LOST IN (VIRTUAL) TRANSLATION? The FDA’s advisory committees, intended to supplement the agency’s drug and device approval process, went virtual at the start of the pandemic — and there’s no sign they’re going back. From today through the end of September, the FDA has scheduled seven meetings of its expert panels, none of which will be in person. Some experts fear that online discussions won’t be as robust — and therefore informative — as they could be. “The dynamic is diluted as a result of having a virtual meeting,” said Mark Senak, a regulatory lawyer who consults with pharmaceutical companies and follows FDA advisory committees. Remote meetings hide some cues from the panel members' tone, facial expressions and body language — and make it hard to interject without interrupting others. Joseph Daval, a postdoctoral research fellow at Harvard Medical School who studies FDA advisory committee trends, said remote meetings typically include more visual aids than there are at in-person meetings, which could bias the expert advisers. During public comment periods, meeting attendees can show more images of individuals living with diseases that lack treatments than they can in person. “Even if you’re skeptical of the evidence for the drug, how could that not sway your vote?” he asked. On the flip side, being remote isn’t all bad: Virtual meetings allow public health agencies to be more nimble, said Dr. Grace Lee, a professor of pediatrics at the Stanford University School of Medicine, who chairs the CDC’s vaccines advisory committee, which also remains remote. “It’s always nicer in person, but I do feel like because we had met so many times [over the pandemic], many of the technical challenges and logistical challenges just got easier over time,” she told Prescription Pulse. But there are downsides as the FDA works to reimagine independent advisory meetings. FDA Commissioner Robert Califf has said that recommendation votes at the meetings are far less important than the dialogue that occurs among experts. Dr. Namandjé Bumpus, FDA’s chief scientist, agrees. But the agency has yet to offer concrete reforms. “It’s important to get in the room with people when talking about these matters,” Dr. Caleb Alexander, internist and epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health who formerly served on the FDA’s neurological drug advisory committee, said. “It’s a significant price to pay for the convenience of dialing in on your phone.” IT’S TUESDAY. WELCOME BACK TO PRESCRIPTION PULSE. It may be recess on Capitol Hill, but for us, the regulatory news never stops. Send news and tips to Katherine Ellen Foley (kfoley@politico.com or @katherineefoley), Lauren Gardner (lgardner@politico.com or @Gardner_LM or @gardnerlm19) and David Lim (dlim@politico.com or @davidalim or @david.a.lim). TODAY ON OUR PULSE CHECK PODCAST, host Ben Leonard talks with Daniel Payne, who explains why public health experts fear an uptick of opioid overdoses as pandemic protections expire and Medicaid unwinds, leaving millions of Americans with no health care coverage and potentially hobbling the nation's opioid response.
|