Hep, Hep Hooray?

08/24/2012 07:34 AM |

If you’re among the 21% of American adults who have tattoos, you might be surprised to learn that there’s no law or regulation that requires tattoo inks to be sterile. The FDA, which has oversight over the inks, treats them like cosmetics and says only that ink manufacturers must use ingredients that have received pre-market approval.

  Read More & Comment...

Bending the Curve through Adherence

08/23/2012 07:46 AM |

How about healthcare evolution through personal responsibility?

Increased adherence to non-insulin hypoglycemic drugs in diabetes patients can reduce hospitalizations or emergency room visits by nearly 13%, according to a large observational study conducted by researchers at Harvard and Express Scripts and published in the August issue of Health Affairs.

The researchers estimate that improved adherence to diabetes drugs could save nearly $5 billion annually across the U.S. health care system.

The study analyzes medical and pharmacy claims from 2006 through 2008 for approximately 136,000 patients with diabetes who were continuously enrolled in a private health plan or covered through a self-insured employer during that time.

In 2006, approximately 40% of patients in the study were non-adherent to their diabetes medication. Of that group, 32% (or 17,279) became adherent in 2007. After adjusting for underlying differences in co-morbidities and socioeconomic factors, the researchers found that “increased adherence was associated with nearly 13% lower odds of being hospitalized or visiting an emergency room.”

Conversely, “losing adherence was associated with nearly 15% higher odds of being hospitalized or having an emergency department visit in the following year.” In addition, “we found that those who remained adherent had the lowest rates of hospitalizations or emergency department visits” across all groups, at 27%.

Using census data, the authors found that “for patients from zip codes with high percentages of minority populations and for those from poor areas, the benefits of increased adherence were more substantial than they were for patients with zip codes with smaller minority populations or higher average incomes.”

The researchers extrapolated their findings to national medical data to estimate the potential financial benefits of improved adherence. They project that approximately 700,000 emergency room visits and 341,000 hospitalizations could be averted annually if all non-adherent patients with diabetes became adherent.

Quantifying the dollar savings that could result, the researchers estimated that the U.S. could save $3.95 billion in hospitalizations and $735 million in emergency room visits each year, for a total savings of $4.68 billion annually across the health care system.

In addition, 1.6 million Medicare patients lose their adherence in any given year, the researchers reported. And “preventing those losses of adherence would yield an additional $1.71 billion in savings per year to the Medicare program, leading to a potential total benefit of $3.93 billion to Medicare alone.”

  Read More & Comment...

Every Drug Will Be An Orphan Drug

08/22/2012 03:33 PM |

A study of the economic value relative to the investment in orphan diseases and drugs that target specific subpopulations demonstrates they generate more returns to R&D than the old blockbuster approach..

The article mentions that such drugs can command a high price.  In point of fact -- and this is something worth studying -- most companies that have developed new orphan or targeted therapies underwrite the cost for patients or substantially discount the price.   I don't think this is sustainable because eventually all new medicines will be targeted and likely to be taken orally rather than injected.    The most interesting piece of information in the study is the observation that orphan drugs are more likely to be approved more quickly, have a higher degree of success in getting FDA approval and are more likely to be adopted more quickly.   The reduction in risk and uncertainty is likely to be more valuable to companies than launch price.    Moreover, the shift to oral therapies is probably associated with increased compliance and increased survival.   

You ask Amicus CEO John Crowley about why his firm is determined to turn infusions for Pompe's, Fabry's and Gaucher's diseases into pills and he will tell what it's like to have to spend a day and a half transporting his children to a hospital when they could be taking a pill and be monitored at home through sensors or online tools.    

Indeed, I think were are now in the age of personalized medicine.   The use of biomarkers and sophisticated analytical tools to weed out toxicities specific to subpopulation is becoming standard operating procedure.  Rather than just jumping into development with a target that is biologically active, companies large and small are engaging in what my colleagues and mentors Frank Douglas and Steve Paul have described as value-driven proof of concept.  

  Additionally,  people can now monitor their health at home, through apps and sensors that collect and analyze data in real time and in less time than it takes to check email or text messages.   And people are know sharing information about their 'consumer' experience,  opinions that can shape their care and future product development.  If companies will listen.

As Josh Lederberg often said: science is not linear in its progression.   Lederberg also  noted that for innovation to flourish, social and economic institutions had to change with medical progress as well.   For the most part, despite pushback from those who warned about a 'tsunami' of new biologics that would devour every dollar spent on health care, the future is here.  These new biologics are more targeted and more effective.  They extend life and reduce more expensive hospitalization.   They are solutions that make staying healthier and living longer easier and cheaper to do.   We seek out such products for the same reason smart phones and notebooks are crowding out conventional PC sales:   They make doing what we want easier and more enjoyable.  They enrich life.   We need more articles that track these benefits and more companies that use these values to design and produce new medical products.   And companies will or should be more savvy in how they launch these products in countries where the middle class is growing along with life expectancy.   

Point of care and personalized diagnostics, tools to prevent disease and targeted therapies that ultimately 'cure' by shutting off every avenue of escape for degenerative illnesses that are widely commercialized across the planet.   I think we are getting there.   

  Read More & Comment...

Explaining the popularity of the NHS

08/22/2012 04:56 AM |

Theodore Dalrymple on the NHS in the L.A. Times:

On several measures, the NHS came out the worst of all the systems examined. For example, it ranked worst for five-year survival rates in cervical, breast and colon cancers. It was also worst for 30-day mortality rates after admission to a hospital for either hemorrhagic or ischemic stroke. On only one clinical measure was it best: the avoidance of amputation of the foot in diabetic gangrene.

This hardly seems like a cause for national rejoicing, yet according to the report, the British were the most satisfied with their healthcare of all the populations surveyed. They were the most confident that in the event of illness, they would receive the best and most up-to-date treatment; and they were the least worried that their personal finances would prevent them from receiving proper treatment.

So, how is it that the population most confident that it will receive treatment of the highest possible standard, featuring the latest medical advances, actually has the worst survival rates in precisely those diseases that require the most up-to-date treatments?

One explanation is ignorance. The average Briton or Swede is unlikely to know that the five-year survival rate for colorectal cancer is 51.6% in Britain but 59.8% in Sweden, or that the 30-day fatality rates for myocardial infarction in those two countries are 6.3% and 2.9%, respectively. (The figures for the United States are 65.5% and 5.1%.) By contrast, the average Briton knows that if he suffers a heart attack, he will be taken to the hospital and connected to a lot of machines, from which he concludes that he is having the best possible treatment.

In my youth, I often heard the refrain that the NHS was "the envy of the world," and people in Britain are still inclined to believe that, even though they probably have never met anyone who envied the NHS and, indeed, probably know Continental Europeans residing in Britain who hurry home as soon as they require medical treatment, horrified by the prospect of subjecting themselves to a British hospital.

That said, there are some strengths the system can claim. Medical care is coordinated, for example, by means of a universal (and compulsory) system of family doctors. The lack of such coordination in the United States leads not only to a high rate of medical error but to duplication of effort.

The American rate of polypharmacy (the taking of four or more medicines daily) is twice the British rate. This difference is unlikely to reflect genuine need; the American polypharmacy rate is also 21/2 times the Swiss rate, and whatever one might think of British medical care, few would impugn the quality of care in Switzerland.

Read the full piece here.

  Read More & Comment...

Measure Island

08/21/2012 01:45 PM |

The Pink Sheet reports, “Congress and the public should get an updated and extensive look at FDA performance over the next few years thanks to the many studies included in the FDA Safety and Innovation Act, although the additional work may tax agency personnel.” PDUFA V calls for more than 30 reports and studies.

That which gets measured gets done. But whose going to do the work? The FDA isn’t getting any additional funding or staffing to accomplish this important reportage – so what’s going to get prioritized?

That’s easy. Anything that is required by Congress gets done first – and that means PDUFA dates take a back seat.

More Congressional accountability for the FDA without additional funding? 

Be careful what you wish for.

  Read More & Comment...

Measuring Responsibility

08/20/2012 07:15 AM |

If you can’t measure it, the saying goes, it doesn’t count.  But what if you’re measuring the wrong things?

The Access to Medicines Index (www.accesstomedicineindex.org) is an attempt to measure and compare the corporate social responsibility of both innovator (20) and generics (7) companies based on a number of different (and often quixotic) indicators. It was developed by Netherland's-based non-profit Access to Medicines Foundation (ATMF) with funding from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the UK Department for International Development and The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. It was launched in 2008, and comes out every two years.

The Index analyzes the following seven technical areas across four pillars:

Pillars:

1)    Commitment (30% weight)

2)    Transparency (30% weight)

3)    Performance (30% weight)

4)    Innovation (10% weight)

Technical Areas:

1)    General Access to Medicine Strategy and Governance

2)    Public Policy and Advocacy

3)    R&D for Index Diseases

4)    Patients & Licensing

5)    Equitable Pricing & Registration

6)    Technology Transfer (Capability Advancement)

7)    Drug Donations and Philanthropic Activities

The Index concentrates on the global list of Low and Medium Development Countries based on the UN Human Development Index and World Bank Country Income level categories. The Index has historically covered 33 diseases including: WHO Neglected Tropical Diseases; the top 10 infectious diseases based on DALYs (Disability-Adjusted Life Years) from the WHO Global Burden of Diseases for the Low Development and Medium Development Countries; and the top 10 chronic diseases based on DALYs from the WHO Global Burden of Diseases for the Low Development and Medium Development Countries. The next index will likely broaden the disease scope to additional categories including NCDs, women’s health and some cancers. They also plan to place increased weighting on companies’ actual performance (vs. their commitments).

According the Access to Medicine Foundation, the index “aims to help poor people in developing countries gain access to medicine by encouraging the pharmaceutical industry to improve its commitments and practices related to this issue.” Since it’s a comparison, the theory is that competition among companies will drive desirous “socially responsible” behaviors. That’s a noble goal, but the devil is in the details.

As Goran Tomson, professor of international health systems research at Karolinska Institute points out, the Index’s methodology cannot be reproduced, hence it cannot be considered statistically valid.

There are also troubling issues relative to the index’s metrics for success. According to the Index’s methodological designer, Afshin Mehrpouya (an assistant professor of accounting and management control at the Paris-based HEC international business school) recently said, the only current measurements are “web hits and media coverage.” That’s not very exciting, plausible, or helpful from a health policy analysis perspective.

