Latest Drugwonks' Blog

Sure, why not?

  • 04.21.2009
Posting off-label trials on clinicaltrials.gov is a nefarious marketing technique?  Give me a break.
Regulatory Rapporteur is the name of a journal (www.topra.org) as well as as an apt moniker for Center for Medicine in the Public Interest Visiting Fellow Dr. Rick Turner.

Apt because of his excellent new article, "Drug Safety, medication, safety, patient safety:  An overview of recent FDA guidences and initiatives."

Rick's article can he found here.

His abstract sets the stage:

"Drug development and pharmacotherapy are components ofintegrated pharmaceutical medicine. The term ‘drug safety’ canbe used when evaluating adverse events during clinical trials, andwhen evaluating adverse drug reactions to a correctly prescribed, dispensed and administered drug. The term ‘medication safety’ refers to the evaluation of medication errors that occur at the prescribing, dispensing and/or administration level; endeavours to educate clinicians and patients about the correct use of a particular drug; