Latest Drugwonks' Blog

Surprise!

  • 12.16.2010

At Tuesday’s White House confab on intellectual property, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano declared that eliminating counterfeit pharmaceuticals has become a top priority for federal customs agents and prosecutors, and they expect it to remain high on their agenda next year.

This came as a surprise to many (including many at the FDA).

Nevertheless – good and important news.

Speed Kills

  • 12.16.2010

According to Russell Wesdyk, scientific coordinator in the FDA's Office of Pharmaceutical Science, generic drug manufacturers would face fewer factory inspections and save as much as a year developing products in exchange for paying fees for the first time under a Food and Drug Administration proposal.

Terrifi.  The more expeditiously generic drugs can move through the FDA process the better … but not at the expense of safety.

Wesdyk shared that the FDA may waive "preapproval inspections" done after companies submit generic-drug applications. Instead, it would rely on periodic inspections that focus on firms' broader manufacturing practices.

Really?  Fewer inspections?  Isn’t that going against the prevailing philosophy that FDA needs to undertake more and more rigorous inspections and particularly overseas (where many generic products are manufactured)?

Speed is important.  Safety is more important.  To achieve both requires the agency to have more inspectors – and that means more money for the FDA.

Safe generics brought to market more swiftly?  Show me the money.

When our media here talks about every citizen in Canada having health coverage, they usually leave out the part about the government dictating the quality of that coverage.
 
Suffering headaches, vomiting and imbalance, Suresh Kapur was diagnosed with bleeding on the brain when he showed up at a Toronto-area hospital, then given an “urgent” follow-up appointment with a neurosurgeon — three days later.

The retired professional engineer decided to seek out a second opinion in Buffalo, N.Y., that same day, only to have doctors there rush him into the OR, believing “there were absolutely no grounds” for waiting longer. Now the patient has won a year-long battle to get Ontario’s medicare system to cover his U.S. costs, reviving questions about Canada’s stretched brain surgery resources and reliance on the United States to fill the gaps.

Here’s the kicker:

Mr. Kapur’s surgery in the U.S. was not approved in advance by the Ontario health-insurance program — known as OHIP — and it refused to pay his bills, saying it was not convinced his condition was an emergency. The province’s Health Services Appeal and Review Board ruled in his favour this month, however, ordering OHIP to pay for the operation.

Mr. Kapur, 70, said he believes his life was saved by the fact he has medical connections in the family — including a son-in-law who is a doctor in Buffalo — and worries about others in the same situation.

“The system is in serious trouble,” he said. “I was recently back in Buffalo and all the doctors who had seen me, all talked about this case and they all said, ‘How can this happen?’ ”

Mr. Kapur was suffering terrible headaches and was diagnosed with bleeding on the brain, but the bureaucrats still weren’t convinced it was an emergency.
 
But hey, all Canadians have health coverage! That’s the narrative advanced by the true believers in our media who desperately want the United States to adopt a single-payer model and stories like this one won’t change their minds.

Read the entire article here.


From the pages of the Wall Street Journal:

BEIJING—Big drug makers from the West are making a new kind of push into fast-growing Asian markets: creating drugs for diseases that are more prevalent there.

Within the past year, Pfizer Inc., the world's largest drug company by sales, began work in China on an anti-inflammatory compound to treat liver disease, a big killer in Asia. Health-products giant Johnson & Johnson announced last month a collaboration with a university in Beijing to research infectious diseases threatening the region. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. also last month announced a partnership with Nanjing-based Simcere Pharmaceutical Group to develop a cancer treatment.

The approach marks a shift from the industry's history of designing medicines for patients in the West. While multinational drug makers might study experimental medicines in Asian subjects, the companies would use the clinical-trial results to gain regulatory approval in the U.S. and Europe.

Western drug makers often bypassed medical conditions specific to Asia. Liver disease, certain cancers and some infectious diseases are more prevalent in countries like China and Thailand because of differences in the environment, genetic factors and some behaviors.

Firms are now pouring into Asian markets with the goal that growth there will help them cope with pricing pressures and aging products in the U.S. and Europe. Sizable and increasing numbers of Asians can afford to buy Western drugs. About $40 billion of prescription drugs are sold in China, for instance, and the market is growing about 25% a year, according to David Maris, an analyst at CLSA, an Asia-focused investment group headquartered in Hong Kong. The pharmaceutical market in the U.S. and Europe is growing 2% to 5% a year.

