Dataset Information

Perceptions of the Food and Drug Administration as a Tobacco Regulator.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:The U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now has regulatory authority over all tobacco products. Little is known about public awareness and perceptions of FDA in their new role as a tobacco regulator. This research utilizes focus groups to examine perceptions of FDA as a tobacco regulator so that FDA can better communicate with the public about this role. METHODS:We conducted 6 focus groups in 2014 among a diverse sample of smokers and non-smokers. Participants were asked if they had heard of FDA, what they knew about FDA, if they associated FDA with tobacco, and their thoughts about this FDA role. RESULTS:A total of 41 individuals participated. Although nearly all participants had heard of FDA, most were not aware of FDA's regulatory authority over tobacco products, did not associate the role of FDA with tobacco, and some drew comparisons between FDA's work in tobacco and their work regulating food and drugs. CONCLUSION:Data suggest that although public awareness of FDA regulatory authority over tobacco is low, with proper public education, the public may find FDA to be a trustworthy source of tobacco regulation.

SUBMITTER: Jarman KL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5644506 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Perceptions of the Food and Drug Administration as a Tobacco Regulator.

Jarman Kristen L KL Ranney Leah M LM Baker Hannah M HM Vallejos Quirina M QM Goldstein Adam O AO

Tobacco regulatory science 20170401 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>The U. S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now has regulatory authority over all tobacco products. Little is known about public awareness and perceptions of FDA in their new role as a tobacco regulator. This research utilizes focus groups to examine perceptions of FDA as a tobacco regulator so that FDA can better communicate with the public about this role.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted 6 focus groups in 2014 among a diverse sample of smokers and non-smokers. Participants were ...[more]

PMID: 29051917

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe growth of cancer drug spending in the US has outpaced spending in nearly all other sectors, and an increasing proportion of the drug development pipeline is devoted to oncology. In 2018, there was a record number of drugs entering the US market.ObjectiveTo estimate the number of patients with cancer who are eligible for the newly approved drug-indication pairs, and project potential spending and use of the approvals in the US.Design, setting, participantsThis is a retrospective review of 2018 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology drug approvals with estimation of the eligible population. The cost of new therapy was estimated, and savings from displaced therapies were subtracted. Two-way sensitivity analysis explored uncertainty in pricing and market diffusion. Data were collected between March 1, 2019, and September 30, 2019.ExposuresData related to the cancer drug approval (ie, indications, approval pathway, basis for approval), cancer incidence, and drug price were extracted from publicly available sources, including the FDA, National Cancer Institute, and American Cancer Society websites, as well as the RED BOOK database.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the projected net expenditure in the US associated with the new therapies. The secondary outcome described how variable market diffusion and pricing permit expected levels of spending.ResultsA total of 46 oncology approvals were included in the analysis, with 17 novel drugs and 29 new indications. The average price per patient per treatment course was $150 384. From a national perspective and with 100% market diffusion, the projected net expenditure for newly approved drugs was $39.5 billion per year. To maintain the recent trend of cancer drug spending, the 2018 cancer drug approvals need to be used in fewer than 20% of eligible patients.Conclusions and relevanceNew cancer drugs approved by the FDA in 2018 would drastically increase cancer drug spending in the US if used widely. Alternatively, only low-level use of the new drugs is consistent with market forecasting.

Project description:BackgroundSpurred by the creation of potential modified risk tobacco products, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) commissioned the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to assess the science base for tobacco "harm reduction," leading to the 2001 IOM report Clearing the Smoke. The objective of this study was to determine how the tobacco industry organized to try to influence the IOM committee that prepared the report.Methods and findingsWe analyzed previously secret tobacco industry documents in the University of California, San Francisco Legacy Tobacco Documents Library, and IOM public access files. (A limitation of this method includes the fact that the tobacco companies have withheld some possibly relevant documents.) Tobacco companies considered the IOM report to have high-stakes regulatory implications. They developed and implemented strategies with consulting and legal firms to access the IOM proceedings. When the IOM study staff invited the companies to provide information on exposure and disease markers, clinical trial design for safety and efficacy, and implications for initiation and cessation, tobacco company lawyers, consultants, and in-house regulatory staff shaped presentations from company scientists. Although the available evidence does not permit drawing cause-and-effect conclusions, and the IOM may have come to the same conclusions without the influence of the tobacco industry, the companies were pleased with the final report, particularly the recommendations for a tiered claims system (with separate tiers for exposure and risk, which they believed would ease the process of qualifying for a claim) and license to sell products comparable to existing conventional cigarettes ("substantial equivalence") without prior regulatory approval. Some principles from the IOM report, including elements of the substantial equivalence recommendation, appear in the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.ConclusionsTobacco companies strategically interacted with the IOM to win several favored scientific and regulatory recommendations.

Project description:ImportanceWhile there have been multiple assessments of clinical trials leading to anticancer drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the cumulative percentage of approvals based on trials with a limitation remains uncertain.ObjectiveTo assess the percentage of clinical trials with limitations in 4 domains-lack of randomization, lack of significant overall survival advantage, inappropriate use of crossover, and use of suboptimal control arms-that led to FDA approvals from June 30, 2014, to July 31, 2019.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational analysis included all anticancer drug indications approved by the FDA from June 30, 2014, through July 31, 2019. All indications were investigated, and each clinical trial was evaluated for design, enrollment period, primary end points, and presence of a limitation in the domains of interest. The standard-of-care therapy was determined by evaluating the literature and published guidelines 1 year prior to the start of clinical trial enrollment. Crossover was examined and evaluated for optimal use. The percentage of approvals based on clinical trials with any or all limitations of interest was then calculated.Main outcomes and measuresEstimated percentage of clinical trials with limitations of interest that led to an anticancer drug marketing authorization by the FDA.ResultsA total of 187 trials leading to 176 approvals for 75 distinct novel anticancer drugs by the FDA were evaluated. Sixty-four (34%) were single-arm clinical trials, and 123 (63%) were randomized clinical trials. A total of 125 (67%) had at least 1 limitation in the domains of interest; 60 of the 125 trials (48%) were randomized clinical trials. Of all 123 randomized clinical trials, 37 (30%) lacked overall survival benefit, 31 (25%) had a suboptimal control, and 17 (14%) used crossover inappropriately.Conclusions and relevanceTwo-thirds of cancer drugs are approved based on clinical trials with limitations in at least 1 of 4 essential domains. Efforts to minimize these limitations at the time of clinical trial design are essential to ensure that new anticancer drugs truly improve patient outcomes over current standards.

Dataset Information

Perceptions of the Food and Drug Administration as a Tobacco Regulator.

Publications

Perceptions of the Food and Drug Administration as a Tobacco Regulator.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets