Report Paints Grim Picture of Drug Trial Safety Criticism of FDA's weak oversight are on target, but Congress shares blame.
by Arthur L. Caplan
When a bridge collapses in an American city or
a mine implodes, it does not take long before government gets in motion
to figure out what to do about the problem. We see the carnage and
demand action. When
a federal agency charged with protecting your health and safety is
found grossly deficient, the response, sadly, is mainly talk.
hat is because it is hard to see where the
victims are and, without them, it is hard to get the problem fixed. But
when it comes to the Food and Drug Administration, we had better demand repairs. A new report from the inspector general of the Department of Health and Human Services
paints a very grim picture as to how well the FDA protects Americans
who are subjects in human experimentation. The FDA is called on the
carpet for not knowing how many experiments are actually being done in
the United States. The report also faults the FDA for inadequate audits
of research sites and a failure to ensure compliance with its orders
when FDA inspectors find something amiss at a research site. The problems discussed in the report are not new. They have been festering for years. Who is to blame? It falls on Congress, which continues to underfund the FDA
while at the same time being first in line to chime in when the
undermanned and overwhelmed agency fails to rein in a renegade
researcher, or does not act quickly to recall a drug or device that may
be responsible for killing dozens or hundreds of people. The
FDA has no way to keep track of the number of clinical trials being
done every year, who does them, who pays for them or even how many
people are involved as subjects. This is beyond belief since the
government agencies responsible for monitoring research with animals
collect exactly that data every year. How can it be that we know how
many pigs, frogs, rats and monkeys are used in research and who uses
them without knowing what is going on with respect to human beings? Are too many poor people disproportionately
recruited for research? Who knows? Are the elderly in nursing homes
underrepresented in clinical trials? Who can tell? Should more children
be involved in studies of new drugs? Cannot say. Is
it more likely that people get injured in for-profit test centers than
in academic research settings? No data is available to answer that
question. Despite
tens of billions of dollars being spent every year on research, the FDA
is flying blind when it comes to really knowing what is going on with
that money. Worse
still, the FDA relies almost exclusively on paperwork compliance to
ensure subject safety. It is as if the Internal Revenue Service relied
just on the forms sent in by taxpayers each year without doing any
audits. The FDA barely has enough people to keep tabs on the data
submitted by companies seeking approval of new drugs, vaccines and
devices. Wouldn’t
you feel better if you were involved in a clinical trial and you knew
that the FDA had the personnel to conduct random audits and unannounced
inspections of research sites? The
amount of research done annually in the U.S. has increased
exponentially from what was going on 40 years ago. Yet the FDA still is
asked to police this research with a budget and staff more suited to
the 1960s than the 21st century. The criticisms leveled at the FDA are right on target. We
need sound data on research, tough oversight of trials, vigorous
on-site auditing and tough enforcement when the few bad apples in
research go off the rails. Congress undoubtedly will applaud the report
and many elected officials will express shock and dismay at the
failings and loopholes found at the FDA. Outrage is fine, but it is
long past time that Congress and the Bush administration did something
to fix the problem. The infrastructure supporting the safety of American research is in trouble. It is long past time to allot the funds to fix it.
Posted: 2007-09-28 |