Given the market's size, more pharmaceutical executives are starting to see the region's specific medical needs as potential sources of profit. U.S. and European drug makers have invested more than a billion dollars over the past year into building research-and-development and manufacturing capabilities in the area, according to CLSA.

And more investment is on the way. In announcing job cuts last month, Bayer AG said it wanted to use the savings for the "expansion of capacities in Asia," including the addition of 2,500 jobs in emerging markets.

Pfizer opened a research facility in Shanghai five years ago and established a network of doctors and academics to give input on the clinical needs of patients there. The New York company saw an opportunity in an anti-inflammatory compound that showed promise for treating liver disease. The disease can follow infection with the hepatitis B virus, which is much more common in Asia than in the West. Some 70% to 90% of people in China and some other Asian countries are infected with hepatitis B by the age of 40, compared to fewer than 20% in North America and Western Europe, according to the World Health Organization.

Johnson & Johnson's collaboration with Tsinghua University—one of the top universities in Beijing whose tree-lined campus is filled with gleaming research centers and surrounded by Chinese offices of U.S. technology giants Google and Microsoft—illustrates a partnership approach to drug R&D. The goal of the project's early-stage laboratory work is to better understand diseases like hepatitis B, tuberculosis and bird flu, paving the way for new therapies.

Since 2008, J&J has been involved in another partnership with Tianjin Medical University to improve treatment of head, neck and other cancers prevalent in Asia.

Tianjin Medical University, about 80 miles southeast of Beijing, has about 2,000 inpatient cancer beds. It is collecting tumor tissues and blood cells from each patient.

By collaborating with the university, J&J hopes to more quickly identify distinctive biomarkers, such as genes or proteins, that might signal which drugs would work best for what cancer patients, said William Hait, J&J's head of oncology.

J&J helped train local researchers on how to do detailed genetic and molecular work because they "didn't have critical mass of people with these capabilities," said Dr. Hait. The training has taken longer than expected, but the research projects are up and running, he said.

Bristol-Myers is taking yet a different approach—by licensing to a Chinese firm the development of a compound that shows promise for treating gastric, esophageal and lung cancers.

The New York drug maker sold the compound's Chinese development and marketing rights after deciding a local company could do the work more efficiently. Under the terms, Simcere will run and fund the research through mid-stage human development.

Though this might mean giving up the short-term benefit of selling any resulting products in China, Bristol-Myers can draw long-term lessons from the experience, said Jeremy Levin, who oversees transactions at Bristol-Myers. "We're learning from others in other countries," he said.

All of the drugs targeting diseases prevalent in Asia remain years off. Yet, their development can pay immediate dividends by generating goodwill with Asian patients and governments impressed by the focus on local medical needs, said Sati Sian, general manager in China of IMS Health, a drug industry consultancy.

Companies may face some skepticism from patients, however.

Mr. Chi, a 48-year-old Beijing resident who asked to be identified only by his family name, said it is a positive that Western drug companies are trying to make more new medicines but he doesn't like their focus on treating diseases more common in Asian populations with the intention of selling them first to people in China. "I would wonder why you [the company] don't start giving it to people in your country first," said Mr. Chi, a building manager.

Mr. Chi, who was waiting to see a doctor Monday because he was suffering from an upset stomach, generally prefers traditional Chinese medicines for "regulating" bodily processes, like problems with sleeping, because they are made of natural ingredients and have fewer side effects than Western medicines.

Write to Shirley S. Wang at shirley.wang@wsj.com and Jonathan D. Rockoff at jonathan.rockoff@wsj.com

Yes Virginia, there is an interstate commerce clause.  And there may yet be coal in your stocking.

As you no doubt know already, Judge Hudson found that Congress could not order individuals to buy health insurance.

In a 42-page opinion, Hudson said the provision of the law that requires most individuals to get insurance or pay a fine by 2014 is an unprecedented expansion of federal power that cannot be supported by Congress's power to regulate interstate trade.

"Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market," he wrote. "In doing so, enactment of the [individual mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I [of the Constitution.]

This will largely be reported on and discussed relative to its impact on the continued viability of the Patient Affordability Act (aka “health care reform” aka “ObamaCare) – and that’s an important conversation for the 112th Congress and others to have.  But there’s a more urgent public health imperative: uninsured, healthy young adults. 

