FDA Will Require Only 1 Study to Approve New Drugs, Speeding Up Process

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
FDA Commissioner Martin Makary, MD, MPH, and his top deputy Vinay Prasad, MD, MPH, announced in a commentary published in The New England Journal of Medicine that the FDA will revamp its method of approving drugs for use in the US.1 The commentary announced that the agency’s historic reliance on 2 clinical trials will end, with only 1 pivotal trial needed for a drug to be approved for use nationwide.

“Going forward, the FDA’s default position is that 1 adequate and well-controlled study, combined with confirmatory evidence, will serve as the basis of marketing authorization of novel products,” the FDA officials wrote in their commentary.
The FDA had previously worked under guidelines stating that “adequate and well-controlled investigations” were needed before a drug could be approved for widespread use, which were interpreted as generally requiring 2 clinical investigations.2 These guidelines had been in place since 1998, with only supplementary guidance published in 2019 and 2023. The newly announced shift marks the first substantial change in the methods of FDA approvals since the FDA obtained the authority to grant marketing authorizations.1

Makary and Prasad noted that these guidelines had been flexible in the past—specifically in oncology, where 1 study was often enough for a drug approval—but were confusing to drug manufacturers seeking to understand when only 1 trial would be acceptable. Moving forward, the default of using only 1 trial to grant a drug approval should clear up questions surrounding the necessary number of trials.

“The FDA’s historical reliance on 2 clinical trials rather than 1 was intended to provide credible causal evidence that a therapy could improve clinical outcomes with acceptable safety in a world where biologic understanding was more limited than it is today,” the FDA officials wrote. “Two trials should be seen as just 1 of many interlocking facets of clinical credibility, and in 2026 there are powerful alternative ways to feel assured that our products help people live longer or better than requiring manufacturers to test them yet again.”

This move is another step in Makary’s attempts to shorten FDA reviews, which started when he began his tenure last year.3These include mandating the use of artificial intelligence for staffers and offering new medications a 1-month drug assessment if the FDA believes that the drug serves a national interest.

About 60% of first-of-a-kind drugs have been approved based on a single study in the past 5 years due to legislative initiatives that encouraged flexibility in reviewing drugs for conditions that were hard to treat. The drugs more likely to be affected by this new standard are for common diseases rather than those for rare diseases or cancers, which were already more often receiving approval based on a single trial.

This announcement comes a day after the FDA announced that it will now reviewModerna’s seasonal mRNA flu vaccine application, which it had previously refused to look at due to perceived safety and efficacy concerns.4 The increased scrutiny of vaccines presents a contrast to the newly streamlined default standard for FDA approvals.

References
  1. Prasad V, Makary MA. One pivotal trial, the new default option for FDA approval—ending the two-trial dogma. N Engl J Med. 2026;394(8):815-817. doi:10.1056/NEJMsb2517623
  2. Demonstrating substantial evidence of effectiveness with one adequate and well-controlled clinical investigation and confirmatory evidence. FDA. Updated November 30, 2023. Accessed February 19, 2026. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-info...ess-one-adequate-and-well-controlled-clinical
  3. Perrone M. FDA will drop two-study requirement for new drug approvals, aiming to speed access. AP News. Updated February 18, 2026. Accessed February 19, 2026. https://apnews.com/article/fda-drug-approval-studies-makary-prasad-a5aaa5501ae15f264bbd20d0dffa4dc4
  4. Steinzor P. FDA reverses course, will review Moderna’s mRNA flu vaccine. AJMC®. February 18, 2026. Accessed February 19, 2026. https://www.ajmc.com/view/fda-reverses-course-will-review-moderna-s-mrna-flu-vaccine
Archive link (https://archive.ph/Cug2d
 
Last edited:
No images as they were just the generic stock photos of the fda sign.
Important to note that this is already happening - about 60% of approvals of first use type stuff is done on single pivotal trials.
It still feels like another nail in the coffin of reproducibility, and rushing drugs through. They want ‘well controlled and adequately run’ trials but that’s vague.
There’s a huge push to reduce drug development costs, amd timelines, which are colossal, and there’s a revolving door of execs at the too between pharma, the fda/ regulators and military as well. This is not a good thing. I want the regulators to be independent, utterly autistic, and focused solely on safety. Time itself is also a huge factor in proving safety or exposing risks, and we dispose of it at our peril.
Tucked away at the end there they’re going to look at the Moderna mRNA flu vaccine again after refusing to even consider it, after making them run another trial in older people.
It’ll be interesting to see if other regulators like the EMEA and the MHRA Cave and do this too.
 
those clinical trials are all bought and paid for by the same pharma companies the are trying to get the drugs approved
doesn't make a big difference whether you do 1 or 10 of them

the real needed change would be to disentangle academic and clinical research in the medical fields from pharma funding and influence, but that's easier said than done because this research is horrendously expensive. if it wasn't for the big pharma money faucet most of it just couldn't get done at all.
 
This sounds like a terrible idea. Dear god, they want to give approval to things that may be a false positive and we don't know until years later? Someone get the book out on human experimentation and ethic laws and throw it at these two.
 
Does this mean that genetically modified gum bacteria that renders you incapable of getting cavities will finally actually get approved instead of being sold as a "supplement" (that permanently replaces your mouth flora by outcompeting the natural bacteria that can cause tooth decay)?
 
the real needed change would be to disentangle academic and medical research in the medical fields from pharma funding and influence, but that's easier said than done because this research is horrendously expensive. if it wasn't for the big pharma money faucet most of it just couldn't get done at all.
They are paid for by pharma, but most are run by CRO (contract research organisations) who get paid whether it works or not. It’s fairly hard to outright fake the data with a CRO in the picture.
The problems are mainly not releasing negative data, and initial setup biasing the dataset. Both of those are big issues. The latter is what the regulators should be very good at picking up. But that’s very dependent on who you get reviewing it. The former can be resolved with legislation - it should’ve compulsory to deposit all trial data, fully anonymised ofc, into a repository.
 
They are paid for by pharma, but most are run by CRO (contract research organisations) who get paid whether it works or not. It’s fairly hard to outright fake the data with a CRO in the picture.
The problems are mainly not releasing negative data, and initial setup biasing the dataset. Both of those are big issues. The latter is what the regulators should be very good at picking up. But that’s very dependent on who you get reviewing it. The former can be resolved with legislation - it should’ve compulsory to deposit all trial data, fully anonymised ofc, into a repository.
yes it's not blatant textbook corruption a la "hey mister professor, give us a nice study and we'll put a million dollars in your cayman islands bank account"
it's much more subtle and deeper, and starts very early. like, if you're a young would-be research scientist (phd student or postdoc) you need to publish impressive stuff to get recognition/clout, and it just so happens that all the cool and impressive research opportunities involve working at (or with) some big pharma company. you want to get ahead in the field, you better start making friends with those guys as soon as possible, and build close relationships.
if you do it they'll fly you out to lots of fancy events and conferences and throw their weight (including the weight of all the big thought leaders in the field that are aligned with them) behind your work and publications to make you a rising star in the field. if you don't, your career stalls and you're headed for mediocrity and obscurity.

if you work and live within that environment for years, decades even, it just becomes second nature to go along with it. you have to be a big idealist with a really disagreeable and contrarian personality to rock this boat. not many people are like that, and the few who are rarely get very far, because the system filters them out and sidelines them early on.
 
I get not fucking about in testing forever, but this seems like its just being retarded in a different direction.
 
This seems like an incredibly terrible idea that will only lead to the standards for these trials sinking even lower as pharma companies and slimy disgusting people like Vivek push more and more drugs through to make money at the cost of everyones health.
 
it's much more subtle and deeper, and starts very early. like, if you're a young would-be research scientist (phd student or postdoc) you need to publish impressive stuff to get recognition/clout, and it just so happens that all the cool and impressive research opportunities involve working at (or with) some big pharma company. you want to get ahead in the field, you better start making friends with those guys as soon as possible, and build close relationships.
This is the key. You also have to realize this sort of thing applies to other kinds of sciences, especially if there is a political angle. Gotta please the peer reviewers who lean a certain way!
 
I don't see the issue with it since if you can fake 1 trial, you can fake 2 trials. And while big pharma is undoubtedly evil, research for new drugs is expensive as hell and fast tracking will reduce costs for the people who need the drugs and make it available faster.

It's easy to say that you won't take new drugs, but if you are unfortunate enough to need them then you'd appreciate reduced bureaucracy.
 
It’s not really reduced paperwork, it’s just reduced time, and reduced reproducibility.
Something just occurred to me; what if the "1 adequate and well-controlled study, combined with confirmatory evidence" is all handled through AI used to run simulations? As long as the system used is deemed reputable enough (say, through a few throwaway and heavily curated trials), the turnaround time from initial proposal to products appearing on the market could be measured in a manner of weeks (or even days, if the crisis faced is serious enough).
 
Back
Top Bottom