Academic Involvement: A Treatment for Regulatory Fatigue.

L. Schultheis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1213/ANE.0000000000000816

2015-08-01

Abstract:August 2015 • Volume 121 • Number 2 www.anesthesia-analgesia.org 255 Copyright © 2015 International Anesthesia Research Society DOI: 10.1213/ANE.0000000000000816 In this issue of Anesthesia & Analgesia, Morey et al. 1 suggest that regulatory mechanisms are not aligned with patient care in their Special Article entitled “Joint Commission and Regulatory Fatigue/Weakness/Overabundance/ Distraction: Clinical Context Matters.” They suggest that overregulation or poor regulation interferes with health care provider activity to the detriment of their patients’ welfare. The authors further recommend that regulatory decisions should use a new stepwise scale representing standardsof-evidence. To address these concerns, I will examine the foundational authority for regulatory agencies, their fundamental limitations, and how regulatory bodies function, paying particular attention to how they do or do not remain linked to the realities of clinical practice. In addition, I will consider the recommendations of Morey et al. and suggest additional measures that may have a more timely impact. Morey et al. discuss 4 authorities: the US Pharmacopeial Convention (USP), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Joint Commission (JC), and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), each with complementary roles in health care regulation. The USP and JC are private, nonprofit, industry standards organizations that define benchmarks of quality and performance. The USP consolidates expert opinions regarding pharmaceutical quality, substance definition, and characterization.a The JC is one of the several accrediting organizations established to define consistent standards of clinical care to ensure quality.b Compliance with industry standards developed by organizations such as JC does not imply delivery of the highest quality of clinical care, but rather serves as a floor, beneath which performance may suffer. The role of industry standards has been recognized by the CMS and FDA.2,3 Congress empowered the FDA to regulate medical products that travel in interstate commerce.4 The FDA was intended to represent patient interests by preventing incidents where legally marketed medical products proved to be unsafe. In the 1962 Kefauver-Harris Amendment to the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, Congress determined that a lack of scientifically demonstrated clinical benefit also implied that a drug was inherently unsafe.5 The FDA has the responsibility to conduct unbiased premarket review of medical products using scientific evidence presented by the product sponsors. Methodological changes to the Act are made by Congressional Amendments or through administrative law (“regulations”) written by the staff of the Federal Executive Branch of government.6 The CMS was established in 1961 to conduct an independent review of medical products to determine the value of compensation for legally marketed products paid by Medicare or Medicaid.7 Ideally, clinical aspects of a new medical product are reviewed in detail by FDA physicians with substantial practical experience in the use of the same types of products. However, the FDA does not always have a subject matter expert for every medical specialty. Furthermore, physician reviewers at the FDA are not required to maintain clinical competence in their specialty, although they have the option to do so. Moreover, a regulatory decision maker is typically not the subject matter expert for the product under review and may not even be a clinician. This sometimes results in a different conclusion with respect to safety and clinical benefit than that reached by clinician specialists. In my opinion, this is the main reason regulatory decisions are sometimes out of alignment with the perspective of physicians who use a regulated medical product. Outside expertise is sometimes enlisted to advise FDA decisions. However, these recommendations are not binding and may not be followed if they conflict with precedent decisions. Therefore, outside experts need to be well informed of FDA legal constraints and understand the regulation of medical products. For outside experts to participate in regulatory review, they must distinguish between the various levels of evidence needed by the FDA. Approval of drugs is based on a different standard than medical devices because the uncertainty of devices is readily assessed using standard engineering principles, whereas the uncertainty of drugs is far more complex because of the potential for unexpected biological interactions. Therefore, novel devices are inherently more predictable than novel drugs. New drugs are Academic Involvement: A Treatment for Regulatory Fatigue