The US Food and Drug Administration's decision to refuse to approve over the counter status for the emergency contraceptive Plan B (levonorgestrel) was flawed, unusual, and not standard FDA procedure. This is finding of a report by the Government Accountability Office, an independent investigative agency of the US Congress.
Two FDA officials resigned in protest over the denial (BMJ 2005;331: 532, 861).
Forty eight senators and representatives had asked the accountability office to investigate why the FDA had rejected over the counter status for Plan B (BMJ 2005;328: 1219).
Plan B was approved for use by prescription in 1999. In April 2003, the manufacturer, Barr, applied to the FDA for over the counter status. The application was reviewed by several FDA offices and by two independent FDA advisory committees. The advisory committees voted 23 to four in favour of over the counter status, and the FDA's staff recommended approval.
But Steven Galson, then acting head of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (and now head) rejected the application, saying that women aged under 16 might not understand the instructions.
Barr then applied for over the counter use by older women and prescription only use for those 16 or younger. Instead, the FDA called for a period of public comment, which has just ended, and said that it would make a decision later (BMJ 2005;331: 596).
The accountability office's report said that high level FDA management was more involved in considering over the counter status of Plan B than of other drugs being switched from prescription to over the counter, it said.
Planned Parenthood said that Plan B was the only drug denied a switch to over the counter use after advisory committees recommended approval. Also, there were no age restrictions on other FDA approved prescription or over the counter contraceptives.
Footnotes
-
Longer versions of these articles are on bmj.comDecision Process to Deny Application for over the Counter Marketing of the Emergency Contraceptive Drug Plan B Was Unusual, is available at www.gao.gov/new.items/d06109.pdf.
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: How much of a social media profile can doctors have?
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Diagnosis and management of Raynaud’s phenomenon
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Is it unethical for doctors to encourage healthy adults to donate a kidney to a stranger? No
Published 13 February 2012
Re: Report predicts 20 million AIDS orphans in Africa by 2010
Published 13 February 2012
Re: On the impossibility of being expert
Published 13 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (8 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
How much of a social media profile can doctors have? (7 responses)
Published 23 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012