Latest Drugwonks' Blog
The current approach to reimbursement will not suffice. Case in point, the preliminary CMS decision not to pay for gene-guided warfarin testing until long term randomized clinical trials determine if such tests actually reduce bleeding and clots over the long term. It is not the right way to go... in a long term study (> 8 - 12 weeks) it is impossible to link initial dose to long term outcomes of bleeds/clots unless one were to let INR fluctuate freely which is clearly unethical. And loading dose is what PgX testing is all about since the major risk is in overdosing in the first month of treatment.
That being the case I was glad to see the approach taken by Sean Tunis and Alan Garber in their NEJM article on how CER could be used to advance personalized medicine. I was particularly interested to see that Tunis and Garber were open to using post hoc subpopulation analysis to generate leads for benefit where one size fits all previously showed none existed We will see if this is merely a sop or the beginning of a shift in approach that is sensitive to advances in science and other considerations.
In addition, AHRQ is holding a symposium on alternative study designs to take into account heterogeneity of treatment effect.
These are well overdue signs that CER will not be manipulated overtly by political masters. However more needs to done. Money needs to be allocated to accelerate the testing of predictive markers for treatment selection and for health outcomes evaluations in prospective, observational settings. And legislation needs to be introduced to insure that the absence of evidence does not become the rationale for absence of reimbursement by insurers, public or private. That is, both should pay for new technologies as along as their is a "meaningful" effort to link use to efforts to measure value and clinical benefit and that such information and the clinical practices associated with the technology are shared.
In any event, I commend Garber and Tunis (Tunis and Garber) for their article and hope that more such efforts are in the offing.
Read more here.
Interpol report that around 3%-4% of spam mails currently being circulated are related to swine flu, and this number is expected to increase. Hundreds of new web pages related to swine flu have been created in the past week alone
“It has been seen time and time again that following a global threat or natural disaster, criminals exploit the situation for their own financial gain and in this situation they are searching to take advantage of people’s fears about their health,” said Jean-Michel Louboutin, executive director of police services at Interpol.
“By responding to spam swine flu emails or attempting to order medication on-line through illegal and unregulated websites, people are risking their wellbeing and their money,” and any unsolicited emails containing deals or links to websites offering swine flu-related information packs or medicines “should be treated with extreme caution,” he warned.
Criminal organizations and individuals involved in the production of counterfeit pharmaceuticals may also attempt to take advantage of the current health situation through the manufacture of fake antiviral drugs, added Mr Louboutin.
“Any product which can be manufactured can be counterfeited, and while there is so far no evidence to suggest that fake antivirals are being manufactured in response to the swine flu outbreak, this is an area which we will continue to monitor in order to identify any cases if or when they emerge,” he said.
National authorities around the world have also issued warnings to the public, with David Pruce, director of policy at the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB), pointing out that the current fears about swine flu offer a “golden opportunity” for counterfeiters to offer fake supplies of drugs, particularly Roche’s Tamiflu (oseltamivir) and GlaxoSmithKline’s Relenza (zanamivir) over the Internet.
The public should not be taken in by spam e-mails offering to supply these antivirals, said Mr Pruce. “Most of the drugs offered in this way turn out to be counterfeit and may contain anything from sugar to more dangerous substances that can seriously put health at risk,” he added.
Those supporting drug importation from foreign countries take note – you can’t put lipstick on a pig.
Finding insufficient evidence demonstrating that pharmacogenomics-guided warfarin dosing improves health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services this week determined that pharmacogenomic testing to predict warfarin responsiveness is "not reasonable and necessary."
Instead, CMS proposed a more "appropriate" alternative, employing a "coverage with evidence development" strategy, in which it would pay for PGx-based warfarin dosing only for Medicare beneficiaries who are part of a prospectively designed, randomized-controlled trial showing pharmacogenomics-guided dosing strategies improve health outcomes over standard dosing methods.
I guess requiring a RTC when FDA doesn't is not duplication. It is outright delay and derailment of Dx.
Read more here
According to the Associated Press, “The Food and Drug Administration has found at least 20 Web sites that may be fraudulently marketing products with claims that they guard against or cure swine flu.”
The FDA has also found at least 20 other sites offering products for swine flu -- including antiviral medications being sold without a doctor's prescription (including Tamiflu), dietary supplements with exaggerated claims, and flu diagnostic and protection kits.
This is what happens when public officials openly promote buying medicines over the internet. It emboldens criminals to sell their snake oil to frightened Americans. Supporters of “safe” importation “from
A recent paper entitled: Economic Evaluation and Comparative-Effectiveness Thresholds: Signals to Firms and Implications for R&D Investment and Innovation John A. Vernon University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Joseph H. Golec University of Connecticut - Department of Finance and me address that last issue.
