Latest Drugwonks' Blog

Einstein at the FDA

  • 12.31.2010

From today’s Wall Street Journal:

FDA spokeswoman Sandy Walsh said there's "no systemic change in how the FDA is approaching drug approvals."

From Albert Einstein:

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

And onwards to PDUFA V.

Two Wrongs

  • 12.30.2010

Hyperbole and misdirection aren’t going to solve the problem of the slippery slope towards government-run health care – it’s going to hasten it. 

No – not “death panels” (although this Palinian shibboleth certainly falls into this category) but rather statements to the effect that the FDA’s decision to remove Avastin’s breast cancer indication was “a crude cost calculation.”  Not true. Not helpful.

In today’s Wall Street Journal, David Rivkin and Elizabeth Foley write that, “The FDA made a crude cost calculation; as everyone in Washington knows, it wouldn't have banned Avastin if the drug cost only $1,000 a year, instead of $90,000.”

“Everyone?” Not really.  For those who understand what actually goes on at the Food & Drug Administration it’s not about “cost” as much as it is about “choice.” And on that note Rivkin and Foley get it right:

 

The Avastin story is emblematic of the government's broader agenda to ration care based on cost and politics. Once ObamaCare comes into full force, such rationing will be pervasive. When the government sees insufficient benefit, all but the wealthiest and most politically connected will have to go without.”

 

We are being railroaded down the tracks towards Uncle Sam, MD – but the FDA’s ruling on Avastin (whether you agree with it or not) was based on the agency’s reading of the science.  Trying to tag the FDA with a decision based on cost may be convenient – but it’s wrong.

 

Such hasty proclamations trivialize the urgent and legitimate arguments against the current cost-versus-care direction of American health care – and makes it all the more difficult to counter and correct.

Black Ops

  • 12.29.2010

Per the new HHS regulation that pays for “voluntary” end-of-life counseling as part of seniors' annual physicals – just what makes it voluntary?  Does a person need to ask for it? Will there be a discussion guide?  If so, who will prepare the talking points? When are such conversations "appropriate?" And since physicians are being incentivized to provide this service, where are the "best practice" guidelines? These are only a few of many unanswered questions.

 

The Wall Street Journal reports that:

 

The office of Oregon Democrat Earl Blumenauer, the author of the original rider who then lobbied Medicare to cover the service, sent an email to supporters cheering this "victory" but asked that they not tell anyone for fear of perpetuating "the 'death panel' myth." The email added that "Thus far, it seems that no press or blogs have discovered it, but we will be keeping a close watch.

So much for embracing transparency. “The regulatory process,” the WSJ opines, “isn't supposed to be a black-ops exercise.”
 

The Journal continues,

 

The affront is that Medicare needs to sneak around in order to offer a type of care that is routine in private insurance. If the medical experts in Congress haven't decided that some treatment or service is worthy of the fee schedule, then the program won't pay for it even if it is in the best interests of patients.

Under highly centralized national health care, the government inevitably makes cost-minded judgments about what types of care are "best" for society at large, and the standardized treatments it prescribes inevitably steal life-saving options from individual patients.

 

Set your TiVo for CSPAN.
According to PBS, we have a medical paradise 90 miles south of Florida. No doubt we will witness hundreds of thousands of Americans on rafts heading for Cuba to be on the receiving end of this world-class health care.
 
In a grossly farcical report on Cuba’s medical system, PBS tells us that Cuba is awash in physicians, preventive medicine is a major priority and Cubans live longer than Americans.
 
Jim Hoft sets the record straight here on Cuba’s purported abundance of physicians. The number of doctors Cuba has is a number that constantly changes. Whatever the real number of physicians in Cuba, PBS cannot legitimately compare a Cuban physician to an American physician. PBS does not even address the topic of physician quality. The report instead focused on the number of physicians supposedly practicing in Cuba and highlighted the “free” education doctors receive.
 
In terms of life expectancy, we only know what the Cuban government chooses to report. Let’s say for arguments sake that Cubans do live longer on average than Americans. So what?
 
