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

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.

This is the headline I would have used on this story. An incentive scheme to use a paticular product in a situation like this is a bribe.

Doctors Reap Millions for Anemia Drugs – New York Times

Two of the world’s largest drug companies are paying hundreds of millions of dollars to doctors every year in return for giving their patients anemia medicines, which regulators now say may be unsafe at commonly used doses.

The payments are legal, but very few people outside of the doctors who receive them are aware of their size. Critics, including prominent cancer and kidney doctors, say the payments give physicians an incentive to prescribe the medicines at levels that might increase patients’ risks of heart attacks or strokes.

Industry analysts estimate that such payments — to cancer doctors and the other big users of the drugs, kidney dialysis centers — total hundreds of millions of dollars a year and are an important source of profit for doctors and the centers. The payments have risen over the last several years, as the makers of the drugs, Amgen and Johnson & Johnson, compete for market share and try to expand the overall business.

So how does this kickback scheme work?

Federal laws bar drug companies from paying doctors to prescribe medicines that are given in pill form and purchased by patients from pharmacies. But companies can rebate part of the price that doctors pay for drugs, like the anemia medicines, which they dispense in their offices as part of treatment. The anemia drugs are injected or given intravenously in physicians’ offices or dialysis centers. Doctors receive the rebates after they buy the drugs from the companies. But they also receive reimbursement from Medicare or private insurers for the drugs, often at a markup over the doctors’ purchase price.

Medicare has changed its payment structure since 2003 to reduce the markup, but private insurers still often pay more. Combined with those insurance reimbursements, the rebates enable many doctors to profit substantially on the medicines they buy and then give to patients.

The rebates are related to the amount of drugs that doctors buy, and physicians that agree to use one company’s drugs exclusively typically receive higher rebates.

Wow, that’s a scheme that would be illegal in almost any situation. I buy 10 widgets from the manufacturer for $100. The manufacturer then gives me $50 in “rebate”. I charge the person on whose behalf I am buying these widgets $200 even though I am not supposed to make a profit on this transaction, and pocket $150 from a transaction. I also promise to use more of this widget, on people who may or may not need it, but on whom I have such a knowledge gap and power gap that I know that they will use it whether it is actually good for them or not. I also promise not to use a competitor product even though I know that there are cases where one product will be better than the other. Well, who pays, all of us in increased health insurance premiums and healthcare costs so a bunch of rich doctors can drive their Range Rovers around.

The USA is no different from India when it comes to schemes like this. The money involved is greater, and somehow, this is not called a bribe by the media.

What does the pharma spokesperson have to say?

Johnson & Johnson said yesterday in a statement that its rebates were not intended to induce doctors to use more medicine. Instead, the rebates “reflect intense competition” in the market for the drugs, the company said.

Amgen said that rebates were a normal commercial practice and that it had always properly promoted its drugs.

Yes, it’s competitive out there, and to ensure that our product gets used, we will bribe people.

The “consumer” is the person who pays for the product or service. The “consumer” here is the end user, the patient. The patient does not get the rebate, instead having to pay high prices so doctors can add to their six figure incomes. Nice!

Congress Seeks Compromise on Generic Drugs – New York Times

Biotech drugs, also known as biologic products, are typically proteins made by modifying the DNA of bacteria, yeast or mammal cells, and they are often given by injection or infusion. Supporters of the legislation received an unexpected boost when the chief medical officer of the Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Janet Woodcock, told Congress last month that the agency had the expertise and experience to decide what types of human and laboratory tests were needed to ensure that copies of a biotechnology drug worked as well as the original. Brand-name drug manufacturers have urged Congress to require human trials before allowing the sale of any products billed as comparable or equivalent to biotechnology medicines already on the market.

It is a complex issue, and clearly, proteins and large molecules that would not be synthesized, but “grown” are subject to larger batch by batch variation, especially when the generic company does not have access to the top-secret proprietary information that genentech, or J&J used to grow their molecule. So, some level of judgment is going to be required on the part of the FDA, which has the information from both the original, and the generic manufacturers. It looks like the FDA needs to, and is prepared to deal with each generic on a case by case basis, which is how it should be.

Protein characterization and analysis have come a long way in the last 10 years, with your fancy mass spectrometers and proteomics. It is a lot easier now to compare proteins with each other, to look for changes and differences. Mass spectrometric technology, improved electronics and huge increases in data processing and computing power make protein characterization increasingly routine. It would be up to the FDA to decide at what level of change would a protein behave so differently that its effect on humans could change significantly from the original drug, but they seem to be ready to do it.

“Some level of clinical testing should be required in all cases,” said Dr. Susan D. Desmond-Hellmann, president for product development at Genentech. Dr. Jay P. Siegel, a senior scientist at Johnson & Johnson, said: “I would never take a biologic that had not been tested in humans. The risks are too high.”

Yes, I would absolutely trust the word of the people who had the most to lose in this case, no conflict of interest here! To be fair, Dr. Siegel is understandably cautious. We have enough problems even with small molecules (think Vioxx!). But as I mentioned previously, it should be possible to come up with good enough metrics to decide when/where human re-testing is appropriate, instead of doing it always.

But Dr. Woodcock (of the FDA – inserted for context) said: “Where trials are not needed, it is of questionable ethics to repeat them. The use of human subjects for trials that are not needed is not desirable.”

People tend to forget that we’re experimenting on humans here, thanks Dr. Woodcock! Note that this is an issue where the established biologicals companies can use the safety card with impunity to protect their enormous profits. But they are not the ones who get to decide, it’s the FDA, and ultimately, Congress.

The chief lobby for makers of biotech drugs, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, strongly opposes the bill, saying it would endanger patients and kill incentives for research and innovation.

Oh really, how many times has this argument been raised, and proven to be false (see plutocracy-protectionary principle!). To believe this argument, we would have to believe that the 1984 generics law completely killed the small molecule industry. Not really, Glaxo, Pfizer, etc are still bigger and badder than ever.

Assuming a multiple sclerosis treatment costs $20,000 a year (from the article). If generics come in and there’s a 10% (low end) decline in price for the treatment, the amount saved is $2000 per patient. MS is estimated to have a prevalence rate of 0.1% in North America. So, that makes 0.3 million in the US. If half of them are on this treatment (random fudge factor), you (or your insurer) will save $300 million on one disease treatment option per year (and the biologics manufacturers will lose some portion of that). This is pretty big money, no wonder they’re throwing up roadblocks!