FDA oncology chief plans retirement shortly after new appointment
The longstanding oncology chief of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has announced his intention to retire just weeks after being appointed to lead the agency’s drug division, reports BritPanorama.
Dr. Richard Pazdur, who took the role of director at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) on November 11, is stepping down amid reports of frustration with FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary and Dr. Vinay Prasad, who heads the biologics division. Pazdur’s resignation follows the sudden exit of former CDER director Dr. George Tidmarsh, whose departure was described as abrupt.
Pazdur’s hesitation reportedly stems from concerns over perceived political interference in his division, which regulates a wide array of products including prescription drugs and over-the-counter medications. His decision to leave was initially reported by Stat News.
The FDA’s leadership has faced turmoil, raising questions about future stability in key positions, particularly following Pazdur’s appointment, which was seen as a step toward restoring order within the agency. In a previous statement, FDA Commissioner Makary praised Pazdur as a “true regulatory innovator” and highlighted his contributions as a forward-thinking scientist.
Pazdur first joined the FDA in 1999 from the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, eventually becoming the founding director of the Oncology Center of Excellence in 2017, where he facilitated accelerated pathways for cancer treatments. His departure is expected to create vacancies at both the drug division and the oncology center.
Market reactions to Pazdur’s impending retirement have been significant, with biotechnology stocks, particularly those related to cancer treatments, experiencing declines following the announcement.
A spokesperson from the US Department of Health and Human Services has not yet provided a comment regarding Pazdur’s planned retirement.
The continuity of FDA leadership remains uncertain, with significant implications for the agency’s regulatory processes and its approach to drug approvals in the face of evolving healthcare demands.
