|
|
|
|
|
|
by mjewkes
751 days ago
|
|
|
>I can say this with pretty strong confidence: had the FDA not being so strict about its trials, lots of these experimental type of antibodies would have already received massived research and commercialization If the FDA was not so strict in requiring evidence, medicine would look like the supplement aisle, and the incentive to actually do the stupidly hard work of developing effective drugs & proving their efficacy would disappear. Why even bother investing in developing a complex new antibody if you can sell some mushroom powder from a beach and claim whatever you want about it, ala Tim Ferris & "BrainQUICKEN". There are plently of valid "incremental" critiques about the FDA. IMO, their devices and diagnostics divisions are weaker than CDER and CBER. Even those two (drug focused) divisions can be too slow moving and occasionally capricious about when they want more evidence. But their final decisions are generally pretty good, with a few exceptions. And most of those exceptions are drugs that they approved that they shouldn't have (e.g. Aduhelm) - not vice versa. Can you point at a promising drug candidate with statistically solid efficacy data that CDER or CBER has rejected? Also - note that there are approved scFVs and VHHs and mimetics - as stated in the article. Each is useful in particular situations, but none is some sort of wild medical breakthrough. There is just no evidence that any of these modalities would be attracting extraordinary investment "if only it weren't for the FDA". |
|
|
Evidence is still needed. Safety and efficacy are still required. But how and why those happened doesn't have to be as strict. Where the drug came from, how it was made, etc.
The FDA already did it once with the COVID vaccine. It skipped or rushed almost the entire process and it turned out mostly fine. But anything else it asks for everything, down to the minutiae like how many seconds did the cells get thawed out or excessive requirements like proving production quality can remain stable for months while a drug batch is produced in only 2-3 weeks.
The FDA basically say drugs has to be produced in their way and their way only. Any deviation or attempt to try something new carries too much risk of rejection. Following their way usually give good results. But not everything can be forced into that narrow path, especially for something like biologics that involve living cells. Even something as tried and true like a mAb still routinely get rejected internally because the cells producing it simply can't keep making them without some additives that are either too expensive or not yet approved for the current process. Biology is messy and it isn't easy getting things to work even when they are supposed to work, so making something "new" to work in a specific way is too risky. That is my point.