Drug makers and the FDA don't want you to find out about adverse trials

Byoliveridley

if you have not been following the Avandia story, an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine revealed that Avandia, a popular drug used in diabetes control significantly increased the threat of heart attacks and heart failure. A couple of things to note here, firstly, this fact was known to the FDA in 2002 per this memo obtained by Public Citizen. So, why the FDA (and GSK) thought that no one would notice, is beyond me. Secondly, when the drug was introduced in Europe, it was contra-indicated for people with heart disease. This fact must have been known to the FDA and GSK as well. It is one thing for GSk to not want to run long term epidemiological and safety studies on their drugs, but other people did the work, and the FDA just stood by and watched until the work was published in the US. The European Drug agency had acted on this information quite a while back.

So, when I come across this article in the NY Times about a “downside” to full disclosure, I don’t really know what to say. I don’t care whether there is a downside to GSK or not. If I work as a waiter in a restaurant, there is a “downside” to reporting my tip income to the IRS (yes, higher taxes!). This does not mean I should not pay my taxes! This is a matter of life and death for people. Diabetes and heart disease go together in thousands of people, they needed to know if the drug they were taking to control one disease would kill them off with the other disease.

For Drug Makers, a Downside to Full Disclosure – New York Times

This week, GlaxoSmithKline learned what that greater disclosure could mean.

A cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, Dr. Steven Nissen, stumbled onto the Glaxo Web site while researching Avandia last April. He and a colleague quickly analyzed the data, and on Monday, The New England Journal of Medicine released its finding that Avandia posed a heightened cardiac risk.

“It was a treasure trove,” Dr. Nissen said about the Web site.

GlaxoSmithKline has disputed the journal’s interpretation. Officials with the Food and Drug Administration said they were reviewing whether to take any action on Avandia.

Also, note this “concern” from the FDA, no less:

“I would be very concerned about wholesale posting of thousands of clinical trials leading to mass confusion,” said Dr. Steven Galson, the director for the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the F.D.A.

Yes, respond to results in a very prestigious peer reviewed journal by pretending that some dude with a computer in his basement (yes, all computers reside in basements) randomly picked up a couple of clinical trials and created “mass confusion”. The FDA should at least pretend to care…

The risks and benefits involved with taking a drug to control a chronic condition are completely different from those you would take for an acute, immediately life threatening condition. If you are treating cancer, you expect side effects, and deal with them because the alternative is certain death. When you’re dealing with diabetes, you have alternatives that will not kill you. In addition, millions of people have diabetes and use Avandia. So, a small percentage increase in a side-effect can affect thousands. And, they need to know because there are alternatives that would work for them.

GSK is not going to tell them because there is an obvious conflict of interest. They need to sell their new and expensive drug even if other alternatives work. This is why we have the FDA, and full disclosure of all clinical trials, not just the ones that worked for you.

Similar Posts

  • Potentially Incompatible Goals at F.D.A. – New York Times

    Byoliveridley

    The New York Times has an article on the FDA’s competing needs of safety and speed in drug approval.

    Potentially Incompatible Goals at F.D.A. – New York Times

    Safety and speed are the yin and yang of drug regulation. Patients want immediate access to breakthrough medicines but also want to believe the drugs are safe.

    These goals can be incompatible. Race a drug to market and much is likely to remain unknown when patients take it. Test a drug thoroughly to assess all possible risks and its release may be delayed by years.

    A series of drug-safety scandals has led many on Capitol Hill to question whether the Food and Drug Administration has failed to strike the right balance between speed and safety. A clear sign of this imbalance, these critics say, is the increasing number of F.D.A. drug-safety officers who say they have been punished or ignored after uncovering dangers of popular medicines.

    Safety and speed may be mutually incompatible. The biggest culprit is the Prescription Drug User Fees Act (PDUFA) which stipulated that in exchange for fees paid by pharma to the FDA for speedy approval, pharma would get a say in how that money was used. They used this say to cut down on post approval monitoring, weaken post approval data analysis and generally hide unfavorable results.

    Do patients always benefit from speed? Again, you have to make distinctions between acute life threatening conditions and chronic, life management conditions. A delay in the approval of a cancer drug may result in the immediate death of the people affected with the cancer. But, a serious safety issue overlooked in this hasty approval would not hurt a healthy person. Yes, it would affect the cancer patient, but they would accept that risk. Something like Vioxx, or Avandia, on the other hand is a drug potentially consumed by millions of people to treat chronic conditions that can be managed in other ways. Since safety issues affecting these drugs could adversely affect otherwise healthy people, the approval process needs to be much more deliberate, involving more patients, and has to include lengthy post-approval monitoring, adverse event reporting, the availability of all data for meta-analysis, etc.

