corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 18497

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: news

Lentz J
FDA considering changes to risky drug safeguards
Reuters 2010 July 28
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38457741/ns/health-more_health_news/


Full text:

Safeguards to protect patients from risky drugs should have less paperwork and more consistency, drugmakers and pharmacy representatives said this week during a U.S. Food and Drug Administration meeting.
The drug industry acknowledged the benefit of so-called risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, or REMS, a set of disclosure and educational tools to protect consumers from drugs with potentially serious side effects.
But it is requesting a lighter regulatory touch. The FDA said it would consider some changes.
“There has to be obviously the most appropriate balance between protecting the safety of patients, which is of the utmost concern, but also doing so in a way that doesn’t cause unnecessary burdens and inefficiencies in the health care system,” Jeffrey Francer, assistant general counsel for the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said on Wednesday.
Patient medication guides that list a drug’s risks are the most common type of REMS. With more dangerous drugs, those that would otherwise be rejected or taken off the market, companies have to train prescribers or even track patient health.
The tools took effect in 2008 and have been mandated for more than 120 drugs.
More transparency
Speakers at the two-day hearing called for more transparency on REMS decisions, feedback earlier in the drug development process and equal restrictions on similar drugs.
Nayan Acharya of Eli Lilly and Co said that the burdensome evaluation of REMS should be limited to the riskiest drugs, excluding those that only need a medication guide.
“In place of this one-size fits all approach, we believe that patients and the stakeholders in the health care system could benefit if the FDA were to adopt a more tailored approach to REMS,” Acharya said on Tuesday.
There is no timeline for finalizing any changes, but adjustments could come soon for certain drugs, said Jane Axelrad, associate director for policy in the FDA’s drug evaluation unit.
“We’ll be looking at our program to see whether some of the suggestions that we’ve heard can be incorporated into REMS that are under development, into new REMS,” Axelrad said.

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909