Category Archives: We Are Quoted

Women with Breast Implants Should Not Need to Wait for Safety Information They Urgently Need

Rose Weitz and Diana Zuckerman, Our Bodies Ourselves: July 1, 2020


Although breast implants have been sold since the 1960s, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first approved the use of silicone gel breast implants in 2006. By then, many women with implants had already reported a range of problems, which result in many women seeking additional surgery within just a few years of implantation.

And the problems have become more serious. Last year, for example, Allergan did a worldwide recall of their textured Biocell breast implants and expanders because of evidence that these implants caused an increased risk of a type of lymphoma called ALCL.

The FDA has the authority both to require solid evidence of safety before putting any implant on the market and to require companies to collect health data from implant patients for years afterward. Without these data, it is impossible for women or their doctors to know what are the possible consequences of different implants, what symptoms to look for, and which implants should be surgically removed – assuming an individual knows the make and model of their implant and can afford up to several thousand dollars to remove it.

Collecting data is a small thing to ask of manufacturers who have been profiting from breast implants for many years. Yet even this has proven too much for these companies, or for the FDA to enforce. For example, in May 2019 the FDA sent letters to two manufacturers, Mentor Worldwide and Sientra, warning that the manufacturers had failed to collect the required data for implants that were already on the market and would need to improve their data gathering or face potential criminal or civil penalties. The FDA also sent warning letters in May 2020 to Allergan and Ideal. The FDA criticized Allergan for their failure to recruit and follow-up with as many patients as had been promised. The agency warned Ideal that the companies’ efforts to rectify previous problems were inadequate, including failing to accurately report consumer complaints, failing to keep adulterants out of its silicone, and failing to notify the FDA about malfunctions of its implants that could result in death or serious injury. Meanwhile, all these implants are still on the market.

Last October, in response to the pleas and demands of thousands of breast implant patients, the FDA proposed that a black box warning be affixed to all implant packages to inform women and their doctors about the most serious risks of breast implants. In addition, the FDA proposed that all patients be required to sign an easy-to-understand checklist of possible risks before implant surgery is scheduled.

These proposals were much weaker than what patients and their advocates had demanded. In response to the FDA’s request for public comments, a Working Group of patients, public health advocates, and plastic surgeons submitted a critique — along with a petition signed by over 70,000 people – urging the FDA to be more explicit about the proposed warnings. Public comments were due in December 2019, but as of June 2020 the agency has still not revised its proposal.

Buyer beware, indeed.

Read the full article here

We can’t ever go to the doctor with our guard down’: Why Black women are 40% more likely to die of breast cancer

Maria Aspan: Fortune Magazine June 30, 2020


Racism kills Black Americans, and has long before COVID-19. But its toxic combination with sexism has particularly vast and disastrous consequences for the health of Black women.

While Black people in the U.S. are dying from the COVID-19 pandemic at a disproportionately high rate, this national health crisis underlines an even grimmer status quo: Black Americans are also much more likely to die from far more common and longstanding health problems every day. Black women are at particularly high risk of heart disease and strokes, and are at least three times as likely to die as a result of childbirth as white women, contributing to the overall alarmingly high maternal mortality rate in the United States.

Then there are the shocking statistics around breast cancer, which affects one in every eight women and is the most common non-skin cancer affecting women. Black women are less likely to develop it—but 40% more likely to die from it than white women, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The reasons behind this awful disparity are wide-ranging, and include systemic problems both within healthcare and far beyond it. Now the disproportionately high toll of COVID-19 on the Black population in the U.S. and the simultaneous national reckoning over racism are drawing new attention to the racial inequities hurting Black women—and amplifying the voices of doctors, scientists, and public health experts who have long sounded the alarm.

[…]

Women of all races could be legally omitted from government-funded clinical trials before 1993, and are still often under-represented in most research studies of conditions that affect them. Pregnancy and menstrual cycles are thought to “complicate” the results of trials that are mostly conducted on white men, who are seen as the “norm.”