Another metric is the opinion of patient groups. When asked why certain patient groups were chosen (they are not named in the Index), the answer was that groups were chosen based on their “credibility.” That’s code for groups who do not accept funding from the pharmaceutical industry or may share the anti-private sector bias of the party line. At minimum, it’s a dubious selection bias.

Karolinska’s Tomson also pointed out that the index’s “review committee” consisted almost entirely of “familiar faces,” thus creating an issue of normative bias.

In other words, when did you stop beating your wife?

To offer better balance and some reference, shouldn’t the Index create a parallel metric that measures the policies and political environments of low and middle-income countries to determine whether they facilitate or hinder their citizens’ access to healthcare? How about creating an index that addresses the lack of transparency in the LDC public sector and (the 800 pound gorilla in the room) corruption. These are all polite ways of saying that the design criterion stacks the deck. But, hey, doesn’t the end justify the means?

Karolinska’s Tomson put the discussion about the index—as well as the entire ICIUM enterprise—into perspective when he said the index lacked for “higher ambitions.”

“Higher ambitions” requires that the Index do more than read its own press releases and talk with its friends in NGO-Land. “Higher ambitions” requires honesty beyond one’s own cognitive mapping.

According to Index CEO and Founder Wim Leerveld, “Today all companies have teams to deliver us the requested data as they see the relevance for them.”

Maybe. Maybe not. Interviews with participating companies showed much displeasure with both the Index questionnaire, the volume and type of information being requested by the Index and the “normative bias” of the ATMi staff. In some cases, participating companies are spending hundreds of hours to collect, verify and prepare final submissions. Is it worth it?

Here are some tough questions the Indexers must ask themselves:

Q: Is the Index moving the needle? Is there evidence that this is worth the effort that companies put into it and does it justify donor funding? Have they had an impact on financial investment patterns? Web hits and press clippings don’t cut it.

Q: What work has ATMF done to validate that their metrics are in fact the right drivers to improving access? Are they selecting an agenda being pushed by activist constituents without assessing a more full-bodied picture of what is happening in the real world?

To take one glaring example, the Index operates from the assumption that the innovator pharmaceutical industry can improve access to essential medicines. But, when you examine the WHO's model Essential Drug List, very few of the 400 or so drugs deemed essential are new, or patented or were ever patented in the world's poorest countries.  In category after category, from aspirin to zithromax, in almost every case and in almost every country, these medicines have always been (or have been for many years) in the public domain.  That is, the medicine is fully open to legal and legitimate generic manufacture. 

There are important implications for the world's poorest patients. If these patients had reliable and affordable access to these several hundred essential medicines, all available theoretically as multi-source, that is from generics companies, then global mortality and morbidity might be cut as much as 10-20% -- a huge gain for populations around the world. Strangely, the Index gives a pass to the world's largest producers of generics drugs in India and China. Those companies are not being asked to spend hundreds of hours assembling data on their contributions to medicines access.  Given the potential hugely positive impact on access to medicines, any reasonable person might ask why?

Q: Is it time to reassess the Index’s bias for certain mechanisms and tools? Its fixation on the medicines patent pool, for example unfairly demoting companies that aren't in negotiations. This doesn't seem fair. The pool is only one part of a broader landscape of what's happening around access to HIV and other treatments and it's unfair to use one tool as a measure of companies' commitment when there are other things happening that are very relevant and important.

There are ideological and activist assumptions within questionnaire’s section on tech transfer question. Is the Index looking at tech transfer as a measure of access to medicines or are they promoting industrial policy? Why isn’t in-country capacity building measured? What about efforts to fight counterfeiting? If ATMi is an ideological exercise, then innovator pharmaceutical industry should question the usefulness of the proposition.

Q: How does the Index ensure each company answers the questions in the same way to allow for an apples-to-apples comparison? Is the Index able to objectively compare companies? According to one corporate participant:

“Some of the questions were just too difficult to understand and required too much interpretation. In the Pricing & Distribution section, (Q1.9) we’re asked to provide product-specific registration status. When I asked for clarification, our Index contact told us to indicate if the product is patented in the countries in which it's registered. This is not inherent in the question. Also, we think it would be useful for the Index to know where we have filed for registration but where the application may be stuck in a bottleneck since the speed of registration is highly dependent on the speed and efficiency of local countries' regulatory processes. But our contact indicated this information was not necessary.”

The concern among participating industry is that the Index is getting increasingly arbitrary and opinionated. This is exacerbated by the fact that (per ATMi staff bios on its website) – many of the Index staff has worked for NGOs such as Médecins sans Frontières and other like-minded anti-pharmaceutical industry groups.

Industry wants the Index. They value being recognized for their good work – and the competitive rankings are appreciated (and flaunted). But the agenda isn’t appreciated. Pushing TRIPS+ and penalizing intellectual property rights trivializes the nature of the program. Perhaps it’s inaccurate to say that industry wants the Index.  Maybe a better statement is that industry wants an index.

Recognizing the inherent flaws and bias of the ATMi – but also the importance of measuring industry’s commitment to social responsibility and access, Business for Social Responsibility’s (http://www.bsr.org/) Healthcare Working Group has launched an effort to provide an industry-wide lens on this important issue.  The Working Group’s efforts center on the group’s acknowledgement that solving this challenge is a human need, and a business priority that requires a close collaboration with other actors from industry, public and NGO sectors.

It will be interesting to see how these two programs compare – and which one survives.

