Latest Drugwonks' Blog

From the pages of the New York Times:
 
The conversion to electronic health records has failed so far to produce the hoped-for savings in health care costs and has had mixed results, at best, in improving efficiency and patient care, according to a new analysis by the influential RAND Corporation.
 
Optimistic predictions by RAND in 2005 helped drive explosive growth in the electronic records industry and encouraged the federal government to give billions of dollars in financial incentives to hospitals and doctors that put the systems in place.
 
Read the full piece here.




Not pro, Bono

  • 01.11.2013

GOP lawmakers are praising the FDA’s 24-page draft guidance on abuse-deterrent, opioid painkillers. House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Fred Upton (R-MI) and Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) issued a joint statement, commending the agency for meeting the draft-guidance deadline established by the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act of 2012.

National Drug Control Policy Director Gil Kerlikowske "called the action a vital piece of the Obama administration's effort to curb" the nation's "prescription drug abuse epidemic." However, not everyone applauded the document's release. Former Republican Rep. Mary Bono Mack of California, who co-chaired the "Congressional Caucus on Prescription Drug Abuse before she was defeated in November," dismissed the FDA's nonbinding recommendations as "lip service," and called for "more definitive action."

Getting praised for hitting a Congressional deadline is faint praise. But the FDA’s efforts are a lot more than window dressing. Sorry, Mary.

The next issue to watch is how FDA deals with generic opiods – and whether Congress and the courts intervene.

Stay tuned.

We have entered the silly season of so-called science-based claims quite early this year.   I was going to write about the hysterical claims of some on the right that the media is overlooking the "role" of psychopharmacological drugs in 'causing' the Newtown tragedy but I'll save that for another time.  

Rather, I would reluctantly call attention to the media's portrayal and premature release of a study claiming a statistical association between soft drinks and depression.  I could only find an abstract and here it is:

Abstract Title: Sweetened beverages, coffee and tea in relation to depression among older US adults

Press Release Title: Hold the Diet Soda? Sweetened Drinks Linked to Depression, Coffee May Lower Risk

Objective: To prospectively evaluate consumptions of sweetened beverages, coffee and tea in relation to
depression among older US adults.

Author(s): Honglei Chen, MD, PhD, Xuguang Guo, Yikyung Park, Neal D. Freedman, Rashmi Shinha,
Albert Hollenbeck and Aaron Blair

Background: Sweetened beverages, coffee and tea are commonly consumed worldwide and have important
physical and mental health consequences.We prospectively evaluated consumptions of these beverages, in relation to depression
among 263,925 older US adults. Beverage consumptions were assessed in 1995-1996, and 11,311 depression
diagnoses since 2000 were self-reported in 2004-2006. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI)
were derived from multivariate logistic regressions.

Results: Drinking sweetened beverages was associated with higher depression risk, whereas coffee drinking
was weakly related to lower risk. The OR and 95% CI comparing ≥4 cans/cups per day with none were 1.30
(1.17–1.44) for soft drinks, 1.38 (1.15-1.65) for fruit punches and 0.91 (0.84-0.98) for coffee (all P for trend <
0.0001). Further analysis seemed to suggest stronger associations with diet drinks than with regular. The ORs
between extreme categories were 1.31 (1.16-1.47) for diet versus 1.22 (1.03-1.45) for regular soft drinks, 1.51
(1.18-1.92) for diet versus 1.08 (0.79-1.46) for regular fruit punches and 1.25 (1.10-1.41) for diet versus 0.94
(0.83-1.08) for regular iced tea. Consistently, constituent-based analyses showed higher depression risk with
aspartame intake [ORs between extreme quintiles: 1.36 (1.29-1.44)], and lower risk with caffeine intake
[corresponding OR 0.83 (0.78-0.89)].

Conclusions: This large prospective study suggests that frequent consumption of diet sweetened beverages
may increase depression risk among older adults, whereas coffee consumption may lower the risk.

So let's set aside the methodological problems (no regular follow up of consumption, depression or other health conditions associated with depression such as diabetes or heart disease, surgical procedures associated with depression)  as well as the fact there is no clear definition of what kind of depression (major depressive, mild or bipolar).   The geniuses behind this study claim the odds ratio for a self report of depression ranged from 1.31 for soda drinkers (whether diet or sugar) to .083 for people drinking coffee.  

The problem is two fold:

1.  The lifetime odds ratio for people ages 45-65 being diagnosed with major depressive disorder at any time in life is 2.0 and for age 65 and over it is 1.0.   So that means that risk for depression for older people drinking soda actually was less than the general population.  

2.  The hazard ratio for age of onset declines at age 45, spike at age 50, declines again until age 65.   So it's likely, absent controlling for other conditions and demographics that the 'depression-soft drink' association is only mirroring the hazard rate.  

Finally, there are several other conditions and demographic elements that are several times more likely to be associated with major depression.  

You can get more information about the real risk of major depression and it's possible risk factors here:  

That is unless you have already made up your mind.  For those of you that have you might want to know that the same lead author found that smoking was associated with a decline in risk for Parkinson's.


Cui Bono, BMJ?

  • 01.10.2013

What is the British Medical Journal smoking?

In a new editorial, “Patients are urged to boycott trials that do not guarantee publication," the BMJ (along with other organizations) calls on patients to boycott clinical trials that promise, “to publish the results in full.

Tracey Brown, director of Sense About Science, an ally in this effort, is quoted in this effort saying, “Everybody agrees that clinical trials should be registered and that we should at the very least have clinical reports on what was found.”

Really?  “Everybody” agrees? While there is general agreement – and strict government regulations -- on the registering of trials, the idea of publication of every trial fielded is, well kind of loony.

Should pharmaceutical companies guarantee that regulatory bodies such as the FDA and the MHRA see all important data before new products (or additional indications) are approved? Of course. And, incidentally, that’s the way it works. Any company that withholds important clinical information pays a severe price – and not just financially.

According to Iain Chalmers, of the James Lind Alliance, Paul Glasziou, professor of evidence based medicine at Bond University, Queensland, and Fiona Godlee, editor in chief of the BMJ, the withholding of trial results is important to people in trials because, “participants in clinical trials assume that they are contributing to the advancement of medical knowledge; non-publication of study results negates this reasonable assumption and betrays those who have volunteered.”

Balderdash. Note to Mr. Chalmers, Mr. Galsziou, and Ms. Godlee – patients in clinical trials do indeed provide a brave and noble service to the advancement of science whether or not any given trial results are published.

And what does this myopic triad have to say about clinical trials as intellectual property? Not surprisingly, they are silent.

Third party funders of trials certainly have the right, as part of their grant terms, demand publication. But privately funded trials also have the right to maintain the confidentiality of their findings – until they chose to submit them for regulatory review.

By furthering the anti-IP agenda of the Usual Suspects, the BMJ does a disservice to those they are trying to protect -- patients. Full publication of every trial fielded will not result in safer, better designed trials -- only in fewer trials. Cui bono BMJ?

Paying it forward

  • 01.09.2013

Who paid for prescription drugs in 2011?

According to Health Affairs, data for 2011 (the most recent year available) shows that the two primary CMS programs -- Medicare and Medicaid -- paid for 32% of total retail drug spending. The private health-insurance share, which was 46.5% in 2011, peaked in 2001 at 51% and has been declining ever since.

For the second year, spending on outpatient prescription drugs grew more slowly than overall national health expenditures. In 2011, prescription drug spending grew by 2.9%

Healthcare reform reduced Medicaid spending. Medicaid spending declined by 3.0% in 2011, following a 1.4% drop in 2010.

And consumers paid even less. In 2011, consumers’ out-of-pocket expenses -- cash-pay prescriptions plus copayments and coinsurance -- shrank to an historical low 17% of total U.S. retail drug expenditures.

 The complete Health Affairs report can be found here.