    So why does this not happen? Because pharma makes much more money on that blockbuster “lifestyle” drugs taken by millions of otherwise healthy people. The pool of healthy people is much bigger than the pool of cancer victims. It is in their best interest to get a speedy approval.

    The answer I guess is to make a clear distinction between these two different types of drugs and have completely different standards, somehow, I don’t think that will happen.

  • |

    Chip Implants Linked to Animal Tumors

    Byoliveridley

    Thinking about implanting an RFID microchip under your skin? Don’t do it! Why would the FDA approve something that was linked to cancers in rats?

    Chip Implants Linked to Animal Tumors – washingtonpost.com:

    When the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved implanting microchips in humans, the manufacturer said it would save lives, letting doctors scan the tiny transponders to access patients’ medical records almost instantly. The FDA found ‘reasonable assurance’ the device was safe, and a sub-agency even called it one of 2005’s top ‘innovative technologies.’

    But neither the company nor the regulators publicly mentioned this: A series of veterinary and toxicology studies, dating to the mid-1990s, stated that chip implants had ‘induced’ malignant tumors in some lab mice and rats.

    ‘The transponders were the cause of the tumors,’ said Keith Johnson, a retired toxicologic pathologist, explaining in a phone interview the findings of a 1996 study he led at the Dow Chemical Co. in Midland, Mich.

    Leading cancer specialists reviewed the research for The Associated Press and, while cautioning that animal test results do not necessarily apply to humans, said the findings troubled them. Some said they would not allow family members to receive implants, and all urged further research before the glass-encased transponders are widely implanted in people.

    To date, about 2,000 of the so-called radio frequency identification, or RFID, devices have been implanted in humans worldwide, according to VeriChip Corp. The company, which sees a target market of 45 million Americans for its medical monitoring chips, insists the devices are safe, as does its parent company, Applied Digital Solutions, of Delray Beach, Fla.

  • | |

    Indian firms push down global vaccine prices – Lessons for Canada

    Byoliveridley

    Cheaper vaccines from India are forcing global giants to slash prices. GSK announced its rotavirus vaccines at $2.50 per dose — or $5 to fully immunise a child — in response to a current tender administered by UNICEF.The offer is a 67% reduction in the current lowest available public price.

    Hindustan Times

    This is good news for many reasons. Preventable diseases kill over a million people every year, and one of the biggest factors in getting vaccinated is cost. India’s healthcare spending was estimated at US$ 40 billion in 2008, going up to 300+ billion in 2023. Forty billion is less than $40 per person, so saving 7-8 dollars on vaccinations alone for every one of the 26 million children born every year is a huge deal.

    Development costs of vaccines and drugs are high and success is often uncertain. Pharmaceutical companies have used this to justify government enforced monopolies and per dose prices that are sometimes a 1000 times higher than the incremental cost of production. While this makes for good profits, it means severe lack of access in India, many African countries, and many excess deaths that could have been prevented. For years, India had what was called a process patent, not a product patent, which meant that if you could make a drug with a slightly different process, it would not get patent protection any more. How did this help India?

    1. Affordable drugs – Indian companies could make and sell drugs at a fraction of the cost without paying for drug development.

    2. Pharmaceutical Industry – This enabled the industry to grow and mature.

    Of course, this also meant that India was considered an outlaw, and Indian pharmaceutical industry came under great pressure from the WTO to tighten patent laws, which it did. At the time, the concern (rightly) was that tightening patent restrictions would harm India’s pharmaceutical industry and reduce access to drugs. Has this come to pass? In some ways, yes. But the Indian pharmaceutical industry has also matured, and with government help, has been able to do its own development, clinical trials and production (which it was always good at). The focus on tropical diseases like rotavirus also means that US, European Companies, which have since moved away to treating chronic conditions like high cholesterol, erectile dysfunction, etc., have much more competition in the tropical diseases area and cannot charge premium prices to poor people any more.

    So dear Canada, while you are negotiating with Europe about “free trade”, and trying to give European companies much greater patent protection for their drugs, know that this will very surely raise costs in the short term. Two important questions:

    1. Will Canada’s drug companies benefit?

    2. Will Canada’s consumers benefit?

    Um, let’s take a look at Canada’s top 10 in 2009:

     

    Rank Leading Companies Country Market Share (%)
    1 Pfizer US 13.4
    2 Apotex Canada 7
    3 AstraZeneca UK 6.6
    9 Merck US 6
    4 Johnson & Johnson US 5.3
    6 Novopharm (Teva) Israel 4.2
    7 Novartis Switzerland 4
    5 GlaxoSmithKline UK 4
    8 Abbott US 3.9
    10 Roche Switzerland 3.1
    Source: IMS Health

    There is one Canadian company in the top 10, and four European companies. Our pharmaceutical industry is not well positioned to be independent, or work to reduce Canadian drug prices, especially if laws strengthening patent protections for European companies come into effect. This will serve to weaken Apotex, and Canada does not have a big independent pharmaceutical company network born out of years of “isolation” to take advantage of any competition, or competitive advantages. So, while patent “reform” seems to not have hurt Indian industry as much as feared, it sure will hurt Canadian consumers.

