Should the FDA Approve More Drugs?

Life can be vexing. Life is not a math problem that has one indisputable correct answer. We are constantly weighing options as we make decisions. How much risk would we tolerate in order to hope to capture a reward? Does an NBA star go for the three pointer or drive to the rim? Does a defense attorney put his client on the stand or leave him mute hoping that the prosecution hasn’t met the required burden of proof? Does a surgeon recommend an operation today or should the patient wait another 24 hours to see if his condition improves without surgery?

All of us struggle where to draw the line. Look at the ongoing debates in the public square regarding national security. While some government officials deny this, most of us acknowledge that there is a tension between guarding our civil liberties and protecting our security. Civil libertarians claim that we can do both, but I believe that trimming civil liberties would provide our intelligence community with more tools to protect us. I am not advocating this, but simply acknowledging what I believe to be a truth. There will never be consensus on where to establish this boundary.

Weighing the Options

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also struggles with an analogous issue. They must balance the public’s need for new medicines while protecting us from unsafe medicines. How much testing should a pharmaceutical company have to pursue to satisfy the FDA of the drug’s safety and efficacy? This query is not easily answered. More testing would likely enhance the safety of drugs that the FDA approves for our use, but would result in fewer medicines becoming available to us. Would the public want medicines released sooner that show real promise for conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, cancer, depression and autism? Would the public tolerate greater risk of unknown side effects of drugs that are released on an expedited track? What would these companies’ legal exposure be here? Conversely, should the FDA’s pathway toward drug approval be lengthened in order to increase the margin of safety?

Desperate patients and their families may demand drugs that have minimal safety and efficacy data. We all understand this. But short circuiting the process means that there won't be high quality clinical trials, often with a placebo arm, to vet the drugs properly. This does not serve the public at large as well as ill patients who deserve effective and safe drugs.

These are tough calls to make. When the FDA deviates from established protocols, the results can be disastrous, as occurred with their botched accelerated approval of Aduhelm in 2021 for Alzheimer's disease.

So, do you want more drugs or more safety?

Comments

Why Most Doctors Choose Employment

Increasingly, physicians today are employed and most of them willingly so. The advantages of this employment model, which I will highlight below, appeal to the current and emerging generations of physicians and medical professionals. In addition, the alternatives to direct employment are scarce, although they do exist. Private practice gastroenterology practices in Cleveland, for example, are increasingly rare sightings. Another practice model is gaining ground rapidly on the medical landscape. Private equity (PE) firms have been purchasing medical practices who are in need of capital and management oversight. PE can provide services efficiently as they may be serving multiple practices and have economies of scale. While these physicians technically have authority over all medical decisions, the PE partners can exert behavioral influences on physicians which can be ethically problematic. For example, if the PE folks reduce non-medical overhead, this may very directly affe

Should Doctors Wear White Coats?

Many professions can be easily identified by their uniforms or state of dress. Consider how easy it is for us to identify a policeman, a judge, a baseball player, a housekeeper, a chef, or a soldier. There must be a reason why so many professions require a uniform. Presumably, it is to create team spirit among colleagues and to communicate a message to the clientele. It certainly doesn’t enhance professional performance. For instance, do we think if a judge ditches the robe and is wearing jeans and a T-shirt, that he or she cannot issue sage rulings? If members of a baseball team showed up dressed in comfortable street clothes, would they commit more errors or achieve fewer hits? The medical profession for most of its existence has had its own uniform. Male doctors donned a shirt and tie and all doctors wore the iconic white coat. The stated reason was that this created an aura of professionalism that inspired confidence in patients and their families. Indeed, even today

Electronic Medical Records vs Physicians: Not a Fair Fight!

Each work day, I enter the chamber of horrors also known as the electronic medical record (EMR). I’ve endured several versions of this torture over the years, monstrosities that were designed more to appeal to the needs of billers and coders than physicians. Make sense? I will admit that my current EMR, called Epic, is more physician-friendly than prior competitors, but it remains a formidable adversary. And it’s not a fair fight. You might be a great chess player, but odds are that you will not vanquish a computer adversary armed with artificial intelligence. I have a competitive advantage over many other physician contestants in the battle of Man vs Machine. I can type well and can do so while maintaining eye contact with the patient. You must think I am a magician or a savant. While this may be true, the birth of my advanced digital skills started decades ago. (As an aside, digital competence is essential for gastroenterologists.) During college, I worked as a secretary

MD Whistleblower

Search This Blog