This piece by Dr. Offit was released last December but its science based message is still truthful and timely... Hi. My name is Paul Offit. I am talking to you today from the Vaccination Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. Today is December 21, 2012, a day that according to the Mayan calendar should mark the end of the world as we know it. Speaking of ancient beliefs that aren't founded on good science, I thought it would be of interest to talk about a paper that appeared in the journal Pediatrics [1] this week, about thimerosal in vaccines. Many of you might wonder why we are still talking about this. Hasn't this issue been resolved? Yes, it has, but it has come up again because of an effort by antivaccine groups that have lobbied the World Health Organization and other global health groups to try and get thimerosal out of vaccines given to infants and young children in the developing world -- something that would be disastrous. In the late 1990s, as children began to receive more and more vaccines in the United States, they also received more and more thimerosal, an ethyl mercury-containing preservative in vaccines. Concern was expressed at the time that this may put children at risk. Mercury at high doses can cause harm, but the question was whether mercury in the form of ethyl mercury, given at much lower doses, could cause harm. This caused a great deal of concern in the late 1990s. As a consequence, there was a real effort to get thimerosal out of vaccines given to infants and very young children. Since that time we have learned, in a series of 7 studies, that children who received thimerosal-containing vaccines compared with children who received the same vaccines without thimerosal are not at greater risk for neurodevelopmental problems, including autism or even subtle signs of mercury toxicity. In the late 1990s, a handful of children died of hepatitis B because the health centers in which they were born were so scared of thimerosal, which had been given a "scarlet letter," that they abandoned their hepatitis immunization program -- even for children who were born to mothers who had hepatitis B. At the time, this action was considered a precaution: Let's get thimerosal out of vaccines until we learn more about thimerosal. Children died as a result; therefore, we didn't follow a precautionary principle that argues to do something to avoid harm, but in fact we caused harm. This new article is putting forward the idea that we should not make the same mistake, because now we know that the level of thimerosal in vaccines doesn't cause harm. If it is decided by the World Health Organization or other global health agencies to remove thimerosal from vaccines, it would mean using single-dose vials instead of multidose vials, which makes vaccines much more expensive for countries that already can't afford them. If we were to do this, instead of a handful of children dying, hundreds or thousands of children will die. This paper is saying, "Mea culpa; let's not make the same mistake again." Thank you very much for your attention and happy holidays.

Is responsibility proactive?

Per social media, the January edition of PharmaVoice Magazine asks, Can pharmaceutical companies afford not to be part of the conversation?

The answer is no, according to Peter Pitts, a former FDA associate commissioner and president and co-founder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.

“From a philosophical perspective, healthcare companies need to ask themselves if it is responsible not to be in social media,” he says. “Social media is where the people are. If pharmaceutical companies allow the playing field to be dominated by those who are either trying to give helpful advice but are wrong or those who are knowingly hawking bad advice, is it responsible for them to watch silently from the sidelines?”

The complete PharmaVoice article, Social Media: Moving Forward, can be found here.

There was no telling what people might find out once they felt free to ask whatever questions they wanted to. -- Joseph Heller, Catch 22

Does no good deed go unpunished?

For years the beef was that the FDA was unyielding when it came to anything that even remotely undermined the large-scale random-controlled clinical trial. “The gold standard” was firmly enshrined in FDA dogma, not to be abased, and any challenge to its sacrosanct nature was regulatory heresy.

But times change and even the most ardent supporters of traditional RCT design (such as the FDA’s Bob Temple), now realize we can recruit on a more genetically molecular level. The path to personalized medicine makes every design (to a certain extent) an orphan disease.

According to Temple, smaller, "enrichment strategies" or "enriched studies" can assist drug developers to "exclude poor potential candidates and select those more likely to show a clinical benefit."  Such study designs are "potentially powerful strategies for the pharmaceutical industry because appropriate use of enrichment could result in smaller studies, shortened drug development times, and lower development costs." Temple said conducting clinical trials within a "patient population that has a larger than average response to treatment can greatly reduce the number of patients needed in the study."

Less, it seems, can indeed be more.

For example, the FDA "approved the cystic fibrosis drug ivacaftor (Kalydeco) which works in just 4% of CF patients with a specific genetic abnormality." But if "all CF patients were included in a trial," Dr. Temple said an "effect would have been impossible to detect."

Good news? Well, where you stand depends on where you sit. Some are worried that narrowing the scope of a given patient population involved in a clinical trial has the potential impact of becoming a disincentive for industry continuing to develop treatments for more heterogeneous diseases. 