This can obviously backfire. In 2013, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration sharply cut its recommended dosages of Ambien for women, after years of complaints about grogginess and falling asleep while driving, when followup tests showed that women metabolized the active ingredient in sleeping aids much more slowly than men.

When it comes to clinical trials funded by pharmaceutical companies, “the FDA encourages but does not require diversity in clinical trials,” says Diana Zuckerman, a scientist and president of the National Center for Health Research. “Worse, the agency frequently approves drugs and devices for all adults, even if they were primarily studied on white adults.”

One treatment that the FDA approved in April, for the “triple-negative” type of breast cancer that disproportionately affects Black women, was approved after being tested on 108 patients. Eight of them, or 7%, were Black. Another breast-cancer treatment was approved last year after being tested on 234 patients; seven of them, or 3%, were Black.

[…]

Read the full article here

CRS: Congress Can Rein In FDA’s Flexible COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Policies

Beth Wang, Inside Health Policy: June 03, 2020


The Congressional Research Service says Congress could rein in FDA’s broad discretionary authority over vaccine clinical trial policies by legislating how the agency and Institutional Review Boards approach clinical trial designs and reviews for the current COVID-19 pandemic, as well as for future emergencies. In a Tuesday (June 2) report, CRS suggests Congress could provide more specific direction to FDA and IRBs on how to approach clinical trials in emergency situations, and also could appoint a neutral scientific body to consider ethical and scientific issues as well as general guidelines for trials. Congress also could fund global collaboration among regulators, and provide additional funding and resources to facilitate clinical trials, the report suggests, echoing recent calls from lawmakers who have said the United States should get involved with global efforts to fund and develop COVID-19 vaccines and treatments.

Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, applauded CRS for explaining the vaccine approval process to Congress and for telling lawmakers what their options are so Congress can, in Zuckerman’s words, “ensure a better outcome than we’ve seen with the disastrous coronavirus testing situation (in terms of accuracy, transparency, and availability).” The document, she told Inside Health Policy, does a good job of explaining that FDA has authority to lower approval standards for any drug or vaccine unless Congress steps in. “[B]ased on FDA’s actions of the last 3 months, it seems likely that they will do so in ways that could create the free-for-all that currently exists for coronavirus testing,” Zuckerman wrote in an email. “So the CRS is telling Congress that legislation is the option they have if they want to ensure a better outcome.”

Existing law, CRS says, requires FDA and IRBs to weigh considerations about safety and effectiveness against the desire to bring products to market quickly when evaluating proposed clinical trial designs for vaccines.

[…]

Congress previously told FDA what to do in the drug trial and approval space through passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, but FDA was given leeway in how to interpret the law, Zuckerman explained. “It pushed FDA in a particular direction but still gave the FDA the authority to rely on the agency’s subjective judgment,” she said. If Congress were to step in and tell FDA what it should do, it would be a radical departure, Zuckerman added. “[But it’s] probably necessary given FDA’s response to the pandemic so far, and the Administration’s track record of ignoring Congress when it suits them,” she said.

Read the entire article here.

Allergan is trying to track down women with breast implants it recalled nearly a year ago

Maria Aspan, Fortune: June 03, 2020


More than 10 months after recalling some of its breast implants, Allergan is making a new effort to find tens of thousands of women who still have the dangerous devices.

The pharmaceutical company, now owned by AbbViesaid this week that it will launch a digital and social media ad campaign to alert patients about the July 2019 recall of its textured Biocell implants. Those implants have been linked in academic studies to a sometimes-fatal cancer known as BIA-ALCL, for “breast implant–associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma.” More than 33 women have now died from BIA-ALCL.

Allergan’s announcement comes two weeks after Fortune published an investigation into the persistent problems with breast implants and the health risks, including BIA-ALCL, they have created for millions of women worldwide. These risks have been amplified by decades of inadequate study and problems that were hidden by breast implant manufacturers, as well as the generally poor tracking of medical devices, our investigation found.

Many women affected by Allergan’s Biocell recall told Fortune that they found out about it through social media or news reports, rather than directly from the company or the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which requested the recall.

On Monday, Allergan acknowledged that it does not have device-tracking information for some 52,000 Biocell breast implants. Despite “robust efforts” to reach patients since last July, “the company is still seeking to directly contact all U.S. Biocell patients that have not yet been notified,” Allergan said in a press release.

“We are continuing to make every effort to make sure that each and every patient is made aware of the Biocell recall, and knows their implant type and implant history,” John Maltman, Allergan’s vice president of medical affairs, said in the release.

A company spokesperson did not respond to a request for more specifics about when the ad campaign would launch, or what exactly it would entail. And longtime critics of breast implant safety greeted Allergan’s announced plans with skepticism.

“I don’t know how visible it’s going to be,” says Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research. “Will the kind of money and effort be put into this in a way that’s comparable to ad campaigns when they’re selling something?

The new ad campaign appears to be at the behest of the FDA, which “asked Allergan to develop a strategy to contact patients who may not have heard about the recall,” an agency spokesperson told Fortune by email on Tuesday, adding that the FDA “is working with Allergan to amplify the message and outreach related to its July 2019 voluntary recall of certain breast implants.”

This is the latest of several actions the FDA has taken on breast implant safety in the wake of Fortune’s investigation. Last month, after speaking with Fortune, the FDA sent a warning letter to Allergan over its longtime failure to comply with regulatory requirements for selling its implants. At the same time, the agency also sent a letter to a smaller manufacturer warning about manufacturing and quality-control issues.

[…]

Read the full article here.

A Patient’s Guide to Telemedicine

Michelle Llamas, Drugwatch: May 20, 2020


Telemedicine allows patients to have a remote, non-emergency office visit with their health care provider by using a smartphone, computer or tablet. Research shows most patients are highly satisfied with telemedicine visits, and in most instances these visits are as good as in-person visits.

Telemedicine has been growing in popularity in recent years. As more states are implementing laws to facilitate telemedicine, more Americans are embracing remote visits with their health care providers.

From 2016 to 2017, health insurance claims for telemedicine grew by 53 percent, according to FAIR Health’s FH Healthcare Indicators and FH Medical Price Index 2019. It grew more than claims for urgent care centers, retail clinics and emergency departments.

By 2017, about 76 percent of hospitals in the United States connected with patients and other practitioners virtually through video or other technology, according to the American Hospital Association.

Because of the COVID-19 pandemic, analysts for Forrester Research predicted virtual health care interactions could top one billion by the end of 2020, CNBC reported.

Telemedicine vs. Telehealth

Telemedicine is a component of a larger group of remote health care services called telehealth, though sometimes people use the terms interchangeably.

The main difference between the two is that telemedicine specifically refers to medical information exchanged remotely to improve a patient’s health. Information can be exchanged through email, two-way video, smartphones and other wireless tools.

Telehealth encompasses telemedicine and other types of remote health care information exchanges, such as health education, medical provider training, administrative meetings and more.

[…]

Is Telemedicine as Good as an In-Person Visit?

The majority of telemedicine uses are just as good as in-person visits, according to research by the American Telemedicine Association (ATA). They may also be less expensive than in-person visits.

There has been over 40 years of research and thousands of studies related to telemedicine, and ATA reviewed these for cost effectiveness and quality of care in its 2013 report, Telemedicine’s Impact on Healthcare Quality and Cost.

“For most telemedicine applications, studies have shown that there is no difference in the ability of the provider to obtain clinical information, make an accurate diagnosis, and develop a treatment plan that produces the same desired clinical outcomes as compared to in-person care when used appropriately,” the ATA said.

Eighty-three percent of the time, patients can resolve their health issues during the first telemedicine visit, according to Red Quill Consulting.

One key thing to consider is preparing ahead of time, according to Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research.