  Read More & Comment...

CATIE unbar the door

08/17/2012 07:49 AM |

First there was CATIE then, earlier this week, AHRQ reported (in the August 14th Annals of Internal Medicine) that second-generation antipsychotics are not much better than the earlier incarnations at treating positive symptoms associated with schizophrenia. That's just Son of Sham.

Now here’s some important news.

According to research published in Nature Neuroscience, scientists have discovered a molecular mechanism for resistance to antipsychotic medications. Researchers from the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York City found that "long-term administration of atypical antipsychotic drugs selectively upregulates expression of the enzyme histone deacetylase 2 (HDAC2) in both mouse and human frontal cortex." That "epigenetic change, which is dependent on serotonin 5-hydroxytryptamine 2A (5-HT2A) upregulation, leads to lower expression of the metabotropic glutamate 2 receptor (mGlu2), thereby limiting the therapeutic effects of atypical antipsychotic therapy, often leading to a recurrence of psychotic symptoms."

Personalized medicine anyone?

  Read More & Comment...

KIsses from the FDA

08/16/2012 07:24 AM |

Talk about qualified health claims!

In a letter dated February 14, 2012 (published online on August 14,) the FDA warns Hershey's that its labels for "Hershey's Syrup+Calcium" and "Hershey's Syrup Sugar Free with Vitamin and Mineral Fortification" are misbranded because they don't meet the nutritional requirements to make such claims.

The FDA has distinct definitions of "plus" and fortified" and doesn’t “consider it appropriate" to fortify snacks or sugary foods and carbonated beverages with vitamins and minerals. The FDA also said that Hershey's Syrup Genuine product was not an appropriate reference food for the other two types of syrups, because it does not include any of the added ingredients declared on the other products.

The labels now read as Hershey's Syrup with Calcium and Hershey's Sugar Free Chocolate Syrup.

Here’s the regulatory quandary – If you pour Hershey’s Syrup with Calcium over cholesterol-lowering Cheerios, is it a combination product?

  Read More & Comment...

From GAIN to Bain

08/15/2012 09:58 AM |

Some intriguing insights from a recent Pink Sheet article on the GAIN Act.

The passage of the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now (GAIN) provisions in the latest PDUFA agreement is being applauded for adding incentives like an additional five years of market exclusivity and priority review for qualifying antibiotics – but they may not be the game-changing incentives as some in the industry hoped.

High development hurdles for antibiotics, the availability of low-cost generics and reimbursement challenges for pricey new antibiotics are likely to keep most investors on the sidelines at least until big pharma starts to show more interest in the space.

The pharmaceutical industry, particularly at the top tier, has largely abandoned the therapeutic area because of development, regulatory and commercial challenges.

GAIN, which had been a pending stand-alone bill for years, was created as a partial solution to the dilemma, driven by groups like the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the Pew Health Group’s Antibiotics and Innovation Project as well as major companies in the space – what one lobbyist called the perfect storm of academia and industry, with industry using the thought leaders’ support to make it happen on the Hill. GAIN is intended to encourage development of new antibiotics as part of an effort to combat growing antibiotic resistance by providing incentives to companies developing drugs that target resistant pathogens.

One of the key challenges facing antibiotic drug developers is uncertainty in the approval pathway for antibiotics. One of the provisions in GAIN requires FDA to review antibiotic guidelines and update them where appropriate. The agency already has been working to update guidance for industry by type of infection, as required by the previous round of PDUFA, and has turned its efforts to complicated urinary tract infections, acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, and community- and hospital- acquired pneumonia. Nonetheless, the clinical trial requirements, statistical analyses and endpoints in some cases are considered overly burdensome by many in the industry.

A more dramatic change to FDA’s approval requirements for antibiotics could spark a sea change in antibiotic R&D. Industry had pushed Congress to consider more aggressive changes that would reduce the clinical trial requirements for new antibiotics by allowing drug makers to study new drugs by pathogen rather than by indication, or only in the most severely ill patients, which would raise the threshold for safety and create a market for antibiotics similar to that for orphan drugs, where high-priced treatments are used in only a small subset of critically ill patients. IDSA asked Congress to consider such an approach, which it calls the Limited Population Antibacterial Drug mechanism.

Beyond the regulatory hurdles, generic antibiotics are widely available, posing reimbursement challenges for expensive new brands that do reach the market. Antibiotics for resistant pathogens are mainly used in hospitals so they face the added pressure of needing to secure placement on hospital formularies. On top of all that, antibiotics are prescribed for short-course therapy, generally just a matter of days, which limits their sales potential compared to chronic treatments, and in turn, limits a company’s return on investment.

The increasing prevalence of drug resistant pathogens means there is a clear need for new agents – and a significant market opportunity for drugs that can fight resistant strains and demonstrate a compelling pharmacoeconomic value story in the process, mainly by reducing the length of time patients are required to stay in the hospital. Almost two million Americans per year develop hospital-acquired infections resulting in 99,000 deaths, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Sepsis and pneumonia alone killed nearly 50,000 Americans in 2006 and cost the health care system more than $8 billion.

How much antibiotic developers will benefit from the GAIN provisions depends on the molecules in development. The five years of additional market exclusivity, which comes on top of the five years of exclusivity already granted to brand manufacturers through Hatch-Waxman, is a big incentive but only in cases where patent protection doesn’t run in parallel.

