ad info

CNNin
 MAIN PAGE
 WORLD
 ASIANOW
 U.S.
 LOCAL
 POLITICS
 WEATHER
 BUSINESS
 SPORTS
 TECHNOLOGY
 NATURE
 ENTERTAINMENT
 BOOKS
 TRAVEL
 FOOD
 HEALTH
 AIDS
 Alternative
 Cancer
 Diet & Fitness
 Heart
 Men
 Seniors
 Women
 STYLE
 IN-DEPTH

 Headline News brief
 daily almanac
 CNN networks
 CNN programs
 on-air transcripts
 news quiz

  CNN WEB SITES:
CNN Websites
 TIME INC. SITES:
 MORE SERVICES:
 video on demand
 video archive
 audio on demand
 news email services
 free email accounts
 desktop headlines
 pointcast
 pagenet

 DISCUSSION:
 message boards
 chat
 feedback

 SITE GUIDES:
 help
 contents
 search

 FASTER ACCESS:
 europe
 japan

 WEB SERVICES:
Health

Watchdog group releases study criticizing FDA approval process

graphic December 2, 1998
Web posted at: 5:18 p.m. EDT (2118 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN)-- Some medical officers in the Food and Drug Administration believe there has been a "lowering" of FDA safety and efficacy standards for new drug approvals, according to a report released Wednesday by Public Citizen.

The watchdog group commissioned and funded the report. It claims the many substandard drugs were approved when they perhaps should not have been.

The study, "FDA Medical Officers Report Lower Standards Permit Dangerous Drug Approval," surveyed 53 out of the 172 FDA medical officers, physicians who examine the data on new drug applications and make decisions whether or not to recommend a drug for approval.

According to the findings, during the past three years the FDA medical officers identified 27 new drugs that they believe should never have received official approval.

Seventeen of the officers thought the FDA safety and efficacy standards are "lower" or "much lower" compared to the standards prior to 1995.

Other study findings include:

  • The inappropriate shifting of non-lifesaving drugs to the accelerated approval track.
  • In 1996 and 1997, 92 drugs were approved, the most ever in any two-year period.
  • A record three new prescription drugs, dexfenfluramine (Redux), mibefradil (Posicor) and bromfenac (Duract), which were approved during that two-year period were banned because of safety concerns.
  • All three banned drugs had data available before approval that raised safety concerns.
  • Nineteen medical officers cited increased pressure from the Office Director, Center Office, the pharmaceutical industry, Congress and the medical officers' own Division Directors to approve new drugs.
  • Reports from eight FDA medical officers of 14 recent incidences of instruction not to present any conflicting information that might hinder the likelihood of an approval.
  • Inappropriate phone calls regarding the drug they were reviewing by sponsors of the drug.
  • The use of creative labeling to "lower the problems."
  • Six percent of those surveyed were satisfied with the FDA approval process and thought that standards had been raised.

A statement released by Dr. Janet Woodcock, FDA Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, stated the agency continues to maintain "the highest standards in the world for approving drugs."

Woodcock said "unless a new drug's demonstrated benefit outweighs its risk for an intended population, the drug is not approved."

Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen, suggested the study findings "raise a red flag" and illustrate the FDA is on a "perilous course" if it continues to ignore the advice of its own medical officers and information which raises concerns about the safety and effectiveness of new drugs.

He said the FDA will only ban a drug "after enough people are injured or killed."

Related stories:
Latest Headlines

Today on CNN

>
Related sites:

Note: Pages will open in a new browser window

External sites are not
endorsed by CNN Interactive.

SEARCH CNN.com
Enter keyword(s)   go    help

  
 

Back to the top
© 2000 Cable News Network. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines.