FDA names former pharmaceutical company executive to oversee US drug program
FDA Commissioner Marty Makary
announced that Dr. George Tidmarsh, a cancer and pediatric specialist, will direct the agency's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, which regulates the safety and effectiveness of all U.S. drugs.
His appointment comes a month after the center's acting director, Dr. Jacqueline Corrigan-Curay, announced her retirement.
As the agency's top drug regulator, Tidmarsh will be charged with following through on a number of
commitments made by Makary
and his boss, Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., including reviewing the
safety of the abortion pill mifepristone
. The FDA is also scrutinizing certain uses of other long-established drugs, including antidepressants and hormone-replacement drugs for menopause.
Tidmarsh founded and led several pharmaceutical companies, including Horizon Pharmaceuticals, maker of an anti-inflammatory medication for arthritis. He has also served as an adjunct professor at Stanford University.
The FDA's drug center is the agency's largest unit, with nearly 6,000 staffers responsible for reviewing the safety and effectiveness of new drugs and monitoring the use and marketing of older drugs.
About 2,000 FDA staffers have been laid off as part of widescale
cuts to the federal health workforce overseen by Kennedy
. More than 1,000 others have taken buyouts or early retirement, while many others are reportedly searching for new jobs. The departures have threatened basic FDA operations, including the timely review of new drugs.
FDA's drug center hasn't had a permanent director since January, when Dr. Patrizia Cavazzoni stepped down days before President Donald Trump took office.
Nearly all of the FDA's senior leadership positions have turned over in recent months, either due to retirements, resignations or actions by administration officials placing them on administrative leave.
FDA center directors typically hold their positions for years or even decades, serving across multiple administrations, whether Republican or Democrat.
In May, Makary named Dr. Vinay Prasad, a prominent
critic of the FDA's COVID response
, to run the agency's vaccine center. He was also named to the post of FDA chief medical officer. Prasad joined the agency after his predecessor, longtime vaccine chief Dr. Peter Marks,
was forced out in March
.
The
head of FDA's tobacco center was also forced to step down
in April. A permanent replacement has not yet been named.
___
The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute's Department of Science Education and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
8 minutes ago
- The Hill
The FDA must be modernized for the era of personalized medicine
A baby named KJ was born in Philadelphia with an ultra-rare metabolic disorder that, under normal circumstances, would have required an organ transplant or been fatal. Instead, doctors sequenced KJ's genome and identified a unique mutation. Within six months, they designed and delivered a personalized CRISPR-based therapy — resulting in the first patient to be cured by a bespoke gene-editing treatment. A few years earlier, a young girl in Boston named Mila suffered from a fatal neurodegenerative disease. In just 10 months, a team of doctors designed, developed and synthesized a one-of-a-kind drug just for her, this time using an antisense oligonucleotide therapy that slowed the progression of her disease. These are more than medical miracles. They are proof that it is now possible to tailor medicines to a single person's genetic code. What is missing is a regulatory framework to scale these one-off breakthroughs into a new standard of care. Globally, more than 50 million children suffer from rare genetic diseases — and nearly one in five will die before the age of five. Even children with the same diagnosis can carry different genetic mutations, meaning a one-size-fits-all drug may be ineffective or impossible to make. The problem is our healthcare system isn't designed or incentivized to develop drugs for individual patients. The good news is that science and technology have caught up. We can now sequence a genome for under $100. Artificial intelligence models can design mutation-specific therapies in days and RNA-based treatments can be manufactured in weeks. Operation Warp Speed showed our ability to distribute advanced therapies at scale. And with wearables and digital health tools, we can monitor children's physiological response in real-time, both before and after treatment. The FDA's current approval framework is nearly a century old. It was originally designed to regulate mass-produced drugs for large populations. While there have been reforms since then, most have been incremental and tailored to conventional pharmaceutical development. The current process treats personalized medicines — especially 'N-of-1' therapies — as individual research trials. This approach is time-consuming, expensive and not scalable for the millions of patients who could benefit. Rare disease doesn't just affect patients, it drains families and their communities. Parents leave the workforce to become full-time caregivers. Families travel across the country for access to specialists. Experimental treatments, hospital stays, lost wages and uncovered expenses can bankrupt a family before a diagnosis is even confirmed. In many cases, the child's condition continues to deteriorate while waiting for a diagnosis or cure. The cumulative damage is incalculable. Thanks to advances in genomics, AI, synthetic biology and preclinical testing, personalized therapies are becoming more cost-effective and scalable. For example, the FDA's recent roadmap to phase out mandatory animal testing opens the door to validating therapies using artificial organs or a patient's own cells — improving safety while cutting time and cost. America remains a global leader in the core breakthroughs that made Mila and KJ's treatments possible — from CRISPR gene editing to large language models trained on protein and RNA structures. But that lead is fragile. The FDA has taken steps in the right direction, including establishing a pathway for personalized CAR-T therapies and issuing draft guidance for ASO drugs. But guidance isn't enough. We need a dedicated framework that clarifies the rules, requirements and incentives for those building personalized therapeutics. Without it, researchers and companies will hesitate to invest time and resources into what feels like regulatory guesswork. As the FDA and the Department of Health and Human Services undergo what appear to be structural changes, this is a rare window to modernize regulation and secure America's position at the forefront of next-generation medicine. To turn personalized therapies into a new standard of care, the FDA can take a number of key steps. The agency should create a new regulatory pathway for bespoke therapeutics. N-of-1 drugs can't be evaluated using the traditional Phase 1-2-3 frameworks. We need an entirely new process-oriented framework that considers families, physicians, payers, regulators and industry alike. The FDA should establish a dedicated oversight body. A centralized group within the agency should review personalized therapeutics, set transparent safety and ethics standards and ensure rigorous tracking of outcomes. This will build consistency, speed and public trust. The agency should enable sustainable funding and reimbursement. Cost no longer needs to be the barrier. Clear regulatory rules will unlock investment, while reimbursement frameworks will ensure payers can cover these treatments responsibly. Absent this, safe and effective therapies may never reach patients. Every week matters for a child with a rare, degenerative condition. Acting now can turn scientific breakthroughs into a public health reality. If we wait, we risk letting outdated regulation stall progress — and watching the rest of the world move forward without us. The tools are here. The science is ready. All that's missing is a regulatory system built for the future of medicine that doesn't treat individualized care as an exception, but as the new standard. Nessan Bermingham is an operating partner at Khosla Ventures, where he invests in genetic medicines and AI drug discovery and development. He is also the founding CEO of Intellia Therapeutics, the founder and chairman of Korro Bio, and a board member of EveryONE Medicines.
Forbes
39 minutes ago
- Forbes
InnovationRx: Sarepta Blinks In Showdown With FDA
In this week's edition of InnovationRx, we look at Sarepta's showdown with the FDA, Moderna's use of quantum computers, a new top drug regulator at the FDA, ARCH Venture's latest biotech company, and more. To get it in your inbox, subscribe here . Sarepta Therapeutics CEO Douglas Ingram Bloomberg Finance U sually when the FDA asks a drugmaker to halt distribution of a treatment, the company complies. Last week, in a remarkable showdown, Sarepta Therapeutics refused to stop distribution of Elevidys, its therapy for the muscle-wasting disease Duchenne muscular dystrophy as the FDA had requested. Then, in a remarkable reversal, on Monday Sarepta blinked and said that it would indeed pause all shipments of Elevidys by Tuesday evening. The latest twist in the saga followed a decision by Children's Hospital Los Angeles to halt use of the drug while it was facing regulatory uncertainty. Elevidys is a gene therapy for Duchenne, a particularly severe form of muscular dystrophy, which typically kills patients before they turn 30. The one-time intravenous infusion was first approved in 2023 in an unusual decision that was made unilaterally by Peter Marks, a top FDA official, despite misgivings of his staff. Last Friday evening, the FDA had requested that Cambridge, Mass.-based Sarepta voluntarily stop all shipments of the drug, citing the deaths of three patients who had taken Elevidys or a similar drug (that's in early-stage clinical trials) from liver failure. Later that evening, Sarepta responded that it would continue to ship Elevidys for patients who do not use wheelchairs (who are generally younger and healthier), citing its own analysis that there were no new safety problems in these patients. It had already voluntarily halted sales to patients who use wheelchairs. The face-off between Sarepta and the FDA comes at a time when investment in gene therapy has slowed, and as Sarepta itself has laid off hundreds of employees. Sarepta's stock is down nearly 40% since last Thursday's close. It's unclear how long the 'pause' might last. The company is working on an enhanced immune-suppressing protocol that could reduce liver toxicity, but a senior FDA official told Stat yesterday that the drug faces an 'arduous and treacherous path' back to the market. Whatever ultimately happens, the ongoing saga highlights the questions about what risks are acceptable for patients with diseases that are fatal at a young age and how the potential for treatment should be balanced against the possibility of death from the therapy itself. Moderna M essenger RNA (or mRNA) is a hugely promising technology for future vaccines and therapies, as was demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic. One of its major advantages is that it provides instructions for the body itself to manufacture the medicine it needs, rather than delivering it. But developing new treatments is challenging, Wade Davis, vice president of computational science at Moderna (best known for developing those COVID vaccines), told Forbes . That's in part because of the fragile nature of mRNA–its primary function is serving as a temporary set of instructions for cellular machinery, so it doesn't stick around long. But for the purposes of medicine, it needs to be optimized so that it's both durable enough to provide an efficacious dose, but still transient enough to minimize potential side effects. The potential combinations are mind boggling. For example, there are 10^623 different ways to combine nucleotides in mRNA to encode for the same protein as the company's COVID vaccine, Davis said. To put that in perspective, 'there's only 10^80 particles in the universe,' he said. 'The numbers just go crazy.' Conventional computers, even supercomputers using the best AI algorithms, struggle with this sort of problem, he said. For one, because mRNA is so fragile, there aren't a lot of known structures that an AI program could be trained on. And when it comes to optimization of structures, the numbers are so large that it's difficult to scale, forcing chemists to rely on rules of thumb and oversimplifying the data to try and find solutions. Moderna has found one solution: quantum computing. It recently partnered with IBM to use its quantum hardware to optimize mRNA structures. Quantum computers are uniquely suited to solving large scale optimization problems like this, because they can search and compute potential solutions in parallel. By contrast conventional computers have to calculate everything in sequence, which goes ever slower the bigger the problem gets. Using IBM's quantum computers, Moderna was able to predict a 60-nucleotide sequence of mRNA. The previous record was only eight. While that's still a long way from the sequence lengths, comprising thousands of nucleotides, that biotech companies will need, it shows a potential new way to find new mRNA therapies. More importantly, it could lead to breakthroughs that might have never been discovered with conventional approaches. With quantum algorithms, Davis said, 'you get into the space of possibilities in a different way than some of the classical approaches.' BIOTECH AND PHARMA CAR-T cell therapy has been a life-saving treatment for patients with cancers like leukemia or lymphoma, with many going into remission. But the therapy so far has been less successful on solid tumors, which comprise most cancers. Dispatch Bio aims to change that: The three year-old company emerged from stealth today with $216 million in funding led by Midas Lister Bob Nelsen's ARCH Venture Partners and the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy. One reason it's challenging to treat solid cancers with CAR-T therapy is that it's more difficult for the cells to identify their targets, Dispatch Bio CEO Sabah Oney told Forbes . To get around this, Dispatch has developed a viral vector that targets cancer cells and then 'tags' them with a protein that the T-cells can use to attack the cancer. The virus uses the cancer cells' own replication system to make copies of itself, making it difficult for the cancer to develop a resistance to it. Because this mechanism is different in healthy cells, the risk is lower that the therapy would attack them. So far, the Philadelphia-based company has tested its therapy in both human cells in the lab and in animals, Oney said. It plans to start clinical trials in 2026, but is still working out what indication it will go after first. 'Ultimately, we have plans to be able to scale this approach so we can get to millions and millions of patients because that's the broad potential of this platform,' he said. 'We can do lung cancer, breast cancer, colon cancer with the same drug.' Plus : AstraZeneca plans to invest $50 billion in U.S. drug development and manufacturing by 2030 as pharma companies look for ways to deal with Trump's tariffs. DIGITAL HEALTH AND AI Mental healthcare startup Slingshot AI launched an AI-powered chatbot to provide support for those dealing with mental health issues. It simultaneously raised $53 million in venture funding led by Forerunner Ventures and Radical Ventures, bringing total funding to $93 million, at an undisclosed valuation. The chatbot, called Ash, has been beta tested with more than 50,000 patients. Plus : Aidoc, which has developed FDA-cleared algorithms for use by radiologists, raised $150 million led by General Catalyst and Square Peg at an undisclosed valuation. PUBLIC HEALTH AND HOSPITALS The FDA has named George Tidmarsh, a pediatric oncologist and pharma company veteran, as its top drug regulator, director of its Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. He will replace Jacqueline Corrigan-Curay, who has been serving in the role in an acting capacity after the departure of former director Patrizia Cavazzoni in January. Tidmarsh has led teams that have developed seven FDA-approved drugs and has served as CEO of several pharmaceutical companies in addition to being an adjunct professor at the Stanford School of Medicine. He takes over as the FDA has faced substantial upheaval under HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. WHAT WE'RE READING How a push for increased organ donation led to people enduring rushed or premature attempts to remove their organs. Wellness startup Truemed, cofounded by RFK Jr. aide Calley Means, helps people buy Peloton bikes and $9,000 saunas with tax-free funds set aside for healthcare. Bankrupt hospital system Steward Health sued its former CEO claiming he conducted insider transactions that drained its assets and led to its collapse. AI companies, including OpenAI, Grok and others have stopped warning users that their chatbots aren't doctors. Life sciences investment firm Omega Funds has raised $647 million for its eighth fund. Researchers figured out a way to deliver a vaccine using dental floss, which has so far been successfully tested on mice. Former Citigroup chair Sandy Weill gave $100 million to harness AI for a West Coast cancer hub. MORE FROM FORBES Forbes Vibe Coding Turned This Swedish AI Unicorn Into The Fastest Growing Software Startup Ever By Iain Martin Forbes Why JPMorgan Is Hitting Fintechs With Stunning New Fees For Data Access By Jeff Kauflin Forbes Go Back To The Office, But Bring Your Own Snacks. Blame Congress. By Kelly Phillips Erb
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Talc Is Suddenly in the Spotlight. Is it Bad for You?
Credit - Photo-Illustration by TIME (Source Images: Liudmila Chernetska—Getty Images, LanaSweet/Getty Images) Federal health officials are scrutinizing a mineral—added to some makeup, medications, and foods—that many people have never thought twice about: talc. In a recent viewpoint article called 'Priorities for a New FDA,' published in the medical journal JAMA, Dr. Martin Makary, commissioner of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Dr. Vinay Prasad, the FDA's Chief Medical and Scientific Officer, wrote that the FDA conducted an expert panel on talc in May. They also noted that some companies have removed talc from baby powder because it's a carcinogen. Johnson & Johnson, for example, stopped using talc in 2023 following more than 60,000 legal claims from ovarian cancer patients. The JAMA article added that talc remains common, since people still 'ingest it regularly' as an ingredient in various medications and foods. Despite the lawsuits, though, research hasn't confirmed whether talc causes cancer, especially when consumed through food. Meanwhile, companies continue to use talc in powders and cosmetics. Here's how people get exposed to talc, the potential health risks, and what to do about them. Talc and asbestos A naturally occurring mineral, talc consists of several elements like magnesium and silicon. When ground into fine particles, talc becomes talcum powder, which works to absorb moisture and soothe the skin. People have used cosmetics and powders with talc for more than a century. Before talc is mined by companies from deep within the earth, it mixes with another mineral, asbestos. This often results in talc's contamination with asbestos, which is proven to cause cancer. Talc, when laced with asbestos, is a carcinogen, especially when it's inhaled. Less clear is the cancer-causing potential of talc when it's not contaminated. In theory, talc on its own could drive cancer because its particles create inflammation when inhaled or migrating into the body after talc is applied to skin, according to Joellen Schildkraut, professor of epidemiology at Emory University. 'Inflammation can promote cancer,' Schildkraut says. 'Many studies have shown an association.' Some research shows that asbestos-free talc leads to tumors in animals, but animals reveal little about ovarian cancer in humans, Schildkraut says. Read More: The Race to Explain Why More Young Adults Are Getting Cancer Regardless, it's impossible for consumers to learn if products with talc are contaminated. Since the 1970s, companies have tested talc voluntarily, but the methods aren't sensitive enough to detect asbestos in their products—and the FDA doesn't require proof that they're asbestos-free. 'This means a lot of contaminated talc likely went through without anybody detecting the asbestos,' Schildkraut says. Using better tests, researchers have spot-checked whether cosmetics are asbestos-laced. From 1948 to 2017, two-thirds of these tests (conducted as part of litigation) came up positive for asbestos, typically in trace amounts. In 2020, the nonprofit Environmental Working Group found asbestos contaminated 15% of makeup samples with talc. In 2023, the FDA detected no asbestos in 50 talc-containing cosmetics. (The agency didn't reply to TIME's request for comment.) However, conclusions can't be drawn about the entire market from these checks because they involved small sample sizes, says Kaley Beins, a senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group. Later this year, the FDA is expected to finalize a new rule aimed at improving companies' testing methods. Ovarian cancer risk Some data show links between cancer of the ovaries and a specific type of talc exposure: the use of baby powder in intimate areas for personal hygiene. But the findings have been mixed. In a June letter to Makary, several talc researchers—some with ties to companies that make products with talc—criticized the recent FDA roundtable on talc's health impacts. The roundtable discussions, the authors wrote, were skewed because they 'included several paid plaintiff-side experts in talc-related litigation' without any defense-side experts. The letter says that studies involving several different groups of women have found only very weak associations with ovarian cancer. Schildkraut—an expert participant in the May roundtable without any ties to the lawsuits—notes that some of these studies involved relatively few women diagnosed with ovarian cancer. It's possible there simply wasn't enough data to yield stronger evidence. However, in 2020, scientists pooled together data from groups studied previously and still found no significant link. Read More: Scientists Are Finding Out Just How Toxic Your Stuff Is An important factor is that 'people may not be good at reporting their personal talc use,' says Katie O'Brien, a staff scientist at the National Institute of Environmental Health Studies and lead author of the 2020 research. In another study last year, she tried to correct for reporting errors while reanalyzing data from over 50,000 women and found that frequent users of talcum powder did have higher risk of ovarian cancer. 'This type of research doesn't determine causation,' says Schildkraut, who emphasized the same point during the public roundtable. 'But we do see a consistent relationship.' The self-report issue noted by O'Brien could extend to powder use for babies. 'People may not know whether baby powder was used on them,' O'Brien explains. Meanwhile, some laboratory research shows that human ovarian cancer cells, when exposed to talc, have more inflammation and cellular growth, mechanisms that can fuel cancer. Read More: Inflammation May Be the Culprit Behind Our Deadliest Diseases But Jennifer Permuth, an epidemiologist at the Moffitt Cancer Center who has served as an expert witness for J&J and signed the letter to Makary, questions how talc would migrate from where it's applied to cause cancer in the ovaries—without causing cancer in other organs along the way, such as the cervix. 'We would expect cancer to also develop in those other organs,' but studies find only weak links to these cancers, says Permuth. In a 2024 review, the World Health Organization found that, overall, evidence doesn't prove talc causes cancer, but it's 'probably carcinogenic.' The review focused on ovarian cancer 'because that's where the most evidence was' compared to other cancers, says Schildkraut, who served on the review committee. Meanwhile, the American Cancer Society states that, if there's an increased cancer risk, it's 'likely to be very small.' The E.U. has designated talc as a carcinogen, and it's expected to ban talc from cosmetics in 2027. Other potential health issues There's less research on other health issues related to talc. Some studies suggest that when miners repeatedly inhale talc, even if it's asbestos-free, their risk of lung cancer increases—but evidence on inhaling baby powder is more limited. In addition, a deadly cancer called mesothelioma is closely linked to asbestos exposure, though links to talc are less clear (partly because mesothelioma is extremely rare). Read More: What to Expect at a Mammogram Karen Selby, a patient advocate for the Mesothelioma Center at team of advocates, doctors, and attorneys supporting people with mesothelioma—works with patients who developed the disease decades after early-life exposure to cosmetics, she says. Every Christmas as a kid, Selby got a new box of cosmetic powder to play with. She'd cover herself and act like Casper the Friendly Ghost. She doesn't have mesothelioma, but recalling the haze of talc dust, she sometimes thinks, 'Holy cow, what was I doing to myself?' These makeup kits often have cheaper ingredients like asbestos-contaminated talc, despite that 'children are a susceptible group in environmental health,' says Beins, the Environmental Working Group scientist. 'I would try to keep talc away from them.' Safety precautions As researchers continue to study talc, Beins recommends using products with talc substitutes like cornstarch. (That's what J&J now uses instead of talc.) 'We can acknowledge the uncertainty and use safer alternatives,' Beins says. The Environmental Working Group has a database called Skin Deep that tracks which cosmetics contain ingredients like talc. Currently, the database lists about 150,000 products, and 8,000 have talc, Beins estimates. 'I wouldn't use talc personally,' Schildkraut says. 'It's not worth the risk because you don't need much exposure to asbestos to develop cancer.' Read More: 6 Things to Eat to Reduce Your Cancer Risk If possible, try passing on baby powders in general. Even if they lack talc, 'there may be other chemicals of concern,' such as ones added for fragrance or texture, O'Brien notes. If you've been exposed to talc for decades—whether through personal product use or occupations that often involve talc, like those in hair care—share this information with your doctors. They may recommend screening for ovarian cancer and other conditions, O'Brien says. What about food and medicine? Talc is commonly added to several foods like chewing gum and candy to keep them from sticking to wrappers and caking together. However, relatively few foods have talc. 'It's there and present sometimes, but it's not in a ton of food,' Beins says. To find which foods contain talc, you can search EWG's Food Scores, which tracks ingredients. Out of 80,000 products in the database, only 39 are currently listed to contain talc. In addition, the Environmental Working Group's Verified program certifies brands that meet its strictest health standards. To be certified, brands must disclose their ingredients, provide testing data, and avoid ingredients of concern. Products with talc can't be certified. Read More: Why Food Chemicals Are a Problem—And How to Reduce Your Exposure Talc is also added to some pill coatings because it helps pills travel smoothly through manufacturing equipment during production. But very little is known about cancer risk from talc in either food or pills. 'There's some thought that gastrointestinal issues might happen due to food exposure, because it's pro-inflammatory,' Beins says. However, this effect is mostly theoretical at this point. 'For the sake of public health, we shouldn't raise false alarms and make people scared of their food and medications,' says Permuth, who researches gastrointestinal cancer. 'Frequent users of talc-based personal care products or cosmetics are at the highest risk,' O'Brien says, adding that there's no medical reason for using these products. Whereas other established environmental risks like air pollution may be hard to avoid, O'Brien notes that for the most part, the 'use of talc products is something that individuals can control.' Contact us at letters@ Solve the daily Crossword