As David Hogberg notes, a whole host of factors determine life expectancy – many of which have nothing to do with the medical system:
 
Life expectancy is a poor statistic for determining the efficacy of a health care system because it fails the first criterion of assuming interaction with the health care system.  For example, open any newspaper and, chances are, there are stories about people who die "in their sleep," in a car accident or of some medical ailment before an ambulance ever arrives.  If an individual dies with no interaction with the health care system, then his death tells us little about the quality of a health care system.  Yet all such deaths are computed into the life expectancy statistic.
 
Finally, PBS makes no mention of the fact that the Cuban government sets the terms of these “news reports.” PBS sees only what the Cuban government wants it to see. They interview only those people the Cuban government want interviewed.
 
Also – it’s worth pointing out that even Michael Moore is not availing himself of Cuba’s wonderful health care system. Moore recently checked into a luxury weight-loss spa in Miami.
 
What would Fidel say?

When is science not science?  When it's social science.

DDMAC is conducting a study of how consumers and physicians understand the information in print ads and drug labels.  But it’s got a fatal flaw – it’s not double blind.

 

In comments on the proposed study design, Merck suggested removing statements from the draft physician questionnaire that the drug is fictitious on the grounds that this might bias the results and instead label it a "potentially new drug." FDA rejected this idea for physicians, though it agreed to a bit of deception on the consumer questionnaire. And they’re right. Alas, the FDA disagrees.

 

"FDA had many internal discussions regarding this issue and decided that because of the particular [physician] sample, it is necessary to be upfront with them about the nature of the drug," the agency states in a notice scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on Dec. 23.

 

"Physicians will be more savvy about the particulars of the chemical entities and the realism of the clinical benefits and we do not wish to make them skeptical of our purposes," FDA states. "We agree that this approach is preferable for consumers and so we will inform them that this is a potentially new drug in that part of the study."

 

The consumer survey will present identical safety information under one of two randomly chosen headlines - "Important Safety Information" or "Important Risk Information" - to see whether that makes a difference in the respondents' understanding.

 

General practitioners will be asked to look at a label for one of the fictitious drug and answer questions designed to show how they use the prescribing information - which sections of the label they choose to read, for how long, and in what order. They will be asked how they perceive the drug's efficacy and how well they can recall the claimed benefits, and their answers will be compared with those of the consumers.

 

In other words, the GPs will know this is a test.  Isn’t it likely then, that they will pay closer attention to the details? Isn't it just as important to learn how much (or how little) physicians really understand the information presented in the P.I.? In fact -- isn't it more important since they are the "learned intermediaries?"

 

Comments from Eli Lilly & Co. suggested that benefits and risks be viewed  together and in a similar format so as not to bias the results. FDA agreed that "the benefits and risks should be evaluated together and [we] have several measures to investigate both. ...[but] because of the complexity of DTC ads, we cannot manipulate both benefits and risks at the same time."

 

Hm.


Burying the Lead

  • 12.27.2010
During the Blizzard of Boxing Day, the New York Times editorialized on the FDA's decision to remove Avastin's indication for breast cancer. The Gray Lady was mostly supportive and neglected to say that many breast cancer organizations (including the Susan B. Komen Foundation) strongly believe that the agency made the wrong decision.

Alas, the editorial buried the lead in the final paragraph:

"Genentech plans to request a hearing with the F.D.A. to argue the case for retaining Avastin’s status as an approved breast cancer treatment. It should focus on proposing ways to identify the subset of women who can really benefit from Avastin."

The full editorial can be found here.

Burying the lead is one thing.  Prematurely burying patients is something altogether different.

A Double Edged Sword for U.S. Healthcare

By Paul Howard

The U.S. is in the midst of a quiet drug crisis - an unprecedented shortage of critical generic medicines affecting everyone from cancer patients to patients waiting for routine surgeries. The shortage has everyone from regulators to companies scrambling to find solutions, while industry critics are calling for the FDA to mandate that companies keep making some medicines, even when they lose money on them.

