Latest Drugwonks' Blog

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.
From KurzweilA.net,  just a sampling of innovations that will spread and move past the efforts of middling minds and anti-capitalists to limit the commercialization of medical progress

Surgeons at Boston Children’s Hospital have developed a way to help children born with half a heart to essentially grow a whole one — by marshaling the body’s natural capacity to heal and develop.

Oxford Nanopore Technologies has unveiled the first of a generation of tiny DNA sequencing devices that many predict will eventually be as ubiquitous as cellphones — it’s already the size of one.

A test developed by Foundation Medicine Inc. enables doctors to test a tumor sample for 280 different genetic mutations suspected of driving tumor growth.

MK3475, being developed by Merck & Co., is among a new category of drugs that unleash an army of immune cells to hunt down a cancer. — Ron Winslow

Last month, the FDA cleared a new iPhone add-on that lets doctors take an electrocardiogram just about anywhere. Other smartphone apps help radiologists read medical images and allow patients to track moles for signs of skin cancer.

Gene therapy is poised to become a viable option for a variety of often life-threatening medical conditions, especially those resulting from a single defective gene.

There are also the 2012 Oncology Game Changers from Medscape...

Despite the shadow of government regulation being cast over healthcare I believe the future of medicine is bright and full of freedom..



FDA’s long-awaited draft guidance on "enrichment strategies" or "enriched studies" aims to help drug developers "exclude poor potential candidates and select those more likely to show a clinical benefit."

Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Deputy Director Bob Temple, MD, explained that the 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." He 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."

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."

From the pages of Medical Marketing & Media

The year ahead: A Capitol bit of crystal ball-gazing

Peter Pitts
president, Center for Medicine in the Public Interest,
and a former FDA associate commissioner


Will the federal appeals court's decision in US vs. Alfred Caronia result in thin-to-no regulation of off-label marketing?

PP: When it comes to Caronia, where you stand depends on where you sit.

For industry, the decision opens up tremendous potential for enhanced (but restrained and responsible) sharing of important scientific data. For the FDA (understandably) the decision was the Nightmare Before Christmas. The question is, do the opportunities outweigh the risks? There are a few ways to approach this.

There's the First Amendment question. While I can't predict which way a Federal Appeals court will rule, I will certainly predict that Caronia will impact the way FDA views off-label promotion within the context of the free-and-fair dissemination of scientific data. I believe a new (and hopefully more enlightened) FDA view based on intent will arise. Alas, that will not assuage any of the ambiguity that is currently driving FDA (OPDP) communications oversight. That being said, any revisitation and discussion is for the better.

Another way to look at it is that, if Caronia stands, pharmaceutical companies will no longer feel obligated to seek FDA approval for new indications, since they can openly "promote" them without fear of prosecution. This is a flawed argument. Indications of the on-label variety have many benefits—not the least of which is reimbursement. But such negative unintended consequences are important to discuss and consider. IMHO, any company that chose this route would be acting in a highly irresponsible manner, putting promotion before the public health.

The third, most important and most contentious angle is to consider whether or not such relaxed communications approaches would actually advance the public health. Would industry (on one side) and the FDA (on the other) answer this differently? I'm not so sure.

All that being said, whether or not the Appeals Court overrules Caronia, it is likely to offer a stern rebuke to the FDA for its unpredictable, ambiguous and sometimes capricious application of off-label speech constraints.

Considering the hazy regulations, what will it take for pharma to engage in more digital dialogue with patients?

PP: Social media for regulated industry is a wonderful green field of opportunity. But to maximize the opportunity, we must accommodate the reality of a messier world. Social media, almost by definition, is messy—and the regulatory framework (or lack thereof) is equally so. And it's not likely to get much better. Get used to it. Embracing social media means embracing regulatory ambiguity. And that's a paradigm shift for an industry that has (in a post-Vioxx world) been going in precisely the opposite direction. It's not going to be easy, or risk-free, or inexpensive. And whatever social media “marketing models” companies build will have to be elastic—just like the media environment in which they are designed to operate. Pharma, guide thyself!

Will we see big movement on online privacy regulations? Or elsewhere impacting advertising and promotion?