  Read More & Comment...

Medicare's Made Up Numbers

08/14/2012 03:19 PM |

A good piece in The Weekly Standard about how research that shows that shifting every senior to Medicare advantage would save Medicare 9 percent of total spending in 2009 dollars.    That comes to about $800 per person.    Now it seems that the same authors of the study -- Obama supporters -- are claiming that seniors would have to pick up the slack..

My question is: so what?   Has the Obama administration already raised premiums for about 1 in 15 seniors because the are wealthier?  Yes.   Will premiums go up over all in old style Medicare?  Yes.   Are co-pays in real dollars increasing across the board?  Yes. 

Meanwhile,  here's what GAO said about Medicare advantage:

"Enrollment is up for Medicare Advantage plans, the private plan alternative to Medicare's traditional fee-for-service program, and premiums for beneficiaries are down, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO).

The GAO report, released December 1, found enrollment in Medicare Advantage plans increased by about 6%, from 7.9 million to 8.4 million beneficiaries, from April 2010 through April 2011, and the premiums seniors paid for these plans decreased 14%, saving them nearly $50 million. The average monthly premium decreased from $28 to $24 (http://tinyurl.com/7jf2cxp)."

Let's set aside the fact that most seniors in old style Medicare have supplemental insurance that pays for everything else Medicare doesn't pay for.   The fact that seniors are increasingly shifting to a more competitive -- Ryan-Wyden-like -- Medicare that offers more and charges less is a good thing.  Right?  The proponents of single payer Medicare want to take away that existing choice and not expand it.    And that's good?  

Claiming that seniors would have to pick up the cost of lower priced Medicare plan is not just incorrect factually.  It is the opposite of true.     Read More & Comment...

The Provisional FDA

08/14/2012 07:01 AM |

Good omnibus PDUFA V article in the August issue of Nature Biotechnology.

Here’s the opening paragraph:

After months of broad discussion followed more recently by narrower negotiations among legislators, late in June the US House of Representatives and Senate passed the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012 (FDASIA), also known as the Prescription Drug User Fee Act V (PDUFA V). With wide bipartisan majorities, President Barack Obama signed FDASIA into law on July 9, ahead of looming deadlines. Whereas some are concerned that Congress sidestepped key issues in its haste to pass the legislation, industry has generally welcomed the new law, particularly its implications for research on treatments for rare diseases.

And some selected quotes:

In terms of fostering product development for rare diseases, FDASIA encapsulates “certainly the strongest language to date, but it's not that strong,” says Peter Pitts, president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest in New York. Moreover, the development and review of such products “can't be expedited until the agency becomes more transparent about its risk-benefit analysis...and really explains its decisions so that they can be replicated. We need the agency to be more predictable, even if its heart is in the right place.”

More generally, Pitts says, “I give this version of PDUFA only a gentleman's B. It could have been better.” For one thing, the new law mandates only that FDA work toward developing a “risk-benefit grid” instead of setting a specific date to complete this as well as other comparably challenging projects, he says. “The agency agreed to hold meetings, and it's good to talk. But it won't get to the right place as soon as it might.”

Pitts also points out that language in the new law will not make it easy to “hold [FDA] feet to the fire.” However, on the plus side, “Congress recognized the need for more regular oversight on technical aspects of regulation,” he says. “It's one thing to have hearings on politically expedient issues, but rarely does Congress take on the sophisticated but more boring aspects of drug regulation.”

The article also offers a nice table of PDUFA V highlights:

FDASIA reforms to FDA

* Accelerated Approval: Fast Track designation and accelerated approval for “a broad range of serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions”

* Advisory Committee Conflicts: No cap on conflict-of-interest waivers for advisory committee members

* Breakthrough Therapies: Expedited development and review of drugs for serious and/or life-threatening diseases that show major improvement over the standard of care in phase 1/2 trials

* Biosimilars Performance Goals: Commitment to process 70% of original biosimilar biological product application submissions within 10 months of the receipt date in 2013 (up to 90% in 2017)

* Communication Training: Staff at CDER and CBER to better communicate with drug development teams and manufacturing. Independent auditors to evaluate interactions between sponsors and FDA in discussions on labeling, REMS and other potential issues before submission and during review. FDA to consult with patients during product development and review and to host four meetings with patient groups per year in different diseases

* Critical Path Appropriation: $6 million annually for FY13–FY17 to promote public-private partnerships

* Drug Review Timelines: Extends by two months the PDUFA deadlines for Standard and Priority Review of NMEs and original BLAs

* Foreign Clinical Trials: Encourages collaboration with European and Asian regulators to prevent duplicative trials

* Guidances: FDA to issue guidance on development of abuse-deterrent drugs and on online promotion of regulated products, including social media. Sixty days before issuing any draft or final guidance on laboratory-developed tests, FDA must notify Congress

* Pediatrics: Formalizes the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and Pediatric Research Equity Act and extends Priority Review voucher program to rare pediatric diseases

* Qualified Infectious Disease Products: Priority review and additional five years of exclusivity for novel anti-infective drugs against pathogens with “potential to pose a serious threat to public health”

* Rare Disease Experts: FDA to establish list of rare disease experts whom FDA may consult

The complete Nature Biotechnology article can be found here.

