2020•JAMA Internal MedicineRequires access

Integrated Drug Reviews at the US Food and Drug Administration—Reply

Peter Doshi, Christopher J. Morten, Matthew Herder

Open publisher page 2 citations

Abstract

In their Viewpoint1 about integrated drug reviews at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Herder and colleagues1 noted that “in our view, integrated reviews are unlikely to achieve the agency’s stated goals and likely to introduce new problems,” referring to the goals of enhanced clarity of premarketing benefit–risk assessments and improved communication concerning approval decisions. The authors expressed concerns that there would be a loss of individual discipline reviews and dissenting viewpoints. The integrated reviews are part of the agency’s modernization initiative.2 The development process for the reviews included receipt and consideration of public comments from diverse stakeholders following a posting at Regulations.gov.3 In this Letter, we describe the purpose of integrated reviews and our assessment that they do not “circumvent [the FDA’s] legal obligation to prepare and publicly disclose individual scientific reviews.”

About this research paper

What this paper is about

In their Viewpoint1 about integrated drug reviews at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Herder and colleagues1 noted that “in our view, integrated reviews are unlikely to achieve the agency’s stated goals and likely to introduce new problems,” referring to the goals of enhanced clarity of premarketing benefit–risk assessments and improved communication concerning approval decisions. The authors expressed concerns that there would be a loss of individual discipline reviews and dissenting viewpoints. The integrated reviews are part of the agency’s modernization initiative.2 The development process for the reviews included receipt and consideration of public comments from diverse stakeholders following a posting at Regulations.gov.3 In this Letter, we describe the purpose of integrated reviews and our assessment that they do not “circumvent [the FDA’s] legal obligation to prepare and publicly disclose individual scientific reviews.”

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 2 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

In their Viewpoint1 about integrated drug reviews at the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Herder and colleagues1 noted that “in our view, integrated reviews are unlikely to achieve the agency’s stated goals and likely to introduce new problems,” referring to the goals of enhanced clarity of premarketing benefit–risk assessments and improved communication concerning approval decisions. The authors expressed concerns that there would be a loss of individual discipline reviews and dissenting viewpoints. The integrated reviews are part of the agency’s modernization initiative.2 The development process for the reviews included receipt and consideration of public comments from diverse stakeholders following a posting at Regulations.gov.3 In this Letter, we describe the purpose of integrated reviews and our assessment that they do not “circumvent [the FDA’s] legal obligation to prepare and publicly disclose individual scientific reviews.”

Key concepts: Medicine, Food and drug administration, Drug, Drug administration, Administration (probate law), Pharmacology, Political science, Law

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Integrated Drug Reviews at the US Food and Drug Administration—Reply — Research Paper | ScholarLens