Not that the legislation, as passed, would have accomplished anything significant about driving young, healthy people into the insurance pool.  The anemic penalties actually disincentivize youthful participation.  After all, why not pay a monthly penalty (less than even a very affordable monthly insurance premium) if, when you do face a medical emergency, you can’t be turned down or charged more?

Judge Hudson didn’t use this in any way relative to his ruling – but his ruling does give us another bite at the “young, health and uninsured” apple.

And bite we must.

If we cannot bring healthy young adults (and, for that matter, healthy adults writ large) into the insurance pool, coverage costs will increase -- and fast.  As more people with pre-existing conditions are brought into the insurance system (via state insurance exchanges, vouchers, etc.), costs will skyrocket.  The curve will be bent alright – in the wrong direction.

Thanks to Judge Hudson we have a chance to revisit a better way to address this situation – insurance regulatory reform.

A study by University of Minnesota economists Stephen Parente and Roer Feldman shows that Congress could boost by more than 12 million the number of people who have health insurance without spending taxpayer dollars. The change required is to allow people to buy health insurance across state lines, so they can shop for less expensive policies. For example, a typical health-insurance policy in heavily regulated New York costs more than three times as much as in less regulated Iowa ($388 a month versus $98 a month for the same coverage).

The penalty “stick” (whether you like it or not) will not even be an option if Judge Hudson’s ruling stands.  So we’d better start looking for some carrots – and lower cost policies is a particularly juicy one.  But that must also be paired with a strong public awareness campaign.  As any expert in behavior modification will tell you, the best way to get people to do something you want them to do is to make them understand why it is in their best interest to do so.

And the sooner the better.

Here are three segments from Sunday's "BioCentury this Week" --

Sally Greenberg (National Consumer's League) and I discuss health care and the 112th Congress:

Part 1

Part 2

And here's a segment on where we might see health care communications venture.
 
Enjoy.

Mulling it over

  • 12.13.2010
From the Pink Sheet:

FDA Floats 15-Month Review Timeline For PDUFA V; Firms Mull Tradeoff On Speed Vs. Certainty

Fifteen months could become the expected review time for new molecular entity and novel biologics license applications, based on a proposed new review model.

FDA and industry are considering a review timeline that would automatically add two months to all NME new drug applications and novel BLA application goals with the potential for an additional three-month extension under certain conditions.

The new model only would apply to those applications, according to minutes of a Nov. 18 Prescription Drug User Fee Act reauthorization negotiating session with industry. All other NDAs and BLAs would be reviewed under the existing application review system, where the standard review time is 10 months.

FDA and industry would receive some of their primary requests under this proposal. It would allow more time to complete reviews in the first cycle and also add a late-cycle meeting between sponsors and the agency to discuss major issues.

The new model also would address an industry request for more certainty in the review process. While the existing stated goal is 10 months for all standard applications, FDA’s record of meeting that timeframe is inconsistent. If both sides can agree to the additional review time for NME NDAs and original BLAs, which theoretically require more work, industry could gain the additional consistency in review times that it wants. That is, of course, if the agency actually can finish the reviews within the longer timeframe.

The review clock would begin two months later than usual – at the conclusion of application filing and validation activities – to create time for the late-cycle meeting, according to the minutes.

The delay would allow the agency to throw out most of the automatic extensions it had been pushing for in previous meetings. Extensions for advisory committees, foreign facility inspections and Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies would not be necessary, the agency said in the minutes.

However, the mandatory three-month extension for a major application amendment, no matter when it was submitted, still would be possible. FDA had argued it could not meet the prescribed review goals because applications with a major amendment – as well as those requiring a REMS, foreign inspection and advisory committee meeting – required too much additional work.

 The agency also said a REMS submission could be considered a major amendment. FDA said applications submitted with a REMS would not trigger an automatic extension, but the agency could take the major-amendment extension if the REMS had to be revised during the review, according to the minutes.

The additional two months for all NME NDAs and novel BLAs would push the standard review goal to one year. A major amendment or REMS issue would extend it to 15 months.

Interestingly, FDA is asking for more review time as it is near meeting performance goals under the existing PDUFA standards. In fiscal year 2008, the agency reviewed 87% of all standard NMEs and novel BLAs within 10 months, just short of its 90% goal.