“It’s important to make a list in advance of every question and comment before the [telemedicine] doctor’s visit,” Zuckerman told Drugwatch. “Being organized with anything that concerns you is even more important when the doctor doesn’t see you in person and can’t notice health issues that might be more obvious in person.”

Zuckerman advises consumers to write down and keep track of their medical provider’s answers during a telemedicine visit.

Getting Started

Patients who want to conduct a telemedicine visit with a provider will first need to confirm that the provider offers this option. Second, they will need a reliable internet connection and a smartphone, computer, laptop or tablet.

If you don’t have a preferred medical provider, you can check with your insurance company for providers that participate in their telemedicine program. You’ll also want to check with your insurance company’s policies on paying for these visits.

Ask your HR department if your employer has a preferred telemedicine provider.

[…]

Read the full article here

FDA Warns Allergan Over Breast Implant Studies

Sasha Chavkin, International Consortium of Investigative Journalists: May 19, 2020


United States health authorities issued a warning letter to leading global breast implant manufacturer Allergan for failing to properly carry out post-market safety studies.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration found that Allergan did not meet its standards for recruiting and following up with participants in studies that included several styles of implants withdrawn from sale worldwide last year due to cancer risks.

Another company, Ideal Implant Incorporated, was rebuked for failing to properly track complaints by customers or take adequate corrective actions for problems identified during a site inspection.

“The FDA will continue to hold manufacturers accountable if they fail to fulfill their obligations,” Dr. Binita Ashar of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health said in an agency statement announcing the warning letters.

In November 2018, the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists revealed that thousands of women around the world were suffering from serious illnesses after receiving breast implants, a finding that was part of its global Implant Files investigation.

In the months after the Implant Files’ publication, regulators around the world took action to better protect patients. Authorities in France, Canada, and the United States announced bans on Allergan Biocell implants, which were associated with increased risk of a rare form of cancer.

The moves prompted Allergan to announce a global recall of Biocell products last July. (Earlier this month, Allergan was acquired by global pharmaceutical giant AbbVie.)

The recalled implants are among the ones that Allergan was failing to properly study, the FDA found. The agency noted that the studies were crucial to identifying the risks for patients already implanted with Biocells.

“Post-approval studies are especially important to inform our understanding of the long-term potential risks associated with Allergan’s implants, including the models that have since been recalled from the market,” Ashar said in the FDA’s statement.

The agency touted the warning letters as a part of its “ongoing efforts” to better protect breast implant patients, also citing its Medical Device Safety Action Plan and the development of a National Breast Implant Registry to collect data on breast implant safety.

But Dr. Diana Zuckerman, the director of the National Center for Health Research, a health policy think tank, said the agency must also be willing to take tough measures against companies that fail to follow its rules.

Zuckerman noted that breast implant makers have a history of poor compliance with safety studies mandated by the FDA, which approved silicone breast implants for the U.S. market in 2006 despite scant data on their long-term safety.

Instead, the agency allowed manufacturers Allergan and Mentor to conduct long-term safety studies after their products were already on the market. Within three years, Allergan and Mentor lost touch with 40% and 80% of the patients, respectively, in key sections of these post-approval studies, torpedoing the FDA’s demand that they collect reliable long-term data.

Nonetheless, the agency permitted the implants to remain on the market.

Zuckerman was skeptical that the warning letters would have much effect unless the FDA showed it was willing to take products that violated its rules for safety studies off the market.

“It absolutely should be possible to take off the ones that aren’t studied properly,” Zuckerman said. “I guarantee if they did that the ones that are still on the market would finish their studies.”

Read the full article here

‘They killed her’: Why are breast implants still putting millions of women at risk?

Maria Aspan, Fortune: May 18, 2020


Thirty-three years before her death, Paulette Parr visited her doctor for a popular and relatively routine procedure. It was 1986, and Parr was 35, working in human resources at the local hospital in Sikeston, a 16,000-person Missouri enclave midway between St. Louis and Memphis. A married mother of two young boys, she was interested in what plastic surgeons still call a “mommy makeover,” a catchall for the various procedures that nip, tuck, and lift women back to a pre-childbirth shape. For Parr, that meant getting her first set of breast implants.