And speaking of fast track authority, Representative Brian Bilbray (R, CA) has drafted “The Patient Choice Act,” which would amend PDUFA V and provide a must swifter fast tract for critical and life-saving medicines.

Under “PROVISIONAL APPROVAL FOR ADEQUATELY SAFE FAST TRACK PRODUCTS” the draft bill reads:

Subject to the requirements of this subsection, if the Secretary determines that a drug that is designated as a fast track product under this section is adequately safe, the Secretary shall grant provisional approval and the drug may be introduced into interstate commerce on or after the date such provisional approval is granted.

Interestingly, all the power (per the draft language) rests with “the Secretary,” not the FDA. Considering the highly disturbing recent Plan B precedent – do we really want fast track approval authority residing with the Secretary of Health and Human Services?

Mr. Bilbray’s draft bill can be found here.

It is likely the last place you will ever see it.

 

  Read More & Comment...

Love Among the Ruins

08/13/2012 07:24 AM |

Interesting article in the Lancet (Volume 380, Issue 9841, Pages 611 - 619, 11 August 2012 doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)60861-7), Hypertension in developing countries.

Here’s the summary:

Data from different national and regional surveys show that hypertension is common in developing countries, particularly in urban areas, and that rates of awareness, treatment, and control are low. Several hypertension risk factors seem to be more common in developing countries than in developed regions. Findings from serial surveys show an increasing prevalence of hypertension in developing countries, possibly caused by urbanisation, ageing of population, changes to dietary habits, and social stress. High illiteracy rates, poor access to health facilities, bad dietary habits, poverty, and high costs of drugs contribute to poor blood pressure control. The health system in many developing countries is inadequate because of low funds, poor infrastructure, and inexperience. Priority is given to acute disorders, child and maternal health care, and control of communicable diseases. Governments, together with medical societies and non-governmental organisations, should support and promote preventive programmes aiming to increase public awareness, educate physicians, and reduce salt intake. Regulations for the food industry and the production and availability of generic drugs should be reinforced.

Common sense? Not to everyone.  It seems that members of uncivil society are somewhat perturbed since they prefer to focus on evil multinational corporations (MNCs) and patents as the key public enemies of public health in the developing world. They become defensive whenever issues like governments buying poor quality generics comes up, or the use of counterfeits, or the inconvenient fact that in Africa, 99% of all essential drugs are off patent or were never patented, but millions of patients don't have reliable access to them -- which puts the spotlight back on generics companies, kleptocratic governments and the failures of their health systems.

Uncivil society groupies appear reluctant to delve into the factors behind why millions of people in Africa and other LDCs don't have access to non patented, off patented, legally generic (and reliably high quality) essential drugs in Africa --but they'll devote gallons of ink to their claims about the predations of patents and MNCs.

Love, so to speak, among the ruins.

  Read More & Comment...

Paul Ryan on Healthcare Reform

08/12/2012 07:52 AM |

In case you missed it the first time around, here's our prescient video interview with Paul Ryan on the future of healthcare reform:  Read More & Comment...

Will the ACA lower the deficit?

08/10/2012 11:18 AM |

“For starters, Obamacare was originally estimated by the CBO to add $1.3 trillion in new spending over ten years. Doesn’t that just beg the question of how a massive spending increase can reduce some $16 trillion in accumulated deficits caused by, you guessed it, massive spending? But wait, the latest CBO estimate adds ‘only’ $1.2 trillion in spending for Obamacare—a ‘savings’ of zero-point-one trillion dollars that we’re supposed to believe is slashing deficits.

“That’s like a person already deeply in debt planning to buy a $50,000 car and finance it over ten years. Thanks to a dealer rebate, he pays $46,000. He has not reduced his debt by $4,000 but increased it by $46,000—plus interest.”

Read more here.  Read More & Comment...

Hold the Mayo

08/09/2012 08:25 AM |

According to a new report in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings, many patients who are being treated with "off-label" drugs are unaware that the medications they have been prescribed by their doctor aren't being used in ways that would meet U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval, research shows.

Quelle surprise.

"Health care providers and patients should educate themselves about off-label drugs to weigh the risks and benefits before a physician prescribes one or a patient takes one,” says study lead author Dr. Christopher Wittich, an internal medicine physician at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.

While this report states the obvious, the more important question is what are physicians telling their patients about the medicines they prescribe … and where is that information coming from.

Now that industry detailers are getting the cold shoulder and many inveigh against industry supported CME – wither knowledge about off label or, for that matter, on label indications?

It’s time for pharma detailers to start detailing the label – with such a detail aid being developed and approved by the FDA at launch.

The researchers also surmise that the high costs and lengthy process of obtaining FDA approval may deter drug companies from seeking approval for a new drug indication,.

How insightful.

  Read More & Comment...

The Obsession With Pharmaceutical Pricing

08/07/2012 10:13 AM |

Market economics are driven by pricing information.  Prices not only reflect values (willingness to pay, economic justice, etc) but also the underlying reality that it costs something to make something.    

Thomas Sowell said it best: " Prices are perhaps the most misunderstood thing in economics. Whenever prices are “too high” — whether these are prices of medicines or of gasoline or all sorts of other things — many people think the answer is for the government to force those prices down.

It so happens there is a history of price controls and their consequences in countries around the world, going back literally thousands of years. But most people who advocate price controls are as unaware of, and uninterested in, that history as I was in the law of gravity.