Their sense of alarm is understandable, but forcing companies to act against their bottom-line interests will only make things worse. A better solution would focus on improving communications between regulators and stakeholders and strengthening market incentives for companies to keep producing high quality generic drugs.

Ironically, the shortage is the result of America's highly competitive, highly efficient system for rewarding both drug innovation and generic competition. In the long run, the system works well: Americans benefit from having a thriving, innovative biopharmaceutical industry and widespread access to inexpensive, high-quality generics.

As patents expire and generic competitors enter the market, once expensive, brand-name drugs plummet in price, to the great benefit of patients and payers - generic drugs saved the U.S. $121 billion in drug costs in 2008 alone. Today, according to IMS Health, about 75 percent of all U.S. prescriptions are for generics, up from just 57 percent in 2004 - and companies like Wal-Mart offer 30 day supplies of hundreds of generic drugs for just $4 a month. Meanwhile, companies with drugs losing patent protection also have powerful financial incentives to invest in new research to develop newer and better medicines for patients, and to make up for lost revenue.

In the short run, however, problems can crop up as pricing competition drives generic drug prices to rock-bottom levels, forcing less efficient producers to exit the market.

This may lead to just a few (two or three) companies producing important generic drugs. In this situation, with hospitals or pharmacies reluctant to keep large quantities of drugs in stock they don't immediately need, shortages can crop up quickly when there are sudden spikes in demand.  Also, as price competition intensifies, some companies may decide that profit margins or demand for a given medicine is too thin to justify continuing production.

The "short run" can be a matter of life and death for patients waiting on critical drugs for diseases like lung cancer or leukemia. Today, some cancer drugs are in short supply in some regions of the U.S. - including carboplatin, cisplatin, doxorubicin, etopiside, and leucovorin. In many cases, physicians or pharmacists can substitute other drugs, but for some cancers "there are no equivalents, no work arounds," says ASCO president-elect Michael Link.

Whatever the cause of the shortages, they appear to be growing worse over time.  A particular problem appears to be occurring with complex drugs known as sterile injectables, which the FDA says have experienced "severe and frequent shortages in recent years," accounting for 46% of total drug shortages in 2009.

Sterile injectables require a relatively complex manufacturing process with a substantial "lead time" compared to other drugs.  This limits the number of companies that have the capacity to make them.

One example is the fast-acting anesthetic propofol, first approved by the FDA in 1989, and which lost patent protection in 1998. By 2009, just three companies were making generic propofol for the U.S. market: Teva Pharmaceuticals, APP Pharmaceuticals, and Hospira. Last October, both Hospira and Teva had to recall propofol due to FDA-identified contamination in their product lines. By May 2010, Hospira was still off-line and had to recall all of its customers' inventory, according to the FDA.

In the meantime, Teva announced that it would not be returning to the market, a decision perhaps motivated by a massive ($500 million) punitive-damage award against the company as a result of patients contracting Hepatitis from contaminated propofol vials. Explaining the decision, Teva said that it made "little or no profit from the drug," which is complex to manufacture. That left APP Pharmaceuticals as the last firm manufacturing propofol, and they haven't been able to keep up with demand.

Critics have long blasted the pharmaceutical industry for focusing too much on "profits", and called for empowering the FDA to force companies to continue making generic drugs, even when they are unprofitable. This move would of course be a disaster, and it would potentially reduce the incentives for companies to make complex generic drugs on the assumption that exiting the market would be costly. It would also give payers even more power to slash prices, knowing that companies could never refuse to produce the drug, even if they had to sell it at a loss.

A better approach is for regulators, manufacturers, and health systems to work harder to identify potential shortages as early as possible, allowing hospitals and pharmacists to develop plans to better manage or reallocate existing drug supplies before the shortages occur. Hospitals and health systems might also want to consider long-term purchase agreements or paying a few pennies extra per pill to reward suppliers with a track record of making complex, high-quality generic products. Rewarding quality and long-term reliability with a slightly higher price (or longer term contracts) should give producers better incentives to stay with generic product lines and invest in continuously improving their manufacturing processes.