For the next 15 years, through losing her first husband and remarrying and getting promoted to her hospital’s purchasing department, Parr was mostly happy with her implants, and with how they made her look and feel. But they were silicone-based, a type the U.S. Food and Drug Administration banned in 1992 over concerns that they were causing autoimmune and safety problems, and Parr eventually started to worry about them. So by 2002, when she learned that one of her implants had ruptured and was leaking silicone into her body, Parr’s surgeon replaced them with saline-filled versions. Her new Biocell implants were covered in a roughly textured silicone shell, designed to reduce movement of the device.

That’s when Parr’s implant-related health problems really began, according to a lawsuit her husband has filed against pharmaceutical company Allergan, the maker of Biocell products and one of three major manufacturers of American breast implants. In 2010, after one of her saline implants started leaking, her plastic surgeon replaced them with yet another set of Biocell textured implants, this time filled with silicone, which the FDA had allowed back onto the market in 2006.

“They were gorgeous, and they were put in by a reputable doctor,” says Paulette’s widower, Calvin Parr, months after her death. “We never gave it a second thought.”

Breast implants have long been a punch line, mocked as frivolous markers of female vanity. But that dismissive attitude overlooks a business with a serious and sometimes deadly impact on the health of its overwhelmingly female customer base. More than 8 million American women have undergone breast-related plastic surgeries since 2000; in 2018 alone, more than 400,000 women chose one for either cosmetic or reconstructive reasons. Breast augmentation is the most popular cosmetic procedure tracked by the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.

Many women, especially those affected by breast cancer, say they are grateful to have implants as an option. “It’s a decision that’s personal,” says Lynn Jeffers, the society’s current president, a plastic surgeon, and a cancer survivor who’s getting post-mastectomy reconstruction. “With the data that I have now, I’m comfortable having implants.”

And pharmaceutical companies have been very comfortable selling them, despite a long history of government recalls and product-liability lawsuits. Allergan, which was acquired by AbbVie in May, sold $399.5 million worth of implants in 2017, before regulators around the globe started banning some of its products. Its main rival, Johnson & Johnson, doesn’t break out results for its Mentor Worldwide breast implant business. Smaller specialist Sientra reported annual “breast products” revenues of $46.4 million in 2019.

Those numbers pale in comparison to blockbusters like Allergan bestseller Botox, which raked in $3.8 billion last year. But like Botox, breast implants can have attractive recurring revenue built in for manufacturers and the doctors who use their products. Even under ideal circumstances, breast implants “are not lifetime devices,” the FDA warns, and will likely need to be replaced every 10 to 15 years, for a cost of up to $12,000 per cosmetic procedure.

Yet as doctors, patients, lawyers, and public health experts tell Fortune, breast implants have remained on the market despite decades of inadequate testing and study, recurrent safety concerns, and poor regulatory oversight. Those problems plague many medical devices, which range from machines used outside the body to artificial parts implanted within it. But breast implants are unique in their affiliation with female sexuality and physical appearance, their intersecting roles as elective beauty products and clinical tools that can help cancer survivors feel more like themselves—and the degree to which patients’ mounting concerns about them have been dismissed for decades. Now, that accumulated failure of oversight has created sweeping, sometimes tragic crises for potentially millions of women.

“There are a lot of women who are really suffering,” says Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research. “You have these products that are widely, widely sold, and every few years we learn something new about the problems they cause.”

Breast implant makers walk a particularly fine line when it comes to creating a product that is both safe and “realistic.” Today’s implants are either filled with saline (more likely to break) or silicone (more natural looking and feeling but plagued by a history of safety concerns). Their exteriors can be either smooth or made of a “textured” silicone shell. Smooth implants are more popular in the U.S., but surgeons working with mastectomy patients sometimes prefer textured versions, because the products’ rougher surface enables tissue to grow onto the implant more easily.