FDA has more work to do finishing non-novel application reviews on time. Its performance for non-NME or novel BLA applications was 85% in FY08.

The new review time of 15 months would still be below the recorded median review time for standard applications, which was 16.2 months in fiscal year 2008. That was the highest since the 20-month median recorded in 2001.

The new model also would address only a fraction of all the NDA and BLA applications FDA receives. NMEs accounted for about 22% of all original NDA and BLA applications received from fiscal years 2005 through 2009, according to the FY 2009 PDUFA Performance Report, released in October.

In FY 2009, 31 NME applications were received, the most in the five-year span. However, the total of original applications, 147, also was the highest during the period, the agency said in the report.

Later Meeting Includes More FDA Officials

Under the new model, a late-phase meeting after primary and secondary reviews are finished would be allowed to conduct discussions of application problems as well as advisory committee and risk management plans. It also could cover new data or analysis submissions and whether FDA would review them during the first cycle, according to the minutes.

The meeting would include signatory authorities (those who make the final decisions on applications), an industry request during previous meetings.

The agency also is willing to give its advisory committee meeting background package to the sponsor 21 business days prior to the scheduled meeting under the new model. Industry had asked in previous meetings to see the documents earlier. If applicable, the late-phase meeting would be scheduled between the receipt of the background package by the sponsor and the AC meeting.

The new review timeline would include an additional mid-cycle communication previously offered, where a project manager would give application status updates and talk about any major deficiencies that had been found. The agency previously had offered the mid-cycle meeting, but it was too early for sponsors’ needs.

Applications Need More Information

Additional expectations also would be placed on industry in the new model. Applications would be expected to be complete at the time of submission and include a complete list of manufacturing facilities so the agency could better plan and conduct pre-approval inspections before advisory committee meetings.

Both sides also considered including a complete list of clinical investigation sites in the application so the agency could more easily verify data integrity and protect human subjects, according to the minutes.

FDA said comprehensive pre-submission meetings about potential safety issues could help identify risk management needs earlier. Industry representatives said they were looking at best practices for those meetings.

More Discussions Of New Model Ahead

There was no indication in the minutes that industry had accepted or rejected the new model. Industry representatives appear to have spent much of the hour-long session listening.

The new model is the latest move in a long journey toward an upgraded application review system. FDA had argued for more time, while industry wanted additional meetings for sponsors.

In an attempt to make more time during the review process for mid-cycle meetings, the agency had at one point proposed a four-phase process that would have allowed FDA to stop the review clock in order to conduct the mid-cycle meeting with the sponsor.

That proposal solicited too many questions from both sides and was dropped. The agency then returned to its automatic extensions proposal, which came earlier in the negotiating process.

More discussion of the late-phase meeting proposal is scheduled for a future session. If a process resembling the 15-month timetable is enshrined in PDUFA V, however, it may confirm to many in industry that their relationship with the user program is indeed a loveless marriage, in that they are paying more for slower.


A new report from the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has recommended the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) receive funds above and beyond the $1.1 billion earmarked in the President’s initial stimulus package to develop a test network for comparative effectiveness research.

The report notes that if patient progress and outcomes are routinely captured in data and made available in near real time, "partial data can be used in sophisticated ways to assign treatments to new patients in optimal ways. These data also could be used to personalize treatment for patients already enrolled in a study."

“Assign treatment?” Perhaps “help a physician decide” or “provide important clinical information”  -- but … “assign?” Sounds rather top-down, don’t you think?  Alas, as this report was drafted by experts who understand the importance of precise language, we have to assume what they wrote is what they meant.

And that’s frightening.

Sounds like a good topic for a Congressional hearing.

The Council’s report can be found here.

Waiver This!

  • 12.10.2010
I wonder how Obamacare's visionaries will deal with doctor drop outs. Perhaps another unemployment benefit extension?
 