A valid concern? Perhaps. Unintended consequences certainly aren’t unknown in regulatory environs. Might the FDA ask sponsors for both traditional clinical studies and smaller population trials? It’s possible. And it certainly calls into question the canard of “non-binding advice.” Might a boon for orphan disease trials be yet another costly encumbrance for innovators?

In other words, is it a legitimate concern that less could lead to more?

Yes – and one worth addressing in thoughtful comments to the draft guidance.

Speak out now – or forever hold your Citizen's Petitions.

Sometimes our actions are questions, not answers. -- John Le Carre

In doing so he confirms his original work on the cost of end of life care:  It is a small percentage of total health care spending that (as a percentage) has remained fairly stable for decades...

Emanuel has been a high profile writer on healthcare and an Obama health adviser.  I think he is one of the more sensible and data-driven analysts. I don't agree with a lot of what he says but what fun is it to agree on everything?  In any event,  this a thoughtful and sensitive article that should be widely shared and discussed.   If anything, it sets the right tone for future (and what will be endless) discussions about health care reform..

Better, if Not Cheaper, Care

Ezekiel J. Emanuel

Ezekiel J. Emanuel on health policy and other topics.

 

IT is conventional wisdom that end-of-life care is an increasingly huge proportion of health care spending. I’ve often heard it said that people spend more on health care in the year before they die than they do in the entire rest of their lives. If we don’t address these costs, the story goes, we can never control health care inflation.

Wrong. Here are the real numbers. The roughly 6 percent of Medicare patients who die each year do make up a large proportion of Medicare costs: 27 to 30 percent. But this figure has not changed significantly in decades. And the total number of Americans, not just older people, who die every year — less than 1 percent of the population — account for much less of total health care spending, just 10 to 12 percent.

MSMDNYC

The more important issue is that just because we spend a lot on end-of-life care does not mean we can save a lot. We do know that costs for dying patients vary widely among hospitals, which suggests that we can do better. And yet no one can reliably say what specific changes would significantly lower costs. There is no body of well-conducted research studies that has proved how to save 5, 10, much less 20 percent.

Recent studies find that hospice may reduce costs in the last year of life for cancer patients by 10 to 20 percent. But they find no savings from hospice care for patients who die of other conditions, like emphysema or heart failure. No one is sure why hospice care doesn’t save more. It may be because patients are enrolled in hospice care too late, or because hospice services themselves are labor-intensive and not cheap.

Even if we can never save a dime, however, there are good reasons to think about changing end-of-life care practices. While end-of-life care has improved considerably over the last 30 years, many Americans still die in hospitals when they would rather die at home. Nearly 20 percent of deaths occur in an intensive care unit or immediately after discharge, and too many patients experience symptoms like pain that are controllable with appropriate palliative care.

Here are four things the health care system should do to try to improve care for the dying, even if they won’t save money.

First, all doctors and nurses should be trained in how to talk to patients and families about end-of-life care. When I was starting out, I was lucky enough to be able to witness how a great oncologist communicated with patients and their families when it was clear they were going to die, but I received no formal training whatsoever. It is hard to improve care for the dying if health professionals don’t know how to talk about it. Fortunately, there are excellent communication techniques and training programs available — they don’t have to be invented from scratch.

A related intervention — an idea that never actually was in the Affordable Care Act but inspired the death panel accusation — is that physicians should be paid a one-time fee to talk with patients about their preferences for end-of-life care. Even if physicians are well trained in communication, these conversations take time and are emotionally draining. This should be recognized through compensation.

Third, every hospital should be required to have palliative care services available both in the hospital and at the homes of dying patients who are discharged. Over 40 percent of hospitals with more than 50 beds do not have palliative care services. And we don’t know how many actually have palliative care services once patients are sent home. These services should be delivered by trained experts in diagnosing and managing common symptoms of the dying, like pain, nausea, insomnia, shortness of breath, fatigue and depression.

Finally, we need to revise eligibility for hospice care. Right now doctors must certify that patients have six months or less to live and patients must agree to forgo life-sustaining treatments. The decision about whether to put a patient in hospice care should not be based on unreliable predictions about how long he has left to live but rather on his needs for specialized care, like morphine infusions.