Prices are not just arbitrary numbers plucked out of the air or numbers dependent on whether sellers are “greedy” or not. In the competition of the marketplace, prices are signals that convey underlying realities about relative scarcities and relative costs of production.

Those underlying realities are not changed in the slightest by price controls. You might as well try to deal with someone’s fever by putting the thermometer in cold water to lower the reading.  

Costs don’t go away because you refuse to pay them, any more than gravity goes away if you refuse to acknowledge it. You usually pay more in different ways, through taxes as well as prices, and by deterioration in quality when political processes replace economic process."

With that as a context, the upcoming Great Oxford Debate on drug prices seems to frame the issue in ways that go beyond the usual sophmoric level attained by policymakers and pundits... 

Medicines and cost: what does GOD think?
UK NEWS | AUGUST 07, 2012

The problem with pharmaceutical policy is that it has become “over-focused to the point of obsession on issues of price and cost”, Professor Richard Sullivan, Director, Institute of Cancer Policy, will argue during the PharmaTimes Great Oxford Debate on 20 September at Oxford University, UK.
Professor Sullivan, who is also a member of the Kings Health Partners Integrated Cancer Centre, will join Eric Low, chief executive of Myeloma UK, and Stephen Whitehead, chief executive of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, at the prestigious annual debating event to propose that ‘patients have the right to the best medicines, regardless of cost’.

“The argument is not that we should pay whatever a company demands for a licensed medicine irrespective of how little benefit it bestows, rather that value is a much more subtle and complex issue than price alone,” Professor Sullivan says.

However, Professor Sullivan and co will have their work cut out for them as arguing against the motion, will be the Rt Hon Stephen Dorrell, MP, Chairman of the Health Select Committee, Professor Mike Pringle, President Elect of the Royal College of General Practitioners and Laura Weir, Head of Policy & Campaigns, MS Society and Chair, Patients Involved in NICE.

Says Dorrell: “I am strongly in favour of using the NHS budget to secure the best possible outcome for patients, but not in favour of a motion that appears to give treatments based on pharmaceutical products a higher priority than other forms of treatment, nor am I in favour of implying that decisions about healthcare should never be constrained by a real life requirement to decide about priorities.”

But isn’t it society’s moral and ethical duty to ensure that as new medicines are researched and developed they find their way to patients to prolong and improve patients’ wellbeing?

What do you believe? Do patients have the right to the best medicines under the NHS Constitution? If the best medicine is the NICE approved medicine, just what are patients' rights? Are those aged over 65 being discriminated against? Or is it that the NHS simply cannot afford the best medicines?
Join the debate on 20 September at the Oxford Union. For more details and to register your attendance click here or contact Hannah Smith hannah@pharmatimes.com or phone 0208 487 9119.
  Read More & Comment...

The life of the Part D

08/07/2012 09:19 AM |

What?  A large government entitlement program that comes in under budget and has high participant satisfaction rates?

That would be Medicare Part D. User satisfaction rates push 90 percent and the program’s cost is below budget, with an anticipated price tag of nearly $120 billion less than originally estimated over the next decade.

And here’s another gold to add to the Part D Olympic medal count – according to HHS, Medicare beneficiaries will pay almost the same premium for prescription drugs next year as they did this year.

Part D is the Michael Phelps of healthcare reform – providing victories today and a policy roadmap towards real healthcare evolution.

Premiums for drug plans that accompany basic Medicare coverage for the elderly and disabled will be an average of $30 in 2013, the department said today in a statement. The estimate is based on bids from private insurers who offer the plans to Medicare patients.

Smart partnership between government and the free market works   Read More & Comment...

Facing Lung Cancer

08/06/2012 12:47 PM |

A post by Middle East expert Barry Rubin about his recent diagnosis of lung cancer..

SATURDAY, AUGUST 4, 2012
Why I've Always Written So Much With Such Intensity And why I won't stop now.
By Barry Rubin

Nothing is stranger than having a normal life and then within a few hours knowing that it might end at almost any moment. That’s what happened to me when I was just diagnosed with what is called inoperable lung cancer. I am still waiting final results of the tests and the choice of therapies.

I have no desire to make this my focus but it’s been suggested that I write something about it that might be of broader interest.

First, for those of us whose understanding of cancer is based on past information, it is very important to understand that a lot has changed. That diagnosis twenty or thirty years ago would have given a person only a few months to live. Today, with many of the new therapies invented, one has a fighting chance. Still, it is tough to have your life expectancy lowered from around twenty years to a minimum of two within moments.

People always asked me why I wrote so much and so intensively. I never told them one of the real reasons: I always expected my life would be limited. My grandfathers died, respectively, at 42 and 44, both of things that could have been cured today. My father died of a heart attack at 62, and his life probably could have been extended many years today by all the new tests and drugs available. But I felt that once I passed that birthday, less than a year ago, I might be living on borrowed time.

They say that when you are fighting cancer that becomes a full-time job in itself. Supported by my truly wonderful family, I’m working on it. Right away one starts paring things down: unsubscribing to lots of things; knowing that I will never again have time for hobbies. The decision to start reading a book is like a major life choice.

And I know I won’t be going canoeing down the Jordan River with an old friend in August. In fact, having passed out briefly about a half-dozen times—though we think we’ve solved that problem—I’ll probably never drive again nor, after cancelling two trips, travel internationally. In fact, the way things are going at the moment, I might never eat solid food again.