     

  • |

    An off patent miracle cancer cure?

    Byoliveridley

    Interesting news coming out of Canada from a Dr. Anselm at the University of Alberta about a well known chemical dichloroacetic acid (like vinegar with two chlorines!).

    Cheap, safe drug kills most cancers – health – 17 January 2007 – New Scientist

    It sounds almost too good to be true: a cheap and simple drug that kills almost all cancers by switching off their “immortality”. The drug, dichloroacetate (DCA), has already been used for years to treat rare metabolic disorders and so is known to be relatively safe.

    It also has no patent, meaning it could be manufactured for a fraction of the cost of newly developed drugs.

    Here’s the PubMed citation for the article, filled with biology I will have no hope of understanding! I read the press release on sciencedaily a few days back and did a little background digging.

    A clinical trial conducted by Colombia University studying the effects of dichloroacetate on MELAs (stroke like symptoms) was halted early because everyone taking the medication showed significant effects of neural toxicity. This study was commented on by Dr. Anselm who theorized that the effect could be caused by a specific gene mutation not seen in a lot of the patients he works with.

    So, there is some reason for caution on this wonder drug, it may be toxic at certain doses to certain people. Most chemotherapetic drugs are horrendously toxic too. But if this is not a concern, Dr Anselm, meet Sunil Shaunak and his wonderful proposal to setup an alternative pipeline for drug approval that does not involve big/small pharma. I Am sure between Bill Gates, or George Soros, a few million bucks can be rustled up for a cancer cure.

  • China Sentences Former Drug Regulator to Death

    Byoliveridley

    China Sentences Former Drug Regulator to Death – New York Times

    The former head of China’s top food and drug safety agency was sentenced to death today after pleading guilty to corruption and accepting bribes, according to the state-controlled news media.

    That’s barbaric, we may have our problems with the FDA, but kill someone for taking a bribe? That’s medieval justice.

  • Abbott Drops AIDS Drug Price in response to Thailand's hardball.

    Byoliveridley

    Moral of the story, you have to play hardball with the drug companies. Use your power as a sovereign country. You are a market to them, their threats to stop selling their drugs in your country cannot be taken seriously because if the drug is made unavailable in your country, that gives you even more right to make it yourself (or better, buy it from India!). I mean what are they going to do, invade you? The worst you will get is a scolding and lecture from the U.S ambassdor on patents and free trade, just ignore it, or better still, protest outside the embassy!

    Chemical & Engineering News: Latest News – Abbott Drops AIDS Drug Price

    Abbott Drops AIDS Drug Price, move follows compulsory licensing decision by Thailand

    Jean-François Tremblay

    Abbott Laboratories will drop its price for Kaletra, a protease inhibitor used to treat AIDS, to the equivalent of $1,000 per patient per year in 40 developing countries.

    The move, facilitated by the World Health Organization, is apparently Abbott’s response to a decision by Thailand earlier this year to resort to compulsory licensing of Kaletra, a practice that reduces health care costs in a way that pharmaceutical companies view as patent infringement (C&EN, Feb. 5, page 11).

    Following Thailand’s decision, Abbott announced that it would stop selling Kaletra and other patented drugs in Thailand, a move that the nongovernmental organization Doctors Without Borders called “a major betrayal of patients.”Abbott had already been under fire for not supplying Kaletra to several other low-income countries.

    The price of $1,000 per year per patient, Abbott says, is 55% less than the average price at which the drug is now sold in the 40 countries. The company says it wants to increase drug affordability while “preserving the system that enables the discovery of new medicines.

    Compulsory licensing is a perfectly legal option underlined by TRIPs (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) in response to national emergencies (AIDs is a national emergency, isn’t it?). More importantly, governments in poorer countries really should invoke this provision as much as they can. Because every time they invoke it, they make big pharma come to the bargaining table.

    $1000 per patient per year is still a lot of money, though, I would encourage Thailand to play even more hardball!

One Comment

  1. Pingback: Friday Blog Roundup « The Pump Handle

Comments are closed.