These changes could be made in at least two ways. The Joint Commission — the nonprofit group that certifies health care organizations — could make training physicians and nurses to talk about end-of-life care and having palliative care available a requirement for hospital accreditation. Alternatively, Medicare, private insurers and, after 2014, state exchanges could require hospitals to provide communication training and palliative services as a condition for payment.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that these interventions will save money. And I can’t definitively prove they will make the care of dying patients better. But doing nothing to try to help the dying when the rest of the health care system is improving care is not an option.

 


Previous research has shown that people in states with formularies that limit access to new drugs are more likely to die sooner than those that have access to innovation medications..  So read the following article with that in mind.. 

Will States’ Prescription Drug Essential Health Benefits Be Essentially the Same?

December 14, 2012 By Jenny M. Burke
A new study indicates that basic prescription drug coverage could vary dramatically from state to state as requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) (P.L. 111-148) are implemented. Under the new regulations, states have the ability to set minimum mandatory benefits for private health plans that will be offered beginning in January, 2014.
In a study released last week, the market analysis firm Avalere Health found that some states will require coverage of virtually all FDA-approved drugs, while others will only require coverage of about half of medications. Connecticut,Virginia and Arizona will be among the states with the most generous coverage, while California, Minnesota and North Carolina will be among states with the most limited coverage. Consumers in all states will have access to essential medications, but some will have fewer choices than others.
CMS recently released a proposed rule covering the requirements for the essential health benefits under section 1302 of PPACA, including the prescription drug and other benefits, the determination of the actuarial value of the health benefits, and recognition of accreditation agencies that will be responsible for determining whether health plans are qualified. The proposed requirements would apply to non-grandfathered health insurance plans offered in the individual and small group markets beginning January 1, 2014, whether or not they are offered on the health insurance exchange, but not to self-insured plans.
CMPI

Center for Medicine in the Public Interest is a nonprofit, non-partisan organization promoting innovative solutions that advance medical progress, reduce health disparities, extend life and make health care more affordable, preventive and patient-centered. CMPI also provides the public, policymakers and the media a reliable source of independent scientific analysis on issues ranging from personalized medicine, food and drug safety, health care reform and comparative effectiveness.

Blog Roll

Alliance for Patient Access Alternative Health Practice
AHRP
Better Health
BigGovHealth
Biotech Blog
BrandweekNRX
CA Medicine man
Cafe Pharma
Campaign for Modern Medicines
Carlat Psychiatry Blog
Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry: A Closer Look
Conservative's Forum
Club For Growth
CNEhealth.org
Diabetes Mine
Disruptive Women
Doctors For Patient Care
Dr. Gov
Drug Channels
DTC Perspectives
eDrugSearch
Envisioning 2.0
EyeOnFDA
FDA Law Blog
Fierce Pharma
fightingdiseases.org
Fresh Air Fund
Furious Seasons
Gooznews
Gel Health News
Hands Off My Health
Health Business Blog
Health Care BS
Health Care for All
Healthy Skepticism
Hooked: Ethics, Medicine, and Pharma
Hugh Hewitt
IgniteBlog
In the Pipeline
In Vivo
Instapundit
Internet Drug News
Jaz'd Healthcare
Jaz'd Pharmaceutical Industry
Jim Edwards' NRx
Kaus Files
KevinMD
Laffer Health Care Report
Little Green Footballs
Med Buzz
Media Research Center
Medrants
More than Medicine
National Review
Neuroethics & Law
Newsbusters
Nurses For Reform
Nurses For Reform Blog
Opinion Journal
Orange Book
PAL
Peter Rost
Pharm Aid
Pharma Blog Review
Pharma Blogsphere
Pharma Marketing Blog
Pharmablogger
Pharmacology Corner
Pharmagossip
Pharmamotion
Pharmalot
Pharmaceutical Business Review
Piper Report
Polipundit
Powerline
Prescription for a Cure
Public Plan Facts
Quackwatch
Real Clear Politics
Remedyhealthcare
Shark Report
Shearlings Got Plowed
StateHouseCall.org
Taking Back America
Terra Sigillata
The Cycle
The Catalyst
The Lonely Conservative
TortsProf
Town Hall
Washington Monthly
World of DTC Marketing
WSJ Health Blog