 
Nation's Frontline Physicians Unhappy With Health Care Reform Measures
November 18, 2010
 
The Physicians Foundation today released the results of a national survey of physicians that finds strong negative feelings towards the new health care reform law and fear that patient care will suffer in the months and years ahead. The survey was intended to gauge physicians’ initial reaction to the passage of health reform and to learn the ways in which they plan to respond to it.
The research, conducted by Merritt Hawkins, a national physician search and consulting firm, on behalf of the Foundation, comes on the two-year anniversary of the Foundation’s first national physician survey that found growing dissatisfaction among doctors as they struggle with less time for patient care and increased time dealing with non-clinical paperwork, difficulty receiving reimbursement and burdensome government regulations. The new research reinforces those findings and shows that the new health care reform could intensify existing problems for doctors and worsen the shortage of primary care doctors, making it more difficult for patients to access quality care.
“Physicians support reform; in fact, we were the ones leading the fight against the status quo. But this new research shows that doctors strongly believe the law is not working like it needs to – for them, or for their patients,” said Lou Goodman, PhD, President. “For any health care reform effort to be successful, it must include the viewpoint of our nation’s doctors. Their perspective from the front-lines of patient care is critical in determining what’s broken in our system and how we can fix it.”
Notably, physicians also felt that Medicare’s Sustainable Growth Rate formula (SGR) had an equally large impact on their practices as health care reform. Proposed cuts have been repeatedly put off by Congress and in January will reach approximately 30% if not addressed. “Despite the high profile nature of the health reform discussion, physicians are equally concerned over the impact of SGR on their practices,” said Walker Ray, MD, Research Committee Chair. “The fact that SGR was not addressed as part of this year’s reform effort shows that we don’t have a comprehensive solution yet, and also that doctors simply didn’t have a voice at the table during the reform debate. That needs to change.”
Key research findings include:
• The majority of physicians (60%) said health reform will compel them to close or significantly restrict their practices to certain categories of patients. Of these, 93% said they will be forced to close or significantly restrict their practices to Medicaid patients, while 87% said they would be forced to close or significantly restrict their practices to Medicare patients.
• 40% of physicians said they would drop out of patient care in the next one to three years, either by retiring, seeking a non-clinical job within healthcare, or by seeking a non-healthcare related job.
• The majority of physicians (59%) said health reform will cause them to spend less time with patients.
• While over half of physicians said health reform will cause patient volumes in their practices to increase, 69% said they no longer have the time or resources to see additional patients in their practices while still maintaining quality of care.
• 67% of physicians said their initial reaction to passage of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was either “somewhat negative” or “very negative” and a great majority (86%) believes the viewpoint of physicians was not adequately represented to policy makers during the run-up to passage of the law.
• Physicians are almost evenly divided over the relative importance of SGR (36%) and health reform (34%) to their practices, while 30% are unsure which will have the greatest impact.
The full research report is available as part of “Health Reform and the Decline of Physician Private Practice,” an expert analysis of the potential effects of reform on physician practices. The report is available at www.physiciansfoundation.org.
 
 

BioCenturions

  • 12.10.2010
BioCentury con brio!

This Sunday on "BioCentury This Week" TV

Broadcast on WUSA Channel 9 in Washington, D.C.
and Fox affiliate WFXT Channel 25 Boston
8:30 - 9:00 a.m. EST

Dec. 12 broadcast investigates
POLITICAL COMMUNICATIONS
Finding Biotech's Voice in a Divided Washington

continuous webcast at
www.biocenturytv.com

Biotech avoided the eye of the storm during the bruising healthcare reform debate. In the newly divided Washington, the question is whether the industry can afford to stay under the radar on its hot button issues, such as PDUFA, as other interest groups join the fray. On Sunday, Dec. 12, BioCentury This Week examines this political communications landscape.

Policom Basics -- Gene Grabowski, SVP at Levick Strategic Communications, and Wayne Pines, President of Regulatory Services and Health Care at APCO Worldwide, warn that biotech must make its voice heard.
 
Policom Tactics -- Peter Pitts, President and Co-founder of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest and Partner/Director for Global Healthcare at Porter Novelli, and Sally Greenberg, Executive Director of the National Consumers League, focus on how industry and consumer groups will carry their messages to Capitol Hill.
 
Web Exclusive -- Gene Grabowski, Wayne Pines and Peter Pitts assess biotech's visibility on Capitol Hill and debate what to do about it.

Final Word -- BioCentury Washington Editor Steve Usdin says it's not too early for biotech CEOs to begin building their messages for their annual "legislative fly-in" to Washington.

Bathrobes and slippers optional.

Enjoy!

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