PP: Just because DDMAC got a “promotion” to OPDP doesn't mean that (1) they have any more resources (they do not) or authority. The FDA must still abide by the First Amendment, and they are acutely aware of the limitations that that places on their regulation of industry speech. That's one of the reasons they have been so prudent in their statements and guidances regarding social media. They will continue to address advertising and promotion with one major goal in mind—to make sure industry efforts are neither false or misleading. Alas—the truth is that the definition of those terms is often in the eyes of the beholder.

Will the year bring greater regulatory clarity? Or will FDA, CMS, et al. kick the can down the road again on Sunshine, etc.?

PP: The Sunshine Act is a mess. First, HHS will have to determine how various state laws will impact one federal statute. Will the administration invoke federal preemption? And, if so, what will they put in its place? Also, why aren't payments to physicians from insurance companions included in the Sunshine Act? This will be debated and will further delay (and appropriately so) swift implementation. When it comes to the Sunshine Act, it's best to measure it twice and cut it once.

Will FDA keep inching the drug approvals window open with the economy improving and executive leadership no longer in doubt?

PP: Will she stay or will she go?  I predict that Commissioner Hamburg will stay. That's a good thing because what moves drug approvals ahead is predictability and that starts at the top. The solution is to make the regulatory process more predictable.

For all that modern science has to offer, developing new treatments is still very much an art, in which hunches, intuition, and luck play a critical role. The odds are long. But for more medicine that is affordable and innovative, we need up-to-date regulations that complement the drug trial process in order to take these chances, which is precisely the mission of the FDA's Reagan-Udall Foundation.

What provisions of the Affordable Care Act will cause the most disruption—positive or negative?

PP: The ACA greases the skids toward government price controls through both the IPAB and the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Through these two new bodies, Uncle Sam is morphing into not only Uncle Sam MD, but also Uncle Sam as our nation's largest payer, as funder of comparative effectiveness research, as “academic” detailer of what's best for patients, and as determiner of Essential Health Benefits. What's also interesting is what President Obama wants to remove from the ACA—specifically, the 12 years of exclusivity for biologics. Will the President continue to push to roll that number back to seven years? Will he have the chutzpah to claim he is pro-innovation if he does?

The full article can be found here.

A Real Doc Fix

  • 12.26.2012

The following from Dr. Michael Weber, Chairman of the Center for Medicine in the Pubic Interest and a founding father of the Association of Clinical Researchers and Educators (ACRE).

Most medical progress in the last few decades has come from the combined efforts of medical practitioners and the pharmaceutical industry, the medical device industry and the makers of other innovative therapeutic and diagnostic products.

Physicians, particularly those in academic settings, are uniquely able to identify unmet needs, design research to address these needs, and ultimately interpret and disseminate the results of that work to the benefit of their colleagues and patients in the community.  Industry has the talent and resources to undertake the detailed research and development to complement the work of their physician partners and to deal with the highly complex scientific, regulatory and financial hurdles that must be crossed before new products can be made available.

Sadly, this highly productive collaboration has come under attack.  The reasons are nothing to do with scientific or ethical concerns, but rather are driven by the fear of health care insurers and some politicians and media writers that medical progress comes at a financial cost that could threaten the profits of commercial insurers and the budgets of government agencies.

While understandable, these attempts to stifle medical research and education -- for instance, such tools as the Sunshine Act within the Affordable Care Act -- create an even higher cost, for  they will have the effect of preventing access of people with medical needs to new clinical developments that could increase the length and quality of their lives.

The Association of Clinical Researchers and Educators (ACRE), in response to these dangerous constraints being placed on physicians, has gone back to basics and written a statement – in essence, a set of guidelines – on how physicians should interact with medical industries to fully preserve the high ethical standards, scientific integrity and clinical productivity that have characterized this vital work.

The guidelines (as published in Endocrine Practice) can be accessed here.

An ode  to healthcare in 2013

IPAB, PCORI (of which neither I’m keen).

The FDA trying to do the right thing

While the Doc Fix sends physicians to pawn all their bling.

New state exchanges will make us all guess

And there’s dual eligible coding down at CMS.

