Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-x4r87 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T09:06:14.941Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Recent Developments in Health Law: FDA and Drug Safety: New Tufts Study Challenges Critics of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Rochelle Lee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

In the wake of several highly publicized lawsuits over drugs recalled for safety – most notably, Vioxx and Paxil – the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the pharmaceutical industry have faced increasingly intense public scrutiny over the drug testing and approval process. Critics blame the FDA's shorter pre-market approval process that has resulted from the enactment of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), which effected, among other changes, an increased number of reviewers, a higher review load for each reviewer, and the implementation of “user fees” from companies submitting drugs for review. While many have posited that the lack of safety in some FDA-approved drugs was caused by the enactment of PDUFA, the results of a recent study from the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development have indicated that there is no statistically significant correlation between the number of drugs recalled for safety and the enactment of PDUFA.

Type
JLME Column
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , Spring 2006 , pp. 131 - 134
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

See generally, In re Vioxx Products Liability Litigation 360 F.Supp.2d 1352 (Jud. Pan.Mult.Lit., 2005); In re Paxil Products Liability Litigation 296 F.Supp.2d 1374 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit., 2003).Google Scholar
US General Accounting Office (GAO), Food and Drug Administration: Effect of User Fees on Drug Approval Times, Withdrawals, and Other Agency Activities, Publication GAO-02-958 (2002), at 1–3, 18.Google Scholar
Prescription Drug User Fee Act of 1992, Pub L No. 102-571, 21 USC §379, 106 Stat 4491 (1992).Google Scholar
Woodcock, J., Drug Safety and the Drug Approval Process, testimony before the Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, United States Senate, Washington, D.C., March 3, 2005, United States Department Health & Human Services website, at <www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t050303b.html> (last visited January 5, 2006).Google Scholar
Berndt, E. R., PDUFA, Drug Approval Times, Drug Safety Withdrawal Rates, and the Drug Development Process: Empirical Findings, presentation at FDA Public Meeting: Prescription Drug User Fee Act Public Meeting, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, November 14, 2005, at <http://www.fda.gov/cber/summaries/pdufa111405eb.pdf> (last visited January 5, 2006).Google Scholar
See GAO, supra note 2, at 3.Google Scholar
PDUFA III Five-Year Plan, at <http://www.fda.gov/oc/pdufa3/2003plan/default.htm> (last visited January 5, 2006).+(last+visited+January+5,+2006).>Google Scholar
Berndt, E. R., et al., “Industry Funding of the FDA: Effects of PDUFA on Approval Times and Withdrawal Rates,” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 4 (2005): 545–554.Google Scholar
Thompson, L., “User Fees for Faster Drug Reviews: Are they Helping or Hurting the Public Health?” FDA Consumer Magazine 34, no. 5 (2000): 25–29, at 26.Google Scholar
See Berndt, , supra note 8.Google Scholar
Carpenter, D. P., “The Political Economy of FDA Drug Review: Processing, Politics, and Lessons for Policy,” Health Affairs 23 (2004): 52–63, at 55–56.Google Scholar
Fontanarosa, P. B., et al., “Postmarketing Surveillance-Lack of Vigilance, Lack of Trust,” JAMA 292 (2004): 2647–2650 at 2647.Google Scholar
Pear, R., “Drug Companies Increase Spending to Lobby Congress and Governments,” New York Times, May 31, 2003, at 33.Google Scholar
Beardsley, S., “Avoiding Another Vioxx,” Scientific American 292, no. 2 (2005): 16–17.Google Scholar
See GAO, supra note 2, at 25.Google Scholar
Carpenter, D., et al., “Data Watch: Approval Times for New Drugs: Does the Source of Funding for FDA Staff Matter?” Health Affairs (December 17, 2003): W3-618-24, at W3–623.Google Scholar
See Carpenter, , supra note 16, at WS-620.Google Scholar
See Carpenter, , supra note 16, at WS-623.Google Scholar
Kaitin, K. I., ed., “Drug Safety Withdrawals in the U.S. Not Linked to Speed of FDA Approval,” Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development Impact Report 7, no. 5 (2005).Google Scholar
See Kaitan, , supra note 19.Google Scholar
See Berndt, , supra note 5.Google Scholar
Langel, S., “Interest Groups Skeptical of FDA's Risk-Based Assessment System,” Washington Drug Letter 37, no. 40 (2005).Google Scholar
See Langel, , supra note 22.Google Scholar
See Langel, , supra note 22.Google Scholar
Report to the Nation: Improving Public Health Through Human Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Department of Health and Human Services (2003): at 39.Google Scholar
Agovino, T., “Vioxx Patient's Death Cost Family $402K,” Business Week Online, December 2, 2005, at <http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D8E8F7M85.htm> (last visited December 19, 2005). (last visited December 19, 2005).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Agovino,+T.,+“Vioxx+Patient's+Death+Cost+Family+$402K,”+Business+Week+Online,+December+2,+2005,+at++(last+visited+December+19,+2005).>Google Scholar