More can certainly be done as well on the FDA side, including better monitoring to ensure that companies are in compliance with current Good Manufacturing Processes, along with upgrading the FDA's ability to provide meaningful oversight inspections. This would include increased funding for more frequent FDA inspections of high-risk manufacturing facilities, and adequate staffing to conduct inspections outside the U.S.

Should the FDA do more? "More is always better," said former FDA Associate Commissioner Peter J. Pitts. "But the agency must spend its money where it can get the biggest bang for the regulatory buck. More focus should be put on those who present the highest risk -- particularly overseas. A handful of FDA inspectors in China and India just doesn't cut it."

The problem of drug shortages comes at a time when the drug market is changing significantly. In the next several years, the market between generic and branded drugs will blur as innovative companies expand into the generics and biosimilars markets.

While no company is immune from manufacturing problems (and many generic firms produce high-quality products), the greater manufacturing experience and scientific expertise available to large, established pharmaceutical companies may help to smooth out at least some of the reliability issues with complex drugs like sterile injectables. And competition works both ways in the pharmaceutical industry. As more traditional drug companies are moving into generic markets, generic drug companies in places like India are trying to move upstream and develop a drug-discovery capacity of their own - believing that they can produce new drugs better and less expensively than U.S. and European companies.

In the long run, supply and quality problems are likely to smooth out as the industry restructures to meet new market and competitive realities. But that's cold comfort for patients facing drug shortages today.

The challenge for health systems, industry, and regulators right now is to find a way to overcome existing supply challenges without dampening incentives to innovate, even for older generic products. Creating better market incentives, improving communications between stakeholders, and bolstering the FDA's ability to conduct risk-based inspections are the best ways to prevent the next shortage before it happens.

Tevi Troy, the Deputy Secretary of HHS under President George W. Bush, has some words of wisdom for Republicans and words of warning for the Democrats:
 
Republicans are taking over the House of Representatives with a justified belief that the American people have given them a mandate to “repeal and replace” the health-care bill. They can’t succeed at it. Even if a repeal vote passes the House—and it is likely that such a vote will take place early in the year—Republicans will not be able to get that bill through the Democratic-controlled Senate, and President Obama would veto it in any event. As a result, House Republicans will have to spend the next two years making the case for repeal, using the tools of the majority—gavels, more staff, and subpoena power—to highlight the case.

There are, however, two possible means of repeal. There is actual legislative repeal, passed by both Houses and signed by the president, which cannot happen until 2013 at the earliest. And there is effective repeal, in which the body politic rejects the substance of the bill, seeks waivers and exemptions, supports defunding important provisions, and challenges it in court, all of which would have the effect of making the whole scheme unworkable. This could be the ultimate fate of Obama’s signature legislation.

Many Democrats are sure to keep telling themselves, as President Obama has, that “the outcome was a good one.” That conviction should comfort them as they continue to deal with the consequences arising from the intensity of the electorate’s rejection. The Pyrrhic victory Democrats secured for themselves in March 2010 may prove not to have been a victory at all but rather an ever-roiling, ongoing, and recurring act of political and ideological self-destruction.

 

Pharmville

  • 12.23.2010

Drug Industry Dismayed by FDA Delay on Digital Marketing Guidelines

Three-Month Pushback Frustrates Industry Digging into Social Media and Internet Advertising

The agency released a statement Tuesday night to the EyeonFDA blog that read: "The Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications (DDMAC) has been researching draft-guidance topics on the following issues related to internet/social-media promotion of FDA-regulated medical products: Responding to unsolicited requests; fulfilling regulatory requirements when using tools associated with space limitations; fulfilling post-marketing submission requirements; online communications for which manufacturers, packers or distributors are accountable; use of links on the internet; correcting misinformation."

