Although most therapies were supported by at least one randomized, double-blind trial—the gold standard for clinical research—there was wide variation in the duration, size and completion rates. Comparative-effectiveness data was available for less than half of the indications.
The purpose of the study, according to its authors, was not to suggest that the FDA is not rigorous in its approach to drug reviews. The regulatory flexibility allows for a customized approach, and the agency can rapidly approve potentially effective therapies for life-threatening diseases and those for which there is no existing, effective treatment, such as orphan diseases, said Dr. Joseph Ross, assistant professor of general internal medicine at Yale University School of Medicine and one of the study authors.
The variability can be problematic, however, because patients and physicians feel the research is the same across all drugs approved, Ross said.
The FDA, in a statement responding to the findings, explained that drugs may be tested in clinical trials that enroll hundreds of participants, while others, particularly those seeking to treat rare diseases, may be tested in trials that enroll only a handful of participants. “In all cases, however, the statutory standards of safety and efficacy must be met in order for the drugs to be marketed in the United States,” the agency said.
Whether or not the process has become too lenient has become a topic of debate among advocates.
The Progressive Policy Institute, a center-left think tank, acknowledged in a policy brief (PDF) that the FDA must strike a difficult balance. “If it is too lenient, (the FDA) will allow the sale of drugs and medical technology that could harm vulnerable Americans. Too tight, and the U.S. is being deprived of key innovations that could cut costs, increase health, and create jobs.”
Some argue, however, that physicians don't have time to sift through statistical data on every new drug approved, and when they do, there is little information to choose from as they make decisions about the safety of new therapies.
“With new drugs, there is often an exaggeration of the benefits and underreporting of the risks,” said Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women & Families, who has testified at several hearings on drug safety. “There's so much emphasis on drugs being the latest, the most innovative and novel—but unfortunately this usually means it's just new, not necessarily better,” she said.
Zuckerman conceded that it's a given that the FDA should have the flexibility to provide access to new treatments when there are no available options. “But the FDA shouldn't be rushing studies for diseases that have good alternatives. It's better to have an old treatment that is proven to be safe and effective than a new treatment that we don't know is safe and may not improve health.”
“I think we can all agree that if you have a disease for which there are no available treatment options, that is the time to be flexible, although you'd still want the best possible research,” she said.
Ross, the Yale researcher who worked on the study, encourages physicians to be more nuanced with how new treatments are presented to patients. When prescribing newly approved drugs that have limited trial data, he said physicians should be clearer with patients about what the research shows. The physician should say, “There are not a lot of options, this drug was just approved, but we don't know if it extends your life,” rather than giving the patient the impression the drug does things for which it has not been tested.
Follow Sabriya Rice on Twitter: @MHSRice
