Skip to main content

Should the FDA Approve Experimental Treatment for Severe Diseases?

I’ve never had the pain and agony of having a kid who is truly sick.  Broken bones and minor surgeries don’t count.  Even one of my kid’s bout with malaria doesn’t rate, as this illness was easily cured.

Parents of kids with chronic illnesses would sacrifice anything to help their kids get better or to suffer less.  In the news recently is a conflict between families of kids with Duchenne muscular dystrophy and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  A very small study of an experimental drug called eteplirsen suggested some benefit.   Understandably, the families want the FDA to grant approval so that their kids and others could have access to this drug that will fight a dreadful disease that is fatal.  Families argue that these kids have nothing to lose and can’t wait another 5 years waiting for more definite evidence of efficacy to emerge. 

The FDA is legally required to approve drugs that are safe and effective.  Obviously, the definitions of safe and effective are subjective, but the agency requires that a reasonable threshold be crossed for both of these parameters.  Gray areas create agonizing conundrums for agency officials and patient advocates. 

Should Unproven Treatements be Approved?

The FDA commissioned committee, which will advise the agency proper, did not advocate drug approval, which caused great consternation among family members and their supporters.  These wrenching decisions must be guided by science and medical evidence, not hope and emotion.  Here are some potential objections to approving the medicine.
  • The study was too small to have persuasive scientific validity.
  • The study did not have a proper control group, which further weakened the conclusions.
  • The drug may have unknown and serious side-effects.  Once the drug is approved, physicians can prescribe it lawfully for a variety of diseases and illnesses, some of which may not be life-threatening.
  • Acceding to understandable family demands for premature FDA drug approval will prevent patients from entering larger clinical trials, preferably in a randomized study with a placebo control, where safety and efficacy can be more accurately verified.
  • If the FDA weakens its standards for approval for a single drug to respond to a constituency, then be prepared for mission creep to erode standards across the board over time.  
It's the parents' job to everything they can do to protect their kid.  It's the FDA's job to protect all of us.  I wish we could protect and save everyone.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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