All of these variations are prone to malfunctions or side effects, which can include ruptured implants; a buildup of scar tissue that can cause pain and tissue hardening; a large collection of symptoms often known as “breast implant illness,” which can include joint pain, migraines, and chronic fatigue; and, increasingly, a sometimes fatal cancer of the immune system known as ­BIA-ALCL, for “breast implant–­associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma.”

“The breast implants that are on the market right now all have issues,” says Madris Tomes, a former FDA manager who tracks reported medical device failures at her Device Events firm. “I wouldn’t recommend them to anyone that I care about.”

The causes of the various problems with breast implants are still poorly understood, which public health experts blame on a lack of testing or objective, long-term studies that do not rely on manufacturer-provided data or funding. Device makers also have yet to fully report the data the FDA required as a condition of allowing silicone implants back on the market in 2006.

[…]

Read the full article here

Tests for COVID-19: Has the FDA said yes too many times?

By Robert M. Kaplan and Diana Zuckerman, The Hill Opinion Contributors, May 6, 2020


There are many controversies about the coronavirus, but there is one point of consensus: We need testing, testing, and then more testing. But yesterday, in response to criticisms from chairs of two House health subcommittees, the FDA tightened their standards for antibody tests intended to identify people who were previously exposed to the coronavirus. Why?

Typically, the FDA approves tests based on evidence of accuracy. But, under the urgency of the pandemic, the FDA temporarily lifted the requirement that tests be validated before they are marketed. Until the new policy was announced, it was not clear when or if the FDA would review the accuracy of each test.

The FDA website shows that, to date, the FDA has temporarily approved coronavirus testing for 84 different labs and companies. There were 14 new approvals in the last week alone and more than 400 more applications are waiting for FDA’s review. Unfortunately, none of the tests currently available – not the 84 and not the other 400 — have a record of proven accuracy that can be independently verified.

[….]

What happens when hundreds of unvalidated tests flood the market? Monitoring a pandemic requires accurate, consistent information. With so many tests, we can’t know when cases are peaking, stabilizing, or decreasing in different communities — and therefore, when it is possible to loosen restrictions on social distancing.

Read the article here https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/496403-tests-for-covid-19-has-the-fda-said-yes-too-many-times

Coronavirus Relief Act Gives Drug Makers New Sway Over FDA

By David S. Hilzenrath, Project on Government Oversight:


Last year, based on growing concerns about the safety of certain sunscreens, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a plan of action.

It proposed concluding that, for two sunscreen ingredients, the risks outweigh the benefits, and it proposed declaring that there was insufficient data to support the safety of a dozen others—for example, one that has shown up in blood plasma, amniotic fluid, urine, and breast milk.

It proposed restricting properties of spray sunscreens to reduce the risk of inhaling them and suffering lung disease, and it proposed requiring that many sunscreens meet a stricter standard for protection against ultraviolet radiation.

It said it wanted to eliminate “potential confusion permitted by the current labeling regime,” under which a product labeled with a higher sun protection factor or SPF can provide “inferior protection” than one with a lower SPF because it filters a narrower spectrum of ultraviolet radiation.

The FDA’s proposal was apparently derailed by the coronavirus.

More specifically, by part of Congress’s response to the pandemic: the economic relief legislation known as the CARES Act, passed in late March.

While Americans were focused on a deadly plague and its devastating fallout, Congress fundamentally altered FDA oversight of thousands of drugstore items.

Little-noticed provisions of the CARES Act gave manufacturers new sway over the consumer protection agency and streamlined the process by which the FDA makes decisions about so-called over-the-counter or OTC drugs—products marketed for personal health and sold without a prescription.

[…]

“User Fees”

[…]

While the CARES Act requires the FDA to negotiate with industry, it requires the agency to “consult” with others, such as “representatives of patient and consumer advocacy groups.” In the realm of prescription drugs, the so-called patient advocacy groups the FDA consulted the last time user fees came up for renewal generally had ties to the pharmaceutical industry, POGO’s 2016 “Drug Money” investigation found.