It continued: "Our goal is to issue one draft guidance that addresses at least one of these topics during the first quarter of 2011, but we cannot comment any further at this point as to exactly when any draft guidance will issue or any specific order in which the topics will be addressed. The public will be notified officially when any guidance is issued via Federal Register announcements."

The FDA was expected to announce online guidelines by the end of this year after holding two-day public hearings in November of 2009. Delaying that potentially for three more months -- and guaranteeing draft guidance on only one of those topics -- is not sitting well. "It's infuriating," said one health-care-centric ad agency president. "On one hand, you want FDA to get it right. On the other hand, the (public hearings) were last November. They've had more than a year to get it right. It's bullshit."

But Paul Machado, CEO and founder of New Jersey-based Health Innovation Partners, said the delay is not such a bad thing. "If you think about it from the FDA's perspective and the challenges they're dealing with regarding health-care reform, why come out with a position? There's not a need right now. Why bother?"

Mr. Machado added that the industry will "continue to meander through the forest and see what happens, be conservative, see what others do and slowly create a position for themselves. Even if they do come out with guidance, it will take companies a long time to react to it. The reality is, you can only do so much anyway. "

At the November 2009 hearings, more than 60 people spoke, including representatives from Google, drug-makers and ad agencies. A month later the FDA published its Guidance Agenda for 2010, and the "Guidance on the Internet and Social Media" was listed -- meaning, at some point this year, the FDA expected to issue those guidelines.

One of the first inklings that it was going to be delayed came earlier this month when the FDA issued its Guidance Agenda for 2011 and "Guidance on the Internet and Social Media" was again listed.

Asked in an email why the agency would delay its online guidance, former FDA associate commissioner Peter Pitts replied: "Lack of knowledge. Lack of urgency. First Amendment angst."

Ironically, as the pharmaceutical industry itself begs for online/social-media guidance in order to pursue marketing in the new media, the first documented enforcement letter stemming from the FDA's new "Bad Ad" program was online-related.

The Dec. 3 letter from the Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications (DDMAC) to Hill Dermaceuticals claimed the company's web pages for its Derma-Smoothe product "are false or misleading because they omit and minimize the risks associated with the use of Derma-Smoothe Body Oil, overstate its efficacy, present unsubstantiated superiority claims, broaden and inadequately communicate the indication, and present unsubstantiated claims for the drug product. Thus, the webpages misbrand the drug in violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act."

The "Bad Ad Program," instituted in May, urges the medical community to report ads and sales pitches that violate FDA rules. Ostensibly, the program was designed primarily to catch what the FDA can't see -- the behind-office-doors pitches from pharmaceutical sales reps to physicians. But the broad definition of the program allows doctors and medical professionals to report false or misleading ads to the FDA, and to do so anonymously.

Wednesday reading

  • 12.22.2010
A couple good articles worth reading today…
 
Megan McArdle on medical bankruptcies:
 
Incidentally, what I was looking for when I stumbled upon the chart in the previous post is the data on bankruptcies in Massachusetts.  It's now been four years since Massachusetts passed its health care reform, which seems long enough for reform to have produced a decline in all the medical bankruptcies we are told result from the lack of universal health care in the United States.
 
 
Politico on concerned Venture capitalists and health care reform:
 
Venture capital investors in the medical industry blame their less-than-stellar 2011 predictions on a combination of how long it takes the Food and Drug Administration to approve a pharmaceutical drug or medical device and the large amount of money venture-backed companies in the sector require.

“It really is getting to the point where decision making at FDA is really becoming a major obstacle to VCs committing more money to the life sciences sector,” said Jack Lasersohn, general partner at The Vertical Group.

Lasersohn said the FDA focuses too much on the risk rather than the benefit of a drug or device, “and as a result, it’s taken much longer to get things approved by the FDA. And in some cases, you can’t get things approved by the FDA.”

NVCA has been pushing for FDA reform to simplify the process by which the agency approves new technologies and drugs. The organization argues that innovators can more easily get their new devices and therapies approved by foreign governments, giving companies incentives to do business overseas rather in the United States.


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