From USTR ... with Love

05/10/2010 11:34 AM |

The U.S. Trade Representative's most recent report on global intellectual property rights suggests compulsory licensing may be receding somewhat as a worry for pharmaceutical companies, but inadequate data protection remains a strong concern.

The USTR's 2010 Special 301 Report, which reviews U.S. trading partners' protection and enforcement of intellectual properties, cited 19 countries (the same number as last year) where there appears to be a lack of adequate protection against unfair commercial use and unauthorized disclosure of test or other data generated to obtain approval of pharmaceutical products.

The USTR has faced pressure from Congress and public advocacy groups to modify its stand on compulsory licensing and other measures advocated by the pharmaceutical industry.

Representative Henry Waxman (D, CA), chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, sent a letter to U.S. Trade Representative Ron Kirk advocating that the Special 301 Report support international access to medicines.

"In recent years, despite the United States' commitment to the Doha Declaration, Special 301 reports have been used to pressure developing countries to adopt pharmaceutical protection rules that go beyond their obligations under the TRIPS agreement, limiting the scope of actions such countries could take to promote access to medicines," Waxman wrote.

Mr. Waxman also said he was concerned that anti-counterfeit measures may be used to enforce patents. Looks like the Chairman has Jamie Love on speed dial.

  Read More & Comment...

Innovative if not Transformative ...

05/07/2010 08:41 AM |

From today's edition of the Wall Street Journal and the pen of CMPI board member Mark Thornton:

Three years and more than 80,000 deaths ago I wrote in these pages about a travesty that had occurred at the Food and Drug Administration.

In May of 2007 two unique cancer therapies for the treatment of prostate cancer and osteosarcoma (a type of bone cancer) came under review at the FDA on the same day. Both the new agent for prostate cancer, Provenge, and the new agent for osteosarcoma, Mepact, had shown the ability to prolong lives to a significant degree. And both drugs were summarily rejected. Provenge and Mepact were tossed back to the companies developing them with the directive to do more clinical studies.

This was easy enough for Provenge, due to the return on the risk of investment possible with a new prostate cancer drug and the large number of men with the disease available for another clinical trial. The Dendreon company, makers of Provenge, worked as quickly as possible to redo their already successful trial. The results of the new trial turned out the same as the original, and the drug was finally approved by the FDA last week.

In the three years that it took to duplicate what was already known, upwards of 80,000 men lost their lives to prostate cancer. This is equal to the number of men killed in combat in the Korean, Vietnam and Iraq wars combined.

Those FDA staffers who had a role in preventing the approval of Provenge in 2007 will have to live with this sin of omission. But at least now a powerful new weapon is available to help prostate cancer patients.

Not so for those of us in the American sarcoma community waiting for Mepact. Osteosarcoma effects only 900 Americans, mostly children and young adults, each year. The FDA's stunningly cavalier demand for another clinical trial for Mepact was made with the full knowledge that the repeat effort would require about 900 new patients.

Imagine if a clinical trial for a new asthma or diabetes drug required every single patient in the country to be included not once but twice and you will begin to appreciate the profound predicament those of us in the rare-disease community face when it comes to the FDA's irrational standards.

Recently, hope has emerged that a more humane approach might be taken at the FDA to approve new drugs for exceedingly rare diseases. In an amendment to the 2010 FDA Appropriations law, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio) and Sen. Sam Brownback (R., Kan.) inserted language that requires the FDA to explain the unfairness of its policies, which have resulted in about 200 treatments for the over 8,000 diseases categorized as rare.

In March, the new FDA Commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg, appeared before the Senate to discuss the issue. In emotionally moving testimony about her own experiences as a doctor dealing with patients in desperate need of new therapies, she promised "innovative if not transformative" approaches to the problem, saying that "new regulatory pathways could be developed . . . to catalyze activity in areas where there are limited markets." She added that this issue is "of the highest priority in the White House."

In Europe, such creative pathways for regulatory approval exist, and they have resulted in the approval for Mepact in the EU. Mepact is the poster child for all that is wrong at the FDA regarding treatments for rare diseases, and many have hope that Dr. Hamburg is the right leader to address this health crisis.

The approval of Provenge, a revolutionary agent that taps the body's own immune system to fight cancer, ushers in the dawn of the age of cancer immunotherapy. Mepact similarly stimulates the immune system to prolong osteosarcoma patients lives, and it is doing so as we speak for children in Europe with this bone cancer.

Oncologists in the FDA Center for Drugs should show penance for their fatal error and join their European colleagues in approving Mepact without the need for another 10-year long clinical trial. The Americans currently living with osteosarcoma can't wait any longer.

Dr. Thornton worked as a medical officer at the FDA for six years. He is the president of the Sarcoma Foundation of America, which has received modest contributions from a U.S. subsidiary that is owned by the makers of Mepact.

  Read More & Comment...

We Are the World

05/06/2010 10:36 PM |

Some patently absurd claims have been made in the wake of health care's passage, but New York Times writer Thomas Friedman and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are tied for First Place.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is campaigning in Nevada for re-election and continues to tout the health care law. He recently said, “The most important thing we've done for the country and the world is health care.”

Last month, Friedman posited that passage of the health care law strengthened President Obama’s hand in foreign policy:

“Our enemies surely noticed, too. You don’t have to be Machiavelli to believe that the leaders of Iran and Venezuela shared the barely disguised Republican hope that health care would fail and, therefore, Obama’s whole political agenda would be stalled and, therefore, his presidency enfeebled. He would then be a lame duck for the next three years and America would be a lame power.”

Yes, because I’m sure our health care system is an issue very dear to Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

A majority of Americans stood opposed to the law. More than 20 states have joined in a lawsuit against the federal government challenging the law, with particular emphasis on the individual mandate. And polls continue to show no improvement in public opinion of the health care law.

In this country we don’t pass life-changing domestic legislation so that a president may convey political strength overseas.

With that said, it’s highly doubtful that the legislation had the impact Friedman suggests.

Fidel Castro applauded the health care law as “a miracle.” Castro also said, “It is really incredible that 234 years after the Declaration of Independence ... the government of that country has approved medical attention for the majority of its citizens, something that Cuba was able to do half a century ago.”

Here are some recent pictures smuggled out of Cuba highlighting that medical attention Cubans receive.

After praising passage of health care, Castro then attacked President Obama as a “fanatic believer in capitalist imperialism.”

The goodwill didn’t last long.

Now the World Health Organization Director-General Margaret Chan just returned from North Korea with words of admiration for their health care system. Apparently North Korea does an excellent job of keeping its citizens thin.

“They have something which most other developing countries would envy,” said Chan.

Who would have thought?

Then again, most of the world has been praising Cuba’s health care system for the last 40 years.

At any rate, the point here is that we should not decide health care policy in the US based on the misguided perceptions of our system by other countries. And we should most definitely not use domestic policy as a means of strengthening our influence on foreign policy matters.

Senator Reid and Thomas Friedman ought to know better.


  Read More & Comment...

Do Vaccines Cause Autism?

05/06/2010 10:26 PM |

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has posted an excellent video from Reason TV on the Autism-Vaccine hoopla.

The lesson: Correlation is not causation.

The video is worth checking out:







  Read More & Comment...

A Betting Man

05/06/2010 10:22 PM |

Having missed the televised grilling of Goldman Sachs’ executives last week, I just now happened to come across a stunning statement made at the Senate hearings.

Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor went on the attack in front of the cameras accusing Goldman Sachs executives for “betting with other people's money and other people's futures.”

Senator Pryor failed to recognize the blatant hypocrisy in his accusation.

Here is a United States Senator who voted for the health care bill before he voted against it.

In voting against the reconciliation bill in March, Pryor acknowledged the adverse impact of the legislation:

"I believe the package falls short of the criteria of making health care more affordable, reliable, and accessible. As more and more details of the package were released, I spent considerable time weighing the benefits and drawbacks to Arkansas. In the end, I believe this legislation is a step we don’t need to take."

And this man dares lecture financial sector executives?

Where was his concern for “other people’s money” and “other people’s futures” when he voted in favor of the Senate health bill last year?

Mind you, Pryor had a fiduciary duty to his constituents to read and understand this far-reaching and costly legislation. He failed to do that and instead gambled with one-sixth of the US economy.

Some might argue that is far worse than any transgressions by Goldman Sachs.

  Read More & Comment...

BIO con brio

05/06/2010 09:55 AM |

At the BIO conference yesterday I had the pleasure of chairing a panel entitled, “Advertising or Freedom of Expression?  Cross-Border Communications and the New World Order.” And a high-powered panel it was.  I was joined by Jack Bierig (Sidley Austin), Marie Kennedy (Baxter) and Ray Kerins (Pfizer). 

An audio recording of the panel can be found on the BIO site (www.bio.org).  

Here are my remarks:

If healthcare is a “right,” then is access to information about healthcare also a right?

Well, where you stand depends on where you sit and, for biopharmaceutical companies, it determines how you act.

And nowhere at BIO 2010 will you find a more lively, engaging, and expert panel to debate this timely and crucial issue than right here and right now.  Welcome to BIO con brio.

What’s going on in the US?  Does the First Amendment still count?  What’s going on in the EU?  Does “information to patients” really mean anything?  In the complex and hyper-bureaucratic world of Brussels, is reform going anywhere beyond just words?

And when it comes to healthcare communications, wither social media on either side of the pond?

Let’s start with a look at what’s going on in Europe.

The situation “over there” can be summed up by James Copping of the European Commission’s Enterprise & Industry Directorate. According to Mr. Copping:

“We have an unsustainable mix of regulations, and the legislation on advertising was largely drafted in the 1980s, before the Internet became a daily feature of many people’s lives.”

In 2006 I debated Mr. Copping. He said, “We must find new ways to regulate healthcare information to patients.” I then suggested that a better way to frame that statement would be to say that “the EU needs to find a better way to facilitate healthcare information to patients.”  To which Mr. Copping replied, “Yes, that’s right.”

Well, that was then and this is now.  But before we see what’s sprouting in pursuant to the shifting of ITP authority from Enterprise & Industry to DG SANCO, let’s turn our attention northwards to Denmark for a disturbing twist and a reminder that “free speech” means something very different in Europe then it does here in the US.

In 2003, Danish journalist Frede Damgaard published information on his website about Hyben Total, a treatment for a wide range of conditions—including gout, kidney and bladder disorders, sciatica, diarrhea, and diabetes. The Danish national regulator in 1999 refused it a marketing authorization. It is still sold as a medicine in Sweden and Norway.

 

Mr. Damgaard’s positive description of Hyben Total’s effects on the symptoms of gout and arthritis led to his being prosecuted in the Danish courts on the grounds that it constituted advertising of a medicinal product whose sale was not authorized in Denmark – and the Danish court specifically cited Article 86 of European Union Directive 2001/83/EC, which defines the concept of medicines advertising.

 

Mr. Damgaard appealed to the European Court of Justice, claiming that his discussion of Hyben Total could not be held to constitute advertising since he had no interest in selling the product, and also that the court decision contravened European Union protections of freedom of expression.  And the ECJ agreed.

 

According to the opinion handed down by the ECJ Advocate General, “a lack of connection between the author of the information and the sellers or manufacturers of the medicinal product and the non-commercial or non-industrial nature of the activity of that independent third party may…be strong indications that a message does not have promotional content.”

 

The advocate general added that this was not an isolated case; similar situations had arisen recently over statements about melatonin in Spain, and in the Czech Republic, over a collection of media features entitled “Yesterday Viagra, today Cialis.”

 

The advocate general concluded that it’s up to individual EU member states “to ensure the correct balance between, on the one hand, the objectives of protecting health and promoting the rational use of medicinal products and, on the other, the right of the party concerned to freedom of expression, taking into account the special protection afforded to the party concerned, if it is established that he is a journalist.”

 

But how do you “establish” who is and who is not a “journalist?”

 

Not a complete victory for the Fourth Estate and uncomfortable silence from the court about free speech for non-journalists. What about free speech for physicians and patients and, yes – even biopharmaceutical companies?

 

And so we return to Brussels.

 

Recent reports have spoken about "renewed optimism" that the EU’s proposed legislation on allowing drug makers to provide information to patients on prescription-only medicines will again start moving through its treacle-like legislative process. The latest thinking, however, is strongly focused on the rights of patients to receive such information, rather than industry's right to disseminate it.

That’s an interesting and important finesse – the rights of a patient to the information but no “right” for industry to provide it.  Hm.

Suggested amendments to the most current consultation document emerged on March 10^th from M.E.P. Christofer Fjellner, who’s reviewing the proposed legislation for the EU parliament's Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety.

Fjellner’s position is that information on pharmaceuticals should only be made available to patients who are actively searching for it.  In other words, information should be "pulled" by the patient rather than "pushed" by industry.

 

Fjellner believes that companies should not be allowed to provide information on prescription-only medicines on television or in newspapers or magazines. He believes the Internet is the appropriate medium for providing information to patients.

And maybe he's right -- but is there really a difference? 

 

If a pharmaceutical company makes available information on a web page – why is that different than making it available in other media?  And what about patients who do not have access to the Internet -- what about their rights?

 

And what are the ramifications for social media? “The Internet” is, after all, only the substrate.

 

On the upside, Fjellner is calling for patient organizations to be actively involved in implementing the new legislation, working to help create guidelines and a code of conduct. Bravo.

 

But needless to say (and important to share) is the hue and cry this last suggestion elicited from the anti-ITP crowd who immediately objected to the participation of patient groups because of the financial support they receive from “interested parties.  And you know who you are.

 

The environment committee will vote on the patient information proposals this June. After that a plenary vote of all European Members of Parliament will be held in September. It will then go to the Council of the EU for further consideration. Process as proxy for action.

 

The battle lines are drawn. Brussels moves in mysterious ways and “consensus” is a very un-American concept. 

 

EU president Herman Van Rompuy is often referred to as “Haiku Herman” frequently ending his speeches with a composition of this own. And so, in keeping with the transatlantic nature of the topic at hand, let me do the same:

 

Health information.

When will Brussels move forward?

We watch and await.

 

Thank you.

  Read More & Comment...

USP's USP

05/05/2010 07:25 AM |

USP also means "Unique Selling Proposition."

Pleased and proud to share the news that CMPI senior fellow Tim Franson, MD has been elected President of the USP Convention.

 

As most of you already know, USP is a scientific nonprofit organization that sets standards for the quality of medicines, dietary supplements and food ingredients. USP’s drug standards are enforceable by the Food and Drug Administration in the United States and USP standards are used in more than 130 countries around the world. USP standards designate the quality, purity, strength and consistency of a medicine, food ingredient or dietary supplement for the benefit of patients, practitioners, manufacturers, and consumers. 

  Read More & Comment...

Lynched in absentia

05/04/2010 11:27 AM |

“Cowardice asks: Is it safe?  Expediency asks: Is it politic?  But Conscience asks:  Is it right?”

William Punshon

Strongly recommend that you read “Lynched in absentia” from this week’s edition of BioCentury.Here’s sampler – and it should leave a bitter taste in your mouth.

Based on her performance at last week’s hearing on the safety of Avandia rosiglitazone, Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) would have been quite comfortable in Brezhnev’s Russia, a time and place where political science trumped objective science and public inquisitions were pre-scripted to produce politically correct results.

The focus was allegations that GlaxoSmithKline plc had suppressed evidence about the dangers of its diabetes drug Avandia, and that top FDA officials were too biased by “cozy” relationships with industry or blinded by intellectual myopia to take obvious actions that would have saved thousands of lives. When BioCentury asked DeLauro after the hearing why she hadn’t solicited testimony from GlaxoSmithKline, FDA, or a diabetes expert, she replied that “they probably wouldn’t have wanted to come.” DeLauro, whose subcommittee sets FDA’s budget, noted that the company and agency are engaged in discussions over Avandia, and said she “didn’t want to put them on the spot. When did members of Congress become so solicitous of the feelings of corporate executives they accuse of intentionally killing their customers, or of government officials? Senior management from Goldman Sachs who sweated under the cameras for seven hours at a Senate hearing last week would have appreciated such courtesy.

In fact, GSK spokesperson Bernadette King told BioCentury the company learned of the hearing only a day in advance and “would have welcomed an invitation” to testify. DeLauro also told BioCentury there was no need for other witnesses because she’d invited two “independent experts” — Sidney Wolfe, director of the Health Research Group at Public Citizen, and Harlan Krumholz, professor of medicine and epidemiology and public health at Yale University School of Medicine.

Wolfe may be independent, but he certainly isn’t objective. In over two decades on the job, he’s prided himself on vigorously attacking the pharmaceutical industry and FDA. Krumholtz, a prominent and highly credentialed academic cardiologist, served as an expert witness in litigation against Merck and Co. Inc. over its Vioxx rofecoxib. But he’s not a diabetes expert, nor does he represent the thinking of most cardiologists: he has published comments on Avandia dissenting from a joint American Heart Association and American College of Cardiology Foundation science advisory that concluded the evidence for potential harm from Avandia is “inconclusive.”

DeLauro wasn’t shy about criticizing the agency in its absence, saying that whenever difficult drug safety issues come up it “always appear[s] to act on behalf of the industry.” FDA’s “notion is let us leave this [sic] go on for another several years while people die,” she said. DeLauro and Wolfe repeatedly pointed out that FDA’s John Jenkins had signed the original approval documents for Avandia in 1999 and is now in charge of its oversight, and asserted this somehow demonstrates systemic bias at FDA.

They didn’t note that in 1999 Jenkins was director of the Office of Drug Evaluation II, a position that gave him ultimate sign-off authority on approvals of new molecular entities. Nor did they note that Avandia decisions have been bumped up to Janet Woodcock, director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER).

Wolfe did attack Woodcock, who like Jenkins was not present. The consumer activist said he’s “had many conversations talking with Dr. Woodcock about [drug safety] and she’s just uncomfortable being a regulator,” a charge that would be news to the companies that complain bitterly about FDA’s regulatory actions.

Wolfe, who has called for Woodcock’s dismissal, added that “being uncomfortable being a regulator is incompatible with being the head of the center.”

Wolfe supported this assertion by noting that Saudi Arabia — not usually on the list of the most advanced drug regulators — has banned Avandia. “FDA has more employees [working on] drugs than the rest of the world combined,” but less sophisticated regulatory agencies “are more attuned to public health than the FDA,” he charged.Wolfe conveniently failed to note that the European Medicines Agency has looked at the evidence and decided Avandia can remain on the market.

Star Chamber proceedings featuring half-baked reform ideas and populist attacks on regulators are wrong-headed and ethically challenged. In a better political world, FDA would ignore them.

“Conscience and cowardice are really the same thing.  Conscience is the trade-name of the firm.”

Oscar Wilde

The complete BioCentury commentary can be found here.

  Read More & Comment...

Maggie Backtracks on Provenge, Sort Of

05/03/2010 11:14 AM |

Maggie Mahar got beaten up so badly because of her mindless, anti-Provenge stance that she posted this on her blog May 1:

May 01, 2010

The American Cancer Society’s Dr. Len Lichtenfield on Provenge & Prostate Cancer:

Of course, all progress against cancer is in small steps.  But you wouldn't know that from any of her previous posts which consist of one big thumbs down (or another finger) in the face of cancer patients....
  Read More & Comment...

True Grid

05/03/2010 08:17 AM |

According to the Pink Sheet, “FDA is designing a five-item grid as a management tool to explain its risk-benefit decisions in a new more concise format. The model that it has created as a working template confirms a truism about its drug approval tendencies that industry has suspected for years: the baseline for FDA approval is a high rating of the severity of the disease being treated and the medical need for the product.”

The agency is developing a grid of the five basic factors that need to be addressed in any decision on the commercial availability of a drug. The top two are the seriousness of  the condition addressed and the need for a new treatment of the condition. Then comes the traditional heart of the NDA package: analyses of clinical data on the benefits of the drug and the risks associated with its use.

Significantly, the fifth fundamental factor is explicitly the level of risk management associated with the product. FDA is going to take it into consideration in every decision; sponsors who ignore or underplay the identification of who should use the product and who might use it will have a gap in their filings.

The grid proposal does not call for a fixed mathematical formula behind each approval. The agency has not tried to reduce the judgments in an approval decision to a rigid calculation.

Judgment?  You mean FDA decisions aren’t black and white?  Egad! Someone had better tell Rosa DeLauro.

In the words of John Jenkins, disagreement "happens a lot in the decisions that we have to make. Very few of the decisions that we make on drugs are easy. Very few of the drugs we see have a dramatic overwhelming benefit with relatively no risk. We see that most drugs have marginal to moderate benefits on a population basis and they have general safety but they have the risks of serious toxicities at some low levels." In other words, every decision is "very complex."

Key take-away is that the FDA is officially moving risk management (REMS anyone?) into the list of key factors affecting new products. And, for better or worse, "judgment" is in the eye of the beholder.

  Read More & Comment...

Maggie Mahar Hates New Cancer Drugs

04/30/2010 09:29 AM |

Provenge, the immunotherapeutic vaccine for patients with advanced (terminal) prostate cancer was finally approved.  Maggie (Too Many Cancer Drugs)  Mahar is not happy.  Here's why:  they are made by for-profit companies who can manipulate the FDA in order to market worthless drugs with serious side effects anytime they want.  According to her, making drugs is the easier thing in the world, especially cancer drugs.  Let's go back in time to one of her more lucid postings:

http://www.healthbeatblog.org/2008/02/the-wall-street.html

February 21, 2008

The Wall Street Journal Is Wrong on Avastin

......But focusing only on progression-free survival, i.e. how long a patient can go without a disease getting worse, is no better. As The Moss Report, an online cancer newsletter, notes, progression-free survival means that “a drug may change the shape of the patients' survival curve, but not alter the ultimate outcome. Treated patients may die on average at the same time as those who were not treated; sometimes they may even die sooner.”

In this case, we know that, any additional time comes with significant side-effects. In other words, the FDA’s stance is not just a question of time, but of quality.

Indeed, progression-free survival has the potential to be more devastating than standard deterioration. Imagine if, after two months of cancer stabilization, your loved one died at the same time as another patient who had been in worse shape for longer—that would be quite a blow.

The Moss Report points out that “patients who believe their disease is being controlled can feel an even greater sense of loss and disappointment when the disease again progresses than do those without any illusions about being cured of the disease.” Often abruptly dashed hope is more painful than a longer process, because the latter gives us time to prepare and come to grips with loss. If the Journal really wanted to think holistically about survival and benefits, it would be arguing against FDA approval of Avastin—not for it.

Yet the paper says that the FDA’s reluctance is symptomatic of an obstructionist “bureaucratic culture” bulwarked by “political pressure from Congress, where Members know they can always get headlines by calling for a crackdown on Big Pharma or exploiting public safety anxieties.” This isn’t fair. If we really want to make sure we maximize the benefits of medical science, we need to think hard about the incentives of drug companies—not just those of public officials.

The basic logic of the pharmaceutical industry is as follows: (1) a manufacturer creates a drug and runs trials, showing that it confers some benefit, either large or small. (2) The drug is approved by the FDA for a given use, and eventually for a wider array of conditions so that (3) use of the drug can proliferate across patient populations—thus allowing market share to grow. This leads to (4) increased profit, which leads to (5) nice, shiny Porsches.

These steps—or at least, one through four—make up the fundamental business model of prescription drug companies. All the cost is concentrated in steps one and two—research, development, and haggling with the FDA to get to market. To maximize profit, drug companies want to cut these costs as much as possible.

Now, if the FDA concedes that progression-free survival is enough to warrant approval, it essentially sets the bar very low for these early stages. The message is that manufacturers should go for the low-hanging fruit and focus on maximizing the number of ways to apply existing medications—rather than developing truly innovative new ones. The standard of proof is lower—so why not try and push through existing products, rather than incurring the costs of ground-up development?

No business in its right mind would say “no” to this opportunity. Already, drug companies spend more on promotion than on R & D because the effort is less and the financial reward is at least as promising—if not more so—than that attached to development. "

Of course, because it is so easy to develop cancer drugs.  I am sure Maggie is already planning her foray into the field.  After all, with the bar so low, how could she not...

Speaking of low bars... Why did Provenge developer Dendreon and prostate cancer patients had to wait another 3 years for the FDA to approve the product?

And why do most  developers of cancer drugs lose money?  And as for companies spending more on "promotion" than on R&D, it is a tribute to Mahar's ability to even get the small things wrong:  Drug companies spend 20 percent of their sales on R&D and, according to the CBO, devote 10 percent to promotion.   Last time I checked that's less.  

In any event, here's her 'reasoning' for being against drugs like Provenge and Avastin:

"Are you comfortable with the idea that the extra few months would be available to the wealthy, but not to the rest of us?

Also, if the patient has to pay for the very expensive drug that provides only a minimal benefit, there will be too few customers for the drug, and probably the drug company would stop
manufacturing it.

The only way that drugs like this stay on the market is if taxpayers (who pay more than half of all health care bills) continue to pay extremely high prices for drugs that provide a very small benefit."

On the one hand she writes -- in the very same post -- No business in its right mind would say “no” to this opportunity. Already, drug companies spend more on promotion than on R & D because the effort is less and the financial reward is at least as promising—if not more so—than that attached to development. "

But on the other hand, since the drug really doesn't work -- except for a few --  the company will stop producing it, except if the government also covers the medicine for people who are less well off? 

Should new drugs not be made available because they are expensive and only benefit a few people?  Is she against every orphan drug?

And here are Maggie's warm wishes for those now able to finally access Provenge
  Read More & Comment...

The Devil is in the Details, by George!

04/30/2010 07:46 AM |

Jeff George, the head of Sandoz (not the former NFL quarterback), predicts using existing regulatory pathways (like 505(b)(2) or a BLA) to bring FOBs to market rather than use the new regulatory pathway provided in the health care reform legislation.  Why? Because provisions in the new pathway that favor the innovator brands.

According to the Pink Sheet, “Generic drug makers applaud passage of the legislation, but some including Sandoz, are under-whelmed by the opportunity the legislation provides.”

Mr. George: "The devil's really in the details." He focuses on three issues:

(1) The provision for an FOB manufacturer to give its application to the innovator company to facilitate patent infringement negotiations. The health care reform legislation requires that biosimilar applicants provide the reference product sponsor with a copy of the application and "other information that describes the process or processes used to manufacture the biological product" within 20 days after FDA accepts the application for review.

(2) The reference product sponsor is then expected to provide the biosimilar applicant with a list of patents for which it thinks it could claim patent infringement, and each company is expected to lay out its legal basis and ultimately negotiate and reach a resolution on which patents to litigate.

Mr. George:  "I think it is unfair to generic companies that we would be required to hand over our dossiers to our competitors years before the product comes to market in order that they could pick apart our arguments scientifically and on the patent front to leverage in their own litigation against us.”

(3) The legislation does not require litigation resolution, opening the door to years of patent litigation, even after FDA approves a biosimilar. "Effectively, it calls into question why you would use this pathway if you've got to hand over your scientific dossier to your competitor on the one hand and your competitor can tie you up in litigation," George said. "With that kind of pathway, it's not clear that companies like Sandoz and the leading generic (sic) companies in the world would use this pathway to go to market.”

Sometimes a taste of your own medicine is good for the soul. 

And, on an unrelated note, one word – Provenge.

  Read More & Comment...

Son of Steve

04/29/2010 08:23 AM |

It’s frustrating when Congressional subcommittees only seek advice from people who tell them what they want to hear.

Case in point, the testimony of Harlan Krumholz (of Yale) at yesterday’s House Appropriations subcommittee hearing – chaired by Rosa DeLauro.

Dr. Krumholz thinks that the FDA should have an "emergency response" plan to follow when new safety findings raise questions about whether a drug should remain on the market. According to Dr. Krumholz, "There should be clear protocols, processes …We should not be in 2010 saying we still don't have all the data. We don't have all the facts, and we're in the same place we were when this [the meta-analysis] came out."

Really? Didn’t the FDA summon an advisory committee?  And didn’t that advisory committee vote 22-1 in favor of keeping Avandia on the market?

But let’s not focus on the facts when rhetoric is so much more fun. Here’s what Representative DeLauro's had to say, “Whenever there is a question asked about the science surrounding a drug, FDA always appears "to act on behalf of the industry.”

That being said, the issue is -- Can the FDA "own" safety?

(The short answer is that it must -- and must work immediately with skill and diligence to achieve that goal.)

At present, politicians and pundits (not to mention trial lawyers) own safety. They're the ones talking about it. They're who the media goes to when they write about it.  

And what about the role of industry, the other group being flayed with the safety knout? What have we heard from them on the issue of safety? Some, but not enough.

Americans woke up the morning after the Vioxx recall and were amazed to discover that drugs have risks. Good lord. Who let that happen! Avandia, in that respect, was Son of Vioxx. And, like any sequel, new actors were brought in to spice up the story.  In this respect Dr. Krumholz can be dubbed “Son of Steve.”

When it comes to patient trust, it shouldn’t be a choice between politics and public health – but those battle lines are being drawn. Unfortunately complex systems make for bad media coverage, while simplistic, dramatic demagoguing makes for sexier headlines.

There’s an apt Japanese proverb that bears repeating – “Don’t fix the blame. Fix the problem.” Unfortunately, the recent FDA-bashing isn’t about making things better – it’s about making headlines.

It's time for the grown-ups to step forward and take charge of the debate on drug safety.  Read More & Comment...

Amazing Grace (Marie)

04/29/2010 07:54 AM |

From today's edition of the Wall Street Journal and the pen of our pal Grace-Marie Turner.

States Face Their First ObamaCare Test

States have until tomorrow to let Washington know if they plan to participate in one of the first government programs to be launched under ObamaCare—new high-risk pools for the uninsured. The question states should be asking is: Why would we participate?

The high-risk program is essentially insurance for individuals who have pre-existing conditions and are expensive to insure. The new health law allocates $5 billion for insuring them until 2014 when enrollees would be transferred to new health-insurance exchanges. But Richard Foster, chief actuary of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, reported last week that the high-risk program will run out of money next year or in 2012. Therefore, if states sign up for the program, they'll end up shouldering the burden for about two years after it runs out of federal money.

This will be a heavy lift considering the other costs ObamaCare is foisting onto states, one of which is the expansion of Medicaid, a joint federal-state program originally designed to cover low-income Americans. Under ObamaCare, Medicaid will be expanded to cover 84 million people by 2019, up from about 50 million today, putting pressure on states' budgets.

Georgia, Nebraska and other states have already taken a pass. The federal government will likely set up these risk pools without their participation. In a letter to federal Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, Georgia's insurance commissioner John W. Oxendine said he feared the high-risk pools would "ultimately become the financial responsibility of Georgians in the form of an unfunded mandate." Kansas, Ms. Sebelius's home state, among many others, is considering opting out as well.

In addition to the cost, states are worried about the strings attached to the program. In a conference call with state officials last week, HHS officials weren't able to answer specific questions about federal mandates that will be placed on participating states. That's discomforting because HHS will draft the program's rules only after states decide whether to sign up.

What states already know should give them pause. By law, premiums in the new pools can cost no more than insurance for people in a state's standard nongroup insurance market. Most existing state high-risk pools charge 125% to 200% of standard rates because patients in those pools are by definition more expensive to insure. The new health law says that the federal government will set what states must pay doctors and hospitals for patients in the pools, and that the pools must cover all pre-existing conditions from day one. Right now, most states allow some waiting periods before covering pre-existing conditions to control costs. Washington will also determine which medical benefits must be provided.

Georgia calculated that, under these provisions, the high-risk program would cost more than the $177 million the federal government is expected to allocate for its program.

But what's most disconcerting is that the program will likely disturb the careful balance that some 35 states have struck in setting up their own high-risk pools. The federal high-risk pools would operate alongside existing state pools. States will be required to maintain funding for their pools, even while the federal government signs up new uninsured people for its program. The federal program will have more generous benefits and lower premiums than most state-funded high-risk programs, even though state officials say people in the new federal program are likely to be less needy than those enrolled in existing state risk pools.

The White House says high-risk pools were a Republican idea. But GOP leaders called for allocating $25 billion over 10 years (instead of $5 billion over three-and-a-half years) and would have given states far greater latitude in setting the rules.

If more states opt not to join the federal program, Congress will have to acknowledge that there has been a public repudiation of the federal program. That could create pressure to give states what they want—block grants to increase their existing high-risk pools or, for states that don't have them, money to set up new ones. Deciding whether to sign up for the high-risk program is an important early test for states to tell Washington who is in charge.

Ms. Turner is president of the Galen Institute, a nonprofit research organization focused on patient-centered health reform.

  Read More & Comment...

Obamacare's Financial "Reforms"

04/28/2010 12:20 PM |

Talk about requiring those selling securites to put in more cash  and have increased capital reserves rather than" assets of clients and counterparties as a source of liquidity..."  

The federal government is sucking cash out of it's "clients and counterparties" --  state Medicaid programs, providers, etc. to pay for Obamacare leaving near term shortfalls in their wake.

For instance:

State officials told Kaiser Health News earlier this week that they have already negotiated many drug discounts that exceed 15.1 percent so they will lose that money under the new federal rules. Some said millions of dollars could be on the line for individual states, but federal officials said they have not estimated the cost to states.

State officials had hoped the federal government would interpret the law in a way that left their discounts untouched. But in a letter Thursday to state Medicaid officials, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services explained, "The amount of the savings resulting from the increases in the rebate percentages … will be remitted to the Federal government."

Cindy Mann, the agency’s director for the Center for Medicaid and State Operations , confirmed in an interview that meant states that already received drugmaker rebates between 15.1 and 23.1 percent would no longer be able to keep that portion of their savings. States and the federal government would continue to share in savings for the portion of the rebates both below and above that range. Many states already have average rebates well above 23 percent.

Mann suggested that state officials could negotiate deeper discounts with drugmakers to try to "recapture that dollar."

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/April/22/Medicaid-drug-rebates.aspx

In otherwords,  you are on your own. 

In turn, the federal government will use that cash to finance small business tax credits -- that evaporate in 6 years -- for insurance coverage that, because of the legislation -- was estimated by CBO be 13 percent higher.  So Obamacare is draining Medicaid to pay for tax credits to reduce the increased cost of healthcare insurance triggered by the bill:

"The credits are available in full to firms with 10 or fewer employees who offer an average wage of $25,000 or less. The credit is reduced for employers who have as many as 25 employees and average wages of up to $50,000 annually. Employers with more employees or higher average wages don't get the credit at all.

In addition, the credits are only available for six years, further complicating long-term efforts to help small businesses afford providing health insurance for their employees, said Amanda Austin, director of federal public policy for the NFIB, which opposed the Democrats’ health reform efforts and the new law.

The tax credit is emerging as a flashpoint in the ongoing debate about how the reform will affect costs and insurance affordability.

Austin, who spoke Monday at a U.S. Chamber of Commerce forum on what health reform may mean for businesses, said that although some small businesses’ efforts to provide their employees with coverage might be helped by the tax credit, businesses don't want to continue to return to Congress every few years to ask for the program to be extended.

"What we want is the market to drop its costs down long term," she said, adding that individual and small group markets for health insurance could see premiums increase by as much as 13 percent in the coming years. In the meantime, she and others are spending a lot of time waiting to see what the Department of Health and Human Services will do as the rulemaking process for the health law begins to gain momentum."

www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2010/April/27/small-businesses-health-tax-credit.aspx

Meanwhile, the Obama administration and HHS Secretary Sebilius are disavowing the estimates of Medicare actuary showing a financial meltdown of Obamacare in the decade ahead, with same estimates showing a collapse of healthcare service delivery in Medicaid -- where most people receiving "insurance coverage" will go... At the same time,  the bill provides incentives for people to wait until they are sick instead of obtaining coverage, driving costs up. As the report states: “existing providers resources and could lead to price increases, cost-shifting, and/or changes in providers’ willingness to treat patients with low-reimbursement health coverage.”

tinyurl.com/24pgepa

What did Goldman Sachs call the less than healthy assets it was trying to sell? Something about Obamacare's financing of healthcare has the same smell. 

  Read More & Comment...

The FDA's War on Salt

04/28/2010 09:28 AM |

A recent study measuring the impact of the NYC's mandatory requirement to post calorie counts  found that calories per transaction in a Starbuck fell by 6%. 

Six percent. 

As in eating 232 calories compared to 247.  Fifteen calories if my math is correct.

Morever,  the "impact the effect of calorie posting is actually to increase Starbucks revenue. "

That means either more people showing up or people visting more frequently.  Eating more perhaps.

I bring this up in the context of the FDA's war on salt, which comes on the heels of yet another less than rigorous report issued by the Institute of Medicine...

Earlier this week, the Institute of Medicine released a report  recommending enforceable sodium standards on the nation's food suppliers as a way to curb heart disease fatalities. The FDA claims to be examining practical means of implementation.    

Dr. Michael Alderman, a hypertension specialist at Albert Einstein College of Medicine, has been quoted lately in many papers covering the recently vamped-up war on salt. Alderman said a randomized clinical trail is needed to determine the effect of reducing sodium intake on the length and quality of life. At this point, he says, there’s no proof that it couldn’t be detrimental.  

 

“In careful studies of response to sodium reduction, most people have no change in blood pressure, while perhaps a quarter to a third have a significant fall," he said. "And, importantly, something like 10 percent have an equivalent rise in pressure.”

 

Further, he said, salt reduction can also increase resistance to insulin and other hormones, which can damage cardiovascular health. 

 

 “Thus,” he said, “the health effect of reducing sodium will be the net of these
conflicting effects.”

www.pizzamarketplace.com/article.php

Moreover, we don't exactly know what role salt plays in regulating food or calorie intake.

UC Davis nutrition professor Judith Stern and three colleagues last November published a study in the Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology that questions that "scientific logic and feasibility" of limiting sodium consumption.

Stern, along with UC Davis adjunct professor David McCarron, reviewed data from a range of worldwide studies and examined neuroscience research and found that a body naturally regulates salt intake "within a narrowly defined physiological range."

Stern goes on to note: "If a 'normal' range of sodium intake exists that is consistent with the optimal function of established peripheral and central nervous system mechanisms, that fact should be the sole basis of national nutrition guidelines for dietary sodium intake," Stern's study said. "To attempt to use public policy to abrogate human physiology would be futile and possibly harmful to human health."

  Read More & Comment...

ICU

04/28/2010 08:02 AM |

During her April 22 presentation to the Food and Drug Law Institute's annual meeting, Woodcock was asked when FDA would translate its commitment to the idea of transparency into a greater number of concrete actions. "The answer, honestly, is I don't know," she said. "These things all take time and resources, dedication ... So I can't actually tell you."

FDA's transparency initiative has three components: providing information to the public via a website about what the agency does; deciding what types of information can be disclosed (for example about new safety issues or product applications), and being more transparent to industry about its processes.

