FDA Under President Trump Moves to Abandon Expert Reviews of New Drugs

What's Happening?

The FDA, under the leadership of President Trump, is considering a significant shift in its drug approval process by moving away from the traditional use of advisory committees composed of outside experts. George Tidmarsh, head of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, has indicated that the agency aims to reduce reliance on these panels, which have been a staple since a 1972 law mandated their use for technical decisions. Tidmarsh argues that these meetings are redundant and consume substantial resources, suggesting that the FDA should focus on broader regulatory questions rather than individual drug evaluations. This change comes amid a backdrop of reduced advisory committee meetings since President Trump reentered office, with only seven meetings held compared to 22 in the previous year.

Why It's Important?

The potential shift in FDA policy could have significant implications for drug approval transparency and public trust. Advisory committees have traditionally played a crucial role in ensuring that drug approvals are based on comprehensive expert evaluations, providing a platform for public scrutiny and debate. Critics argue that eliminating these panels could consolidate decision-making power within the FDA, reducing accountability to external experts and the public. This move may also impact the pharmaceutical industry, as advisory committees often help resolve internal FDA disagreements and provide insights into complex regulatory decisions. The change could alter the landscape of drug approval processes, affecting how new medications are evaluated and approved in the U.S.

What's Next?

If the FDA proceeds with this policy shift, it may face pushback from former officials, academics, and public health advocates who value the advisory committees' role in drug regulation. The agency might need to develop alternative methods to ensure transparency and expert input in its decision-making processes. Additionally, the FDA's decision to publish complete response letters, which detail reasons for rejecting drug applications, could become a focal point for maintaining transparency. Stakeholders, including pharmaceutical companies and patient advocacy groups, may seek to influence the FDA's approach to drug evaluations, emphasizing the need for balanced and informed regulatory practices.

Beyond the Headlines

The move to abandon expert reviews could have broader implications for the FDA's relationship with the pharmaceutical industry and its role in public health. By potentially reducing external oversight, the FDA might face increased scrutiny regarding its ability to balance industry pressures with rigorous scientific evaluation. This shift could also impact the agency's credibility and its ability to maintain public confidence in drug safety and efficacy. The decision may reflect broader trends in regulatory practices under President Trump's administration, highlighting tensions between efficiency and transparency in government operations.