Here's the abstract and a link to the article:
Abstract:
In this article we describe how reimbursement cost-effectiveness thresholds, per unit of health benefit, whether set explicitly or observed implicitly via historical reimbursement decisions, serve as a signal to firms about the commercial viability of their R&D projects (including candidate products for in-licensing). Traditional finance methods for R&D project valuations, such as net present value analyses (NPV), incorporate information from these payer reimbursement signals to help determine which R&D projects should be continued and which projects should be terminated (in the case of the latter because they yield an NPV < 0). Because the influence these signals have for firm R&D investment decisions is so significant, we argue it is important that reimbursement thresholds reflect the economic value of the unit of health benefit being considered for reimbursement. Thresholds set too low (below the economic value of the health benefit) will result in R&D investment levels that too low relative to the economic value of R&D (on the margin). Similarly, thresholds set too high (above the economic value of the health benefit) will result in inefficiently high levels of R&D spending. The U.S. in particular, which represents approximately half of the global pharmaceutical market (based on sales), and which seems poised to begin undertaking cost effectiveness in a systematic way, needs to exert caution in setting polices that explicitly or implicitly establish cost-effectiveness reimbursement thresholds for health care products and technologies, such as pharmaceuticals. In this paper we consider how cost-effectiveness thresholds influence R&D spending because firms react to payer reimbursement signals and guidelines.
Read article here
In a new Harris Interactive/HealthDay online survey (conducted in mid-April, via a nationally representative sample of 2,495 adults aged 18 and over), 47 percent of respondents believe the FDA does a poor job when it comes to monitoring the safety and effectiveness of new prescription drugs.
The good news is that this is an improvement over the 58 percent disapproval rating noted in a similar poll last year.
Some other interesting findings:
* 49 percent of Americans have a negative view of the job the FDA is doing. 48 percent have a positive assessment.
* 6 percent of respondents say that the FDA's oversight of imported foods is "excellent.” 21 percent say it’s "poor."
* 8 percent of poll respondents feel the agency is doing an "excellent" job of making sure new prescription drugs are safe and effective, or monitoring the safety of prescription drugs after they arrive on the market.
* 11 percent believe the FDA does an "excellent" job of handling recalls of prescription drugs. Overall, 43 percent think the agency's handling of recalls is "good," 28 percent "fair," and 12 percent "poor."
* 56 percent of those surveyed feel positively about how the FDA handles food recalls, while 40 percent feel negatively. Confidence about drug recalls was less robust.
* 59 percent said they feel that food safety should be the FDA's most important priority, followed by ensuring the safety and effectiveness of prescription drugs (37 percent). The safety of imported food came in third at 30 percent.
* 47 percent of respondents felt negative and an equal number positive about how the FDA ensures the safety and effectiveness of new prescription drugs. In 2004, 56 percent were positive and 37 percent were negative.
* More individuals (53 percent) felt positive than negative (40 percent) about how the FDA handles drug recalls in 2009, versus an opposite trend in 2008: 39 percent positive and 53 percent negative.
* Roughly the same percentage of people feel positive and negative about how the FDA monitors drugs after they are approved.
* About one-third (35 percent) of respondents say the FDA approves new drugs too slowly, 19 percent too quickly, and 18 percent think the process is about right.
* Only one-quarter feel "very confident" about the safety of over-the-counter medicines such as cough and cold medicines; 24 percent feel the same about prescription drugs, both brand names and generics. But only 14 percent feel this way about herbal remedies and nutritional supplements.
Obviously, some of these findings are somewhat contradictory – and that’s not surprising considering that many of the questions overlap and the responses are based on what people “think” they know about the FDA. But, all that aside, it is a snapshot in time of people’s general attitudes about the agency that regulates more than a quarter of the American economy.
What explains the improvement of the numbers year-over-year? Is the “Obama FDA” in April 2009 any different from the “Bush FDA” from January 2008? The answer, technically, is nothing is different. But with a new administration (and particularly this one) comes higher expectations. And the agency’s expeditious approach to pistachios seems to have given the FDA a kick-start to public redemption.
Well, nuts!
Michael Vick in talks to become PETA spokesman
May 1, 2009 - 2:38pm
Michael Vick has a new job offer waiting for him: PETA spokesman.
The ex-NFL superstar - who is serving prison time for funding an illegal dog-fighting ring - is in talks to do public service ads for People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, AdAge.com reports.
The new gig is part of a comprehensive PR attempt to transform the disgraced quarterback's image -- and possibly get him re-admitted to the NFL.
Vick's public mea culpas will come in the form of public service announcements, TV interviews, donations to animal-rights organizations, and perhaps even the creation of his own foundation.
Dan Shannon, director of youth outreach and campaigns for PETA says Vick has the potential of truly getting the message across.
"I can do it until I'm blue in the face and it might not convince anybody. Michael Vick sure can. He can say, 'Look, I did it, I was wrong, and it ruined my career,''' Shannon tells AdAge.com.
(Copyright 2009 by WTOP. All Rights Reserved.)
While FDA has made all the right moves in dealing with the swine flu issue (specifically by naming Jesse Goodman to oversee the agency’s role in addressing the problem) there’s one more thing that only the United States Senate can do to help – confirm Peggy Hamburg as Commissioner. Now.
After all, she’s only one of the world’s top experts in flu pandemics – serving as vice chair of the IOM’s Forum on Microbial Threats (where she served along side Dr. Goodman and the FDA’s current “Food Czar,” David Acheson.
It’s time for us to use all the weapons at our disposal to combat the swine flu -- and Peggy Hamburg is a powerful one. Let’s get the confirmation process underway and expedite a Senate vote.
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.
