Dataset Information

Characteristics and conflicts of interest at Food and Drug Administration Gastrointestinal Drug Advisory Committee meetings.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

The United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Gastrointestinal Drug Advisory Committee (GIDAC) is involved in gastrointestinal drug application reviews. Characteristics and conflicts of interest (COI) in GIDAC meetings are not well described. This study analyzed FDA GIDAC meetings and characteristics that predict recommendations.

Methods

In this cross-sectional study, all publicly available GIDAC meetings where proposed medications were voted on were included. Data were collected regarding indications, medication sponsor, primary efficacy studies, and voting member characteristics (e.g. committee membership, COI). Univariate analyses were conducted at per-meeting and per-vote levels to assess for predictors of committee recommendation and individual votes respectively.

Results

Thirty-four meetings with 476 individual votes from 1998-2018 were included. Twenty-three (68%) proposals were recommended for approval and 25 (74%) received FDA approval. Most proposals involved >1 primary study (n = 27, 79%). At least one voting member had a COI in 24 (71%) of 34 meetings. Twelve (35%) meetings had at least one sponsor COI. Among 476 individual votes, 74 (15.5%) involved a COI, with 33 (6.9%) sponsor COI. COI decreased significantly over time, with fewer COI in 2006-2010, 2011-2015, and 2016-2020 compared to 1996-2000 and 2001-2005 (p<0.01). There were no significant associations between pre-defined predictors, including COI, and committee level recommendations or individual votes (p>0.05 for all univariate analyses).

Conclusions

The GIDAC reviewed 34 proposals from 1998-2018. The majority were recommended for approval and later approved by the FDA, highlighting the GIDAC's prominence in the regulatory process. COI are present among GIDAC panelists but decreasing over time and not associated with recommendations.

SUBMITTER: Khan R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8153474 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description: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.ContextThe 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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews.DesignSystematic review.Eligibility criteriaStudies that compared the association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations of drugs or devices (eg, recommending a drug) in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces (eg, editorials), or narrative reviews.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, Cochrane Methodology Register (from inception to February 2020), reference lists, Web of Science, and grey literature.Data extraction and analysisTwo authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the studies. Pooled relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using random effects models (relative risk >1 indicates that documents with conflicts of interest more often had favourable recommendations than documents with no conflicts of interest). Financial and non-financial conflicts of interest were analysed separately, and the four types of documents were analysed separately (preplanned) and combined (post hoc).Results21 studies that analysed 106 clinical guidelines, 1809 advisory committee reports, 340 opinion pieces, and 497 narrative reviews were included. Unpublished data were received for 11 studies (eight full datasets and three summary datasets). 15 studies showed risk of confounding because the compared documents could differ in factors other than conflicts of interest (eg, different drugs used for different populations). The relative risk for associations between financial conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations for clinical guidelines was 1.26 (95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.69; four studies of 86 clinical guidelines), for advisory committee reports was 1.20 (0.99 to 1.45; four studies of 629 advisory committee reports), for opinion pieces was 2.62 (0.91 to 7.55; four studies of 284 opinion pieces), and for narrative reviews was 1.20 (0.97 to 1.49; four studies of 457 narrative reviews). An analysis of all four types of documents combined supported these findings (1.26, 1.09 to 1.44). In one study that investigated specialty interests, the association between including radiologists as authors of guidelines and recommending routine breast cancer was: relative risk 2.10, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 4.77; 12 clinical guidelines).ConclusionsWe interpret our findings to indicate that financial conflicts of interest are associated with favourable recommendations of drugs and devices in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews. Limitations of this review were risk of confounding in the included studies and the statistical imprecision of individual analyses of each document type. It is not certain whether non-financial conflicts of interest influence recommendations.Systematic review registrationCochrane Methodology Review Protocol MR000040.

Project description:Introduction: Tobacco control policies have helped to reduce the health, social, and economic burden of commercial tobacco use worldwide. Little is known about the long-term impact of regulatory policies and functioning bodies that make recommendations to inform policies. The Tobacco Products Scientific Advisory Committee (TPSAC) of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was formed in 2009 to evaluate the safety, health, and dependence of tobacco products and provide related advice and recommendations to the FDA and the Secretary of Health and Human Services. This article describes the first 10 years of the TPSAC activities and reflects on the impact of their service on regulatory actions.Methods: We reviewed public documents from the 2010-2019 TPSAC meetings to examine the purposes, TPSAC decisions, public health participation in meetings, and concordance of the TPSAC recommendations with regulatory actions. Meeting agendas, transcripts, public testimony, and presentations were reviewed to obtain this information.Results: Since 2010, the TPSAC held 25 public meetings with 178 speakers who provided oral public testimony. Sixty-four percent of meetings were held from 2010 to 2012, when three congressionally mandated reports were due on the topics of menthol cigarettes, harmful and potentially harmful constituents in tobacco products, and dissolvable tobacco products. Forty-four percent of meetings focused on menthol cigarettes, 32% on modified risk tobacco products, 16% on harmful and potentially harmful constituents, 12% on dissolvable tobacco, and 4% on tobacco addiction/dependence. FDA regulatory actions were largely nonconcordant with voting decisions by TPSAC.Conclusions: The TPSAC has evaluated an enormous amount of science during the first 10 years, but their influence on regulatory policies has been limited. The TPSAC roles and functioning should be reevaluated to determine how TPSAC can better fulfill its mandate to inform the FDA's regulatory decision making, which could ultimately reduce the burden of tobacco use in the United States.