A new survey of the FDAs impact on medical technology innovation reports that the FDA is slow, inefficient and costly. The survey is from the Medical Device Manufacturers Association so take it with a grain of salt (but see below). What is most telling, however, is how manufacturers rate the FDA compared to its European counterpart(s).
Overall Experience: 75 percent of respondents rated their regulatory experience in the EU excellent or very good. Only 16 percent gave the same ratings to the FDA…
Respondents also cite specific concerns with the FDA process (not just a general complaint of slowness which could be efficient) such as:
…44 percent of participants indicated that part-way through the regulatory process they experienced untimely changes in key personnel, including the lead reviewer and/or branch chief responsible for the product’s evaluation.
As a result:
On average, the products represented in the survey were available to patients in the U.S. a full two years after they were available to patients in Europe (range = 3 to 70 months later).
In some cases, respondents said they initiated their regulatory processes within and outside the U.S. at the same time, but received clearance/approval in the U.S. much later. In anticipation of long, expensive FDA reviews, others said they decided to seek or obtain European approval first in an effort to generate sales overseas that could help fund their U.S. regulatory efforts.
The survey has a good discussion of potential biases. To those not familiar with the industry it might seem obvious that the MDMA would want to bash the FDA but my experience is that companies in the business don't like to complain. Indeed, the survey notes:
A number of companies indicated that they would not respond due to fear of retribution from the FDA (despite assurances we would maintain their confidentiality).
Addendum: Loyal reader Josh Turnage has produced a video plea to the FDA on behalf of his mother to leave Avastin approved for breast cancer.