The best thing to do is to accept everything calmly—bargaining, hysteria, rage, won’t do any good--and then decide that one is going to fight with the object of beating the disease. Unlike much of political life, this is not caused by malevolent forces.

This is not, however, the only transformative event I’ve had this week. I don’t want this to come out wrong but I have been touched and encouraged by an outpouring of emails from friends, acquaintances, and readers about how much they appreciated my work. Up until now, I’ve really thought that my articles have gone into a void.

As you know, we live in an era where many ideas, much truth, and certainly the kind of things that I think are largely barred from the most prestigious (although daily less so) media and institutions.  We are either ignored or vilified. Now, though, the counter-audience has grown so long and people are so hungry for accuracy and cutting through the nonsense that our ranks have grown into the millions. When someone tells you that you’ve helped them, informed them, encouraged them, or even changed their lives it is an immeasurable feeling.

And while I wouldn’t go so far as to say that the cost has been worth receiving these messages, it is closer than one might ever believe.

There are some constructs I’ve come up with that I find comforting. Briefly:

Every living thing that has ever existed has died, at least in terms of being on this earth. If they could do it I can do it.
I feel like I have been captured by an enemy force (you all can insert specific names) and they want to execute me. I hope to escape or to be rescued by my friends.

Even if I didn’t have this disease, I could leave life on any day due to many causes without warning.

For 2000 years my ancestors dreamed of returning to their homeland and reestablishing their sovereignty. I have had the privilege of living that dream. How amazing is that?

We have to judge ourselves by whether we’ve lived up to our ideals and done our best. Not by the accumulation of power, wealth or fame; not for failing to achieve the impossible.

A famous Jewish story about that is the tale of Rabbi Zosia who said that he did not expect God to berate him for not having been Moses—who he wasn’t—but for not having been Zosia.

To me, that means we must do the best to be ourselves while trying to make ourselves as good as possible. I’ve really tried to do that. I don’t have big regrets, nor bitterness, nor would I have done things very differently.

And I’ve discovered the brave community of those who are supporting and encouraging each other in the battle against this disease.

Finally, I find myself identifying with a poem by a Turkish writer named Ilhami Bekir that goes like this:

“Neither vineyards, nor gardens
Do I ask.
Nor horses, nor sheep.
Don't take my soul away,
O God!
I am curious.
I must see how this game ends!”

The game, of course, doesn’t end and I don’t expect to live to see utopia realized. But it would be nice to live long enough to see America and the world pass out from this current dreadful era, to see some restoration of sanity and reality, some kind of victory for goodness, some kind of restoration of intellectual standards, and a higher level of justice.

Some friends tell me they think we’ve turned the corner and that there’s real hope of beating the terrible forces that have messed up our societies and insulted our intelligence and tried to sully our reputations.

That’s something worth living for and fighting for. I hope to do it with you people as long as possible.  Read More & Comment...

Academic Detailing: Help Wanted

08/06/2012 08:51 AM |

Just who are these “academic detailers” anyway?  And what are their qualifications?

(For more on this topic see this article from the May 2012 edition of Drug Information Journal.)

Well, here’s an actual job description as created by Total Therapeutics Management, the company AHRQ is paying $11,680,060 to recruit, train, and field what we should more appropriately call “government detailers.”

Patient Centered Outcomes Consultant

Our Part-Time Patient Centered Outcomes Consultant positions provide a distinctive opportunity for pharmacists looking for the perfect balance between professional challenge and work/life without practicing in a traditional healthcare workplace. This part-time position provides flexibility and is perfect for self-motivated individuals who thrive in a fast paced environment with an emphasis on personal accountability. Your success will be determined by the number and quality of the details you achieve, not only the amount of time you log.

Essential Job Duties and Responsibilities:

* Schedule and conduct 250 details annually to targeted healthcare providers

* Develop relationships to facilitate ongoing success of academic detailing program

* Document meeting & communication feedback in relationship management software

* Complete accurate and timely administrative reports and required documentation requests.

Minimum Qualifications:

* Pharmacy, degree with current, active license.

* Five years clinical experience.

* Therapeutic competency.

* Personal computer skills including advanced knowledge of word processing, database management, and reporting is required.

* Excellent scientific presentation and public speaking skills.

* Ability to plan, prioritize and execute multiple responsibilities.

* Ability to travel 60%-70% day travel; some overnight possible

* Clean and valid driver's license.

* Dedicated home office with internet and phone connectivity.

250 details annually?  Sounds more like academic retailing. Are former pharmaceutical company representatives welcome to apply?

  Read More & Comment...

You're Welcome

08/03/2012 08:09 AM |

According to a new IMS report (funded by the Generic Pharmaceutical Association) use of generic medicines has reduced U.S. health care spending by more than $1 trillion over the past decade.

The report notes that using inexpensive generic versions of pricier brand-name prescription drugs now saves the country about $1 billion every other day. Drugs for heart conditions and central nervous system disorders such as depression and convulsions account for 57 percent of the annual savings.

What’s missing in the report is a big “thank you” to the innovator companies who, through their scientific ingenuity, perseverance, and financial investment made the generics industry both possible and profitable.

Just sayin'.

Silent gratitude isn’t much use to anyone.

-- Gertrude Stein

  Read More & Comment...