What will become of the tax on devices

Will it come down to a Congressional role of the dices?

Obamacare will result in rule-making galore

And who knows what Kathleen Sebelius might have in store?

What health benefits will be seen as “essential”

And how will they be viewed in the Manse Presidential?

What of the pharmacists' expanding new role

Will academic detailing be the price of their soul?


Will innovation be daunted via less exclusivity

Or will clearer minds win the day with lucidity?

Will we move closer to embracing effectiveness that’s comparative

Or will we discover a more personalized narrative?

All this and more in the New Year, my friends

Let’s hope that it centers on a patient’s best ends.

From the pages of the Washington Examiner:

Obama's fiscal cliff drug 'reform' idea will backfire

As part of the fiscal cliff negotiations, the White House has trotted out a deeply misguided healthcare idea. The President has his allies want to loosen "intellectual property" protection for an advanced class of pharmaceuticals called "biologics."

This is a mistake. Including this plan in any federal budget deal would inevitably undermine drug innovation, compromise care for millions of American patients, and -- ironically -- drive up long-term healthcare costs.

Unlike traditional chemical drugs, biologics are derived from living organisms. This makes them incredibly complex -- and uniquely effective. Biologics are one of the most promising modern healthcare technologies. Drug firms have already created breakthrough biologic treatments for some of the country's most prominent diseases, including HIV/AIDS, Alzheimer's and various forms of cancer.

A report from the research firm Credit Agricole predicts that six of the top twenty best-selling drugs next year will be biologics. Within five years, it's estimated biologics will comprise roughly half of the top 100 bestselling drugs in the country.

There are knock-off equivalents to biologics. They're called "biosimilars" or "follow-on biologics." However, unlike, say, that aspirin in your bathroom cabinet, a biologic can't be perfectly replicated. It's just too complex. A "follow-on" biologic will have some differences from the original.

It is possible to create a version of an innovator biologic that's close enough to the original to have basically the same therapeutic effects.  Given this fact, traditional patent protections aren't sufficient to foster innovation.

This is why biologics need an additional layer of intellectual property protection. And that's where data exclusivity comes in. This statute prevents outside firms from accessing the research data behind a new biologic for a preset period of time. This way, the original inventor has a limited market monopoly, during which they can try to recoup their development costs in sales. The 12 years of exclusivity granted under the Affordable Care Act, while still less than the 14 allowed in Europe, is a good compromise.

Mounds of research shows that data exclusivity should be set at around 12 years to give the average biologic a chance to at least break even.  The White House wants to scale back that period.

A recent deficit deal crafted by the administration included a provision that would scale back the period of data exclusivity granted to biologics from 12 to 7 years. The idea is that allowing lower priced biosimilars to flow into the market sooner will drive down costs for public insurance programs and generate major savings for the federal treasury.

While shortening biologic data exclusivity could generate some short-term financial gains, it will ultimately reduce the rate of medical innovation and deprive American patients of life-saving new treatments.

The brute reality is that if data exclusivity drops to seven years, many biologic innovators won't have enough time to make back their original investment before biosimilars flood the market and siphon away their profits.

After all, creating a biologic is an incredibly expensive, time-consuming, and risky endeavor. The average biologic costs well over a billion dollars to develop. For every 10,000 compounds tested in the lab, only one will wind up getting federal approval and making it to market. And simply making it to market is no guarantee of profit. Only about three out of every ten new pharmaceutical medicines will ever recoup back its development costs in sales.

If the government reduces the exclusivity window for biologics, many drug firms will actually end up losing money on that massive investment. That leaves less capital to pour into new drug research operations. And outside investors will be less willing to underwrite new research initiatives given that their chance of even breaking even on a new treatment has dropped significantly.

Ultimately, that means fewer new drugs for American patients.

The Obama administration and its allies need to drop this push to scale back data exclusivity protections for biologic drugs. These treatments have proven to be highly effective at improving patient health and saving lives. Diluting the intellectual property rights protecting biologics will slow down the rate of innovation and choke off the flow of new treatments.

Peter J.  Pitts, a former FDA Associate Commissioner, is the president of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest.



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