The FDA and manufacturers have for years been laying the groundwork for adoption of user fees for over-the-counter products. In 2016 and 2017, they held a series of meetings on the subject. Industry participants included Procter & Gamble, Bayer, Sanofi, Johnson & Johnson, and a trade association, the Consumer Healthcare Products Association.

The plan the FDA and industry developed set out “performance goals” for the agency to meet under an anticipated user fee regime, including what the document describes as “substantially shortened timeframes” for the FDA to act on requests from manufacturers of over-the-counter drugs.

“This goals document represents the product of FDA’s discussions with the regulated Industry, and consideration of input by public stakeholders,” the document, called a “commitment letter,” says.

The performance goals “are important for facilitating timely access to safe and effective medicines,” the document says.

The plan the FDA and industry developed was contingent on action by Congress. Now that Congress has acted, the FDA plans to follow the performance goals in that document, FDA spokesman Charlie Kohler said in an email to POGO.

Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, said the commitment letter “does not seem appropriate.”

“Performance goals should include at least as much attention regarding evidence of safety or effectiveness as it does to the issues that industry cares the most about,” Zuckerman said by email.

Historically, industries have embraced user fees as a means of reducing regulatory delays. For Congress, getting companies to pay for regulators’ salaries has been an easier pill to swallow than spending taxpayer dollars or adding to federal budget deficits.

The new user fees will enable the FDA to increase its budget and staffing for overseeing nonprescription drugs.

In the 2016 slide presentation, the FDA said it was spending just $8.2 million a year and had the equivalent of only about 30 full-time employees to oversee “hundreds of thousands of products consumed – in many cases, on a daily basis – by millions of Americans.”

The FDA compared the $8.2 million to what it said was the $8 million cost of producing “the ‘Blackwater’ episode of the hit TV series Game of Thrones.”

According to the industry’s Consumer Healthcare Products Association, over a five-year period, the user fee program will generate more than $130 million in fee revenue for the FDA.

 

[…]

Read the full article here

FDA considers black box warning for all breast implants

Mariel Carbone, WCPO Cincinnati: February 09, 2020


Although many other survivors choose implants after their mastectomies, [Lily McBreen is] adamant that she won’t. Having almost lost her life once, she’s worried the side effects of receiving breast implants could endanger it again.

[…]

“I wanted to avoid the rheumatological symptoms that have been out in the news for so many decades,” she said. “There has been so many accounts of women complaining of problems with them.”

Those symptoms, which women are calling “breast implant illness,” are among the many reasons the United States Food and Drug Administration could soon take extreme measures when it comes to educating the public about implants.

[…]

Currently, the black box warning exists only as a draft while the FDA continues to consider its implementation.

The draft warning outlines three main concerns.

First, “breast implants are not considered life time devices” and women may require more surgery if complications occur.

It also states that implants have been associated with BIA-ALCL.

[…]

Finally, it describes how some patients have reported a variety of symptoms, including “joint paint, muscle aches, confusion, chronic fatigue, autoimmune disease and others.”

The FDA is also proposing a patient decision checklist, which would include situations in which the device should not be used, considerations for a successful breast implant candidate, risks of surgery, the importance of using an appropriate physician, the risk of BIA-ALCL and other symptoms and discussion of other options.

Still, some have said these proposals don’t go far enough, including Diana Zuckerman who is President of the National Center for Health Research. The center initiated the Breast Implant Working Group, which is made up of six experts including patient advocates and plastic surgeons.

“The FDA’s draft Black Box warning is too vaguely worded on BIA-ALCL and breast implant illness, and includes jargon that will not be understood by all patients,” the working group said in a statement. “The FDA draft Black Box states that ‘breast implants have been associated with the development of a cancer of the immune system called breast implant-associated anaplastic large cell lymphoma (BIA-ALCL).’ Association implies correlation rather than causation. In fact, the evidence is clear that breast implants can cause BIA-ALCL.”

Read the original story here.