Some stakeholders have called on the agency to take transparency into newer areas, such as releasing product application "complete response" letters.

Dealing with documents is not as simple as posting them on the FDA website, it appears. Woodcock said nearly all of them would require some redacting of proprietary or other sensitive information for legal protection. She said when the number of pages reaches into the billions, it is a massive workload.

Transparency – terrific.  But how do we want to FDA to spend its resources?

On a entirely different subject, this just in from the BBC:

Men whose love lives are falling short can try a new prescription pill to combat the problem.

The first drug made available in the UK for premature ejaculation, called Priligy, can reportedly triple the amount of time a man can last in bed. It works by altering levels of serotonin in the brain, which should give men more control over ejaculation.

Keep calm and carry on.

The complete Beeb story can be found here:  http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8646075.stm

  Read More & Comment...

Father of the Bribe

04/27/2010 07:23 AM |

The European Court of Justice ruled on April 22 that financially incentivizing physicians to prescribe generic drugs (and to switch patients from branded medicines) is legal – but it remains illegal for innovator companies to engage in similar practices.

In its ruling, the ECJ said that EU legislation banning pharmaceutical companies from offering financial incentives to doctors does not prevent public health bodies, like UK Primary Care Trusts, from implementing schemes that offer doctors financial inducements for switching patients to a specific, named, medicine.

The switching of large numbers of patients in one area of the UK from a branded statin to generic simvastatin was believed to have been one of the triggers for the original court case, currently being heard in the UK High Court; it was this court that referred the questions decided by the ECJ in its ruling.

But, to understand the unintended consequences of such actions, it’s also imperative to consider what happens when such switching occurs. Case in point, The Health Improvement Network (THIN) study-- an observational study of a large United Kingdom primary care database showed that patients who were switched from established Lipitor therapy to generic simvastatin experienced a 30% increase in relative risk of cardiovascular events or death compared to patients who remained on Lipitor therapy.

The data, which included records from October 1997 to June 2005, were generated from a retrospective analysis of a medical database of anonymous patient records entered by general practitioners in the United Kingdom. The analysis included 11,520 patients (2,511 patients who had taken Lipitor for six months or more and were switched to simvastatin vs. 9,009 patients who were taking Lipitor for six months or more and then remained on Lipitor therapy).

While the reasons these patients were switched is not known -- it is certainly not inconceivable that it might have had something to do with ... short term costs to the system.

Now there will be another reason – direct payments.

And what of Article 94 of EU Directive 2001/83 which bans the practice. Specifically, "Where medicinal products are being promoted to persons qualified to prescribe or supply them, no gifts, pecuniary advantages or benefits in kind may be supplied, offered or promised to such persons unless they are inexpensive and relevant to the practice of medicine or pharmacy."

Do different rules apply to government incentives? In the EU it looks like this is just the case. Another lesson we need to learn as we move forward into the uncertain world of Uncle Sam, MD.

  Read More & Comment...

Drinking the Dartmouth Kool-Aid

04/26/2010 05:34 PM |

Berwick again:

"While Berwick will be constrained by congressional directives and institutional rules, his large vision focuses on nothing less than revamping the delivery system from top to bottom. For example, when I interviewed him for my book Rx For Healthcare Reform, here’s how Berwick explained why he thought we could cut 30 to 40 percent out of healthcare spending without affecting quality:

The work of John Wennberg and Elliott Fisher at Dartmouth shows that the more intensive services are available in a community, the more that they’re used without effect on the quality of care. So supply drives demand. It’s a monster cost driver without value added.

This isn’t what most of the healthcare community (aside from primary care doctors) wants to hear. It isn’t what drug or device makers want to hear. And it’s a major reason why Republicans will oppose Berwick. But it is the message that all stakeholders need to absorb and take to heart if we really want to control costs and make good healthcare available to everyone."

http://industry.bnet.com/healthcare/10002286/berwicks-big-vision-will-make-him-target-in-bid-to-become-medicare-chief/

You can increase quality and reduce the cost of delivering some forms of care, but it has little to do with so-called "supply-driven" medicine.  It has everything to do with identifying what treatments work best for which patients in a given setting and continually improving your ability to selectively use the most effective treatments.  It is not easy and it it sure not a matter of adjusting the "amount" of care to the lowest per capita level or even standardizing treatment steps to the lowest cost per capita.  

  Read More & Comment...

Berwick Relishes Rationing?

04/26/2010 03:58 PM |

The WSJ editorial page notes: "The official who will preside over this fiscal trainwreck is Donald Berwick, the Harvard professor and chief of the Institute for Healthcare Improvement who the White House has nominated to run Medicare. Dr. Berwick explained in an interview last year that the British National Health Service has "developed very good and very disciplined, scientifically grounded, policy-connected models for the evaluation of medical treatments from which we ought to learn." He added that "The decision is not whether or not we will ration care—the decision is whether we will ration with our eyes open. And right now, we are doing it blindly."

Meanwhile in the UK, Britain's Department of Health said investment in the NHS had risen from £35bn in 1997 to more than £110bn by 2011. That's over 200 percent, twice as fast as it did in the US.  At the same time, UK oncologists note: "We now spend similar amounts to Europe on health generally and cancer care in particular, but less than two thirds of the European average on cancer drugs.... It just can't be that everybody else around the world is wrong about access to innovative cancer care and the NHS right in rationing it so severely."

No, it is also that UK cancer survival rates are still the lowest in Western Europe.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7579422.stm

Yes, "discipline" indeed.  

Here's my take on Berwick's sweeping and silly assertions.  Do we really want someone so driven by ideology and biased against our own healthcare system to head up CMS?


http://spectator.org/archives/2010/04/26/the-fix-is-in  Read More & Comment...