evidence of risks or other problems," said Wood, who is a former FDA official and the lead author on the paper. "This analysis also suggests that loosening the restrictions could lead to an appearance of conflict—and to potentially biased recommendations for approval or disapproval of a FDA regulated product."

The authors point to historical examples of cases in which loaded panels voted for drugs that were later found to have serious safety problems.

The 2012 law was passed after the drug industry complained that the conflict of interest restrictions slowed down the FDA approval process and made it hard to fill panel positions with qualified experts. But Wood and Mador looked at the evidence and concluded that there are plenty of scientists with expertise to fill these positions—without the ties to the industry.

The analysis goes on to say that the restrictions did not affect FDA's productivity in the past and there is little reason to think that reinstituting the caps would slow down the process of bringing safe new drugs to market today. The analysis also demonstrates that the caps have never been reached, so FDA had apparently been successful in identifying experts without financial conflicts.

The analysis concludes that the evidence does not support the decision to remove the caps on conflict of interest and points out that Congress will soon begin discussing reauthorization of the 2012 law which is revised every five years. The authors urge the scientific and medical community to weigh in early on those discussions in order to point out concerns—and to ensure that the Advisory Committee and review process remains strong and effective.

Wood and Mador's new analysis, "Uncapping Conflict of Interest," appears in the June 7 issue of Science.

Explore further: US experts review heart attack risk of diabetes drug

More information: "Uncapping Conflict of Interest?," by S.F. Wood et al. Science, 2013.

Related Stories

US experts review heart attack risk of diabetes drug

June 5, 2013
GlaxoSmithKline's controversial diabetes drug Avandia, restricted in the US and banned in Europe over concerns it raises heart attack risk, is getting a second look this week by US medical experts.

FDA weighs lifting safety restrictions on Avandia (Update 2)

June 3, 2013
A former blockbuster diabetes pill that was subjected to major safety restrictions in 2010 may be less risky than once thought, according to the latest analysis of the much-debated GlaxoSmithKline drug Avandia.

Judge lets challenge to FDA tobacco panel proceed

August 1, 2012
(AP) — A challenge by two of the largest U.S. cigarette makers alleging conflicts of interest in the Food and Drug Administration advisory panel's review of tobacco products can move forward, a federal judge has ruled.

FDA reviewing heart risks of Glaxo diabetes pill

April 12, 2013
(AP)—The Food and Drug Administration will hold a meeting in June to reassess the safety of GlaxoSmithKline's former blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia.

Tobacco companies are not public health stakeholders

May 28, 2013
When assessing information presented by the tobacco industry, the US regulator, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and regulatory bodies in other countries, should be aware that they are dealing with companies with a ...

FDA warns consumers of dangers of the stimulant DMAA

April 15, 2013
(HealthDay)—The U.S. Food and Drug Administration is attempting to halt distribution of dietary supplements that contain the stimulant dimethylamylamine (DMAA), following reports of illness and death associated with these ...

Recommended for you

Study suggests ending opioid epidemic will take years

July 20, 2017
The question of how to stem the nation's opioid epidemic now has a major detailed response. A new study chaired by University of Virginia School of Law Professor Richard Bonnie provides extensive recommendations for curbing ...

Team-based model reduces prescription opioid use among patients with chronic pain by 40 percent

July 17, 2017
A new, team-based, primary care model is decreasing prescription opioid use among patients with chronic pain by 40 percent, according to a new study out of Boston Medical Center's Grayken Center for Addiction Medicine, which ...

Private clinics' peddling of unproven stem cell treatments is unsafe and unethical

July 7, 2017
Stem cell science is an area of medical research that continues to offer great promise. But as this week's paper in Science Translational Medicine highlights, a growing number of clinics around the globe, including in Australia, ...

Popular heartburn drugs linked to higher death risk

July 4, 2017
Popular heartburn drugs called proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have been linked to a variety of health problems, including serious kidney damage, bone fractures and dementia. Now, a new study from Washington University School ...

Most reproductive-age women using opioids also use another substance

June 30, 2017
The majority of reproductive-age and pregnant women who use opioids for non-medical purposes also use at least one other substance, ranging from nicotine or alcohol to cocaine, according to a University of Pittsburgh Graduate ...

At-risk chronic pain patients taper opioids successfully with psychological tools

June 28, 2017
Psychological support and new coping skills are helping patients at high risk of developing chronic pain and long-term, high-dose opioid use taper their opioids and rebuild their lives with activities that are meaningful ...

4 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

VendicarE
1 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2013
Nothing but American filth and Corporate Corruption.

"The 2012 law was passed after the drug industry complained that the conflict of interest restrictions slowed down the FDA approval process and made it hard to fill panel positions with qualified experts."
UrpGag
not rated yet Jun 06, 2013
Paxil is the proximate cause of death of my eleven year old daughter in 1998 as evidenced by trial record. Furthermore, Paxil and tagamet are directly involved in my fugue while driving and getting into a fatal accident. the pharmaceutical giants are strongly motivated to hide dose related side effect profile information from our doctors by direct greed. we must keep these self serving corporations and their agents out of our regulatory bodies or more human beings must die. period. keep the corporations out of the federal regulatory agencies or we are in for far worse trouble than slow releases of medication.
aironeous
not rated yet Jun 07, 2013
This is corruption. If the capitalism abusing corrupt filth of big pharma and FDA had their way they would reclassify water as a drug because it cures dehydration so they can charge $50 a bottle. This is the filth of the earth betraying all of mankind next only to the filth that abuses capitalism on wall street and never goes to jail.
alfie_null
not rated yet Jun 09, 2013
Seems like medicine (pharmacology in particular) is one of those areas where companies are poorly motivated to provide the best value to their customers.

While I note that bringing a new drug to market is hideously expensive I also understand that pharma companies go on to spend vast amounts more, marketing their medications. To end users who can't even purchase the products, only pester their physicians for prescriptions. And in maintaining an army of representatives to pimp their products to physicians across the country. And, no doubt, to encourage legislators to be friendly to pharma.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.