Skip to content
  • About
  • Contact
  • Contribute
  • Book
  • Careers
  • Podcast
  • Recommended
  • Speaking
  • All
  • Physician
  • Practice
  • Policy
  • Finance
  • Conditions
  • .edu
  • Patient
  • Meds
  • Tech
  • Social
  • Video
    • All
    • Physician
    • Practice
    • Policy
    • Finance
    • Conditions
    • .edu
    • Patient
    • Meds
    • Tech
    • Social
    • Video
    • About
    • Contact
    • Contribute
    • Book
    • Careers
    • Podcast
    • Recommended
    • Speaking

The FDA’s epic regulatory failure

Brian Klepper, PhD
Meds
November 9, 2015
Share
Tweet
Share

A new study in JAMA Internal Medicine finds that two-thirds of cancer drugs considered by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) over the past five years were approved without evidence that they improve health outcomes or length of life. (This study closely corroborates and acknowledges the findings published last year by John Fauber of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Elbert Chu of MedPage Today.)

Follow-up studies showed that 86 percent of the drugs approved with surrogate endpoints (or measures) and more than half (57 percent) of the cancer drugs approved by the FDA “have unknown effects on overall survival or fail to show gains in survival.” In other words, the authors write, “most cancer drug approvals have not been shown to, or do not, improve clinically relevant end points.”

The use of surrogate endpoints in the approval process is at the heart of this issue. Drug companies argue that these alternative measures permit smaller, cheaper and faster clinical trials, allowing desperately needed drugs to get to market faster. Demonstrating efficacy with “harder” measures like overall survival — whether someone actually lives longer as a result of the drug — is a higher bar that requires more time and resources.

Many drug company representatives argue that the shortcut is not only acceptable but desirable. A 2011 Genentech white paper on oncology endpoints opens with this headline:

… such surrogate endpoints as objective response rate and progression-free survival have been employed because they can be reached faster and may offer important benefits in evaluating therapies.

“May offer important benefits” is the operative phrase here. The problem arises when positive surrogate measure performance is not reflected in better health outcomes or longer life. A common example is progression-free survival (PFS), a widely used surrogate measure of how long the tumor remains dormant before beginning to grow again. While many studies of drug performance use PFS to measure impact, there typically is only spotty correlation between longer PFS and health or survival improvements. Surrogate measures can also mask complications that detract from improved results. So, as the FDA data show, positive performance on a surrogate measure may have no bearing on whether the drug works meaningfully for patients, and using surrogate measures may, in fact, be detrimental to patient care.

Of course, once FDA approval has been achieved, drug companies benefit. There is no discount associated with the compromise of using surrogate measures. The Journal Sentinel/MedPage Today investigation found that drugs approved by the FDA during the study period averaged about $10,000 per month. Four were priced at $20,000 per month, and one was $40,000 per month.

This revelation — that most FDA cancer drug approvals lack evidence and don’t work — begs whether the FDA is so deeply influenced by pharma that it has abrogated its mission of ensuring safe, effective drugs for the American people. Some part of the move away from rigor and toward haste can probably also be assigned to trying to accommodate patient advocacy groups, who campaign for rapid new drug development.

Most importantly, the Kim-Prasad article raises hugely important questions of safety, credibility, and trust for health care regulators. Even with follow-up, almost 9 of 10 drugs using surrogate endpoints approved by the FDA don’t or haven’t been shown to improve clinical results. FDA approval wrongly conveys that products work when they don’t, greenlighting them for use (to little or no positive effect) by American cancer patients, paid for at exorbitant rates by governmental, corporate and individual purchasers.

This is an epic regulatory failure. An inability to address this would be open acknowledgment that, at least with respect to cancer drugs, the FDA has been fully captured by the interests it is intended to regulate.

Brian Klepper is a health care analyst and principal, Health Value Direct.  This article originally appeared in the Health Care Blog.

Prev

Why male physicians should care about maternity leave

November 9, 2015 Kevin 13
…
Next

Doctors should use social media to become filters for our patients

November 9, 2015 Kevin 4
…

Tagged as: Medications, Oncology/Hematology

Post navigation

< Previous Post
Why male physicians should care about maternity leave
Next Post >
Doctors should use social media to become filters for our patients

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

More by Brian Klepper, PhD

  • a desk with keyboard and ipad with the kevinmd logo

    Why reform needs to start at cancer care

    Brian Klepper, PhD
  • a desk with keyboard and ipad with the kevinmd logo

    Will fee for service ever go away?

    Brian Klepper, PhD
  • a desk with keyboard and ipad with the kevinmd logo

    Stop pursuing self-pay patients as a windfall opportunity

    Brian Klepper, PhD

Related Posts

  • The FDA was wrong about Aduhelm

    M. Bennet Broner, PhD
  • How self-awareness helps with patient interaction

    Ton La, Jr., MD, JD
  • What the FDA forgets in the battle against e-cigarettes

    Charlene Gaw
  • Dementia patients want effective drugs. How will the FDA respond?

    Ron Louie, MD
  • Here’s why direct-to-consumer drug ads need FDA oversight

    Zachariah Tman
  • Why Medicare cannot stay solvent: a case study

    Steven Reznick, MD

More in Meds

  • A world without antidepressants: What could possibly go wrong?

