Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31304643›Full record

ArticleThe Milbank quarterly2019

Association Between Food and Drug Administration Advisory Committee Recommendations and Agency Actions, 2008-2015.

Audrey D Zhang, Jason L Schwartz, Joseph S Ross

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Milbank quarterly, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Aducanumab and the FDA - where are we now?Nature reviews. Neurology · 2021
    Review
  13. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Audrey D ZhangNew York University School of Medicine.
Jason L SchwartzYale School of Medicine.
Joseph S RossYale School of Medicine.

Funding

Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (U Component)UL1TR001863 · NCATS · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI John H. Krystal, LUCILA OHNO-MACHADO · 2016 to 2026
$102.9M
Yale-Mayo FDA Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and InnovationU01FD005938 · FDA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI Joseph Solomon Ross · 2016 to 2026
$25.4M
Understanding hospital value: provider, hospital and community effectsR01HS022882 · AHRQ · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE · PI HORWITZ, LEORA · 2014 to 2023
$2.9M
Medical reversals: De-implementing ineffective and unsafe treatmentsR01HS025164 · AHRQ · UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA · PI KARACA-MANDIC, PINAR · 2017 to 2020
$1.4M
Optimizing Medical Device Post-Market Surveillance for Public ValueU01FD004585 · FDA · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI KRUMHOLZ, HARLAN MARC · 2012 to 2016
$592k
Medicine by Committee: Expert Advice and Health Care in Modern AmericaG13LM012460 · NLM · YALE UNIVERSITY · PI SCHWARTZ, JASON LEE · 2018 to 2019
$93k
AHRQ HHS R01 HS022882AHRQ HHS R01 HS025164FDA HHS U01 FD004585FDA HHS U01 FD005938NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR001863NLM NIH HHS G13 LM012460
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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. CONTEXT: The 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.

Indexed as

Advisory CommitteesConsensusUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationConsumer Product SafetyDatabases, FactualDevice ApprovalDrug ApprovalUnited Statesadvisory committeesconsumer product safetydevice approvaldrug approvalUS Food and Drug Administration

Identifiers

PMID31304643
PMCPMC6739629

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.