ArticleThe Milbank quarterly2019
Association Between Food and Drug Administration Advisory Committee Recommendations and Agency Actions, 2008-2015.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: systematic review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Pooled it
- Conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: associations with recommendations.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Prevalence of ties to industry-funded organizations among patient and consumer representatives on FDA advisory committees.Health affairs scholar · 2026Article
- Factors influencing FDA drug approval decisions beyond clinical trial evidence: a scoping review.Health affairs scholar · 2026Review
- Concordance Between Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency Review and Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare Decision Among New Drug Applications in Japan.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2025Article
- The role of FDA advisory committees.Nature medicine · 2024Article
- Temporary FDA Advisory Committee Members, Recommendations, and Agency Actions, 2017-2021.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Association of Advisory Committee Votes With US Food and Drug Administration Decision-Making on Prescription Drugs, 2010-2021.JAMA health forum · 2023Article
- A Retrospective Review of Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research Advisory Committee Meetings in the Context of the FDA's Benefit-Risk Framework.The AAPS journal · 2023Review
- Medical device risk (re)classification: lessons from the FDA's 515 Program Initiative.BMJ surgery, interventions, & health technologies · 2023Review
- Can we learn lessons from the FDA's approval of aducanumab?Nature reviews. Neurology · 2021Review
- Aducanumab and the FDA - where are we now?Nature reviews. Neurology · 2021Review
- Characteristics and conflicts of interest at Food and Drug Administration Gastrointestinal Drug Advisory Committee meetings.PloS one · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.