    Tomi Mitchell, MD
  • The truth about GLP-1 medications for weight loss: What every patient should know

    Nisha Kuruvadi, DO
  • The hidden bias in how we treat chronic pain

    Richard A. Lawhern, PhD
  • Biologics are not small molecules: the case for pre-allergy testing in an era of immune-based therapies

    Robert Trent
  • The anesthesia spectrum: Guiding patients through comfort options in oral surgery

    Dexter Mattox, MD, DMD
  • Functional precision oncology: a game changer in cancer therapy

    Chris Apfel, MD, PhD, MBA
  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • The broken health care system doesn’t have to break you

      Jessie Mahoney, MD | Physician
    • How dismantling DEI endangers the future of medical care

      Shashank Madhu and Christian Tallo | Education
    • How scales of justice saved a doctor-patient relationship

      Neil Baum, MD | Physician
    • “Think twice, heal once”: Why medical decision-making needs a second opinion from your slower brain (and AI)

      Harvey Castro, MD, MBA | Tech
    • The hidden cost of delaying back surgery

      Gbolahan Okubadejo, MD | Conditions
    • She wouldn’t move in the womb—then came the rare diagnosis that changed everything

      Amber Robertson | Conditions
  • Past 6 Months

    • What’s driving medical students away from primary care?

      ​​Vineeth Amba, MPH, Archita Goyal, and Wayne Altman, MD | Education
    • Internal Medicine 2025: inspiration at the annual meeting

      American College of Physicians | Physician
    • Residency as rehearsal: the new pediatric hospitalist fellowship requirement scam

      Anonymous | Physician
    • A faster path to becoming a doctor is possible—here’s how

      Ankit Jain | Education
    • The hidden bias in how we treat chronic pain

      Richard A. Lawhern, PhD | Meds
    • Are quotas a solution to physician shortages?

      Jacob Murphy | Education
  • Recent Posts

    • She wouldn’t move in the womb—then came the rare diagnosis that changed everything

      Amber Robertson | Conditions
    • Rethinking medical education for a technology-driven era in health care [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • From basketball to bedside: Finding connection through March Madness

      Caitlin J. McCarthy, MD | Physician
    • In medicine and law, professions that society relies upon for accuracy

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Tech
    • Diabetes and Alzheimer’s: What your blood sugar might be doing to your brain

      Marc Arginteanu, MD | Conditions
    • How motherhood reshaped my identity as a scientist and teacher

      Kathleen Muldoon, PhD | Conditions

Subscribe to KevinMD and never miss a story!

Get free updates delivered free to your inbox.


Find jobs at
Careers by KevinMD.com

Search thousands of physician, PA, NP, and CRNA jobs now.

Learn more

Leave a Comment

Founded in 2004 by Kevin Pho, MD, KevinMD.com is the web’s leading platform where physicians, advanced practitioners, nurses, medical students, and patients share their insight and tell their stories.

Social

  • Like on Facebook
  • Follow on Twitter
  • Connect on Linkedin
  • Subscribe on Youtube
  • Instagram

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Most Popular

  • Past Week

    • The broken health care system doesn’t have to break you

      Jessie Mahoney, MD | Physician
    • How dismantling DEI endangers the future of medical care

      Shashank Madhu and Christian Tallo | Education
    • How scales of justice saved a doctor-patient relationship

      Neil Baum, MD | Physician
    • “Think twice, heal once”: Why medical decision-making needs a second opinion from your slower brain (and AI)

      Harvey Castro, MD, MBA | Tech
    • The hidden cost of delaying back surgery

      Gbolahan Okubadejo, MD | Conditions
    • She wouldn’t move in the womb—then came the rare diagnosis that changed everything

      Amber Robertson | Conditions
  • Past 6 Months

    • What’s driving medical students away from primary care?

      ​​Vineeth Amba, MPH, Archita Goyal, and Wayne Altman, MD | Education
    • Internal Medicine 2025: inspiration at the annual meeting

      American College of Physicians | Physician
    • Residency as rehearsal: the new pediatric hospitalist fellowship requirement scam

      Anonymous | Physician
    • A faster path to becoming a doctor is possible—here’s how

      Ankit Jain | Education
    • The hidden bias in how we treat chronic pain

      Richard A. Lawhern, PhD | Meds
    • Are quotas a solution to physician shortages?

      Jacob Murphy | Education
  • Recent Posts

    • She wouldn’t move in the womb—then came the rare diagnosis that changed everything

      Amber Robertson | Conditions
    • Rethinking medical education for a technology-driven era in health care [PODCAST]

      The Podcast by KevinMD | Podcast
    • From basketball to bedside: Finding connection through March Madness

      Caitlin J. McCarthy, MD | Physician
    • In medicine and law, professions that society relies upon for accuracy

      Muhamad Aly Rifai, MD | Tech
    • Diabetes and Alzheimer’s: What your blood sugar might be doing to your brain

      Marc Arginteanu, MD | Conditions
    • How motherhood reshaped my identity as a scientist and teacher

      Kathleen Muldoon, PhD | Conditions

MedPage Today Professional

An Everyday Health Property Medpage Today
  • Terms of Use | Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • DMCA Policy
All Content © KevinMD, LLC
Site by Outthink Group

Leave a Comment

Comments are moderated before they are published. Please read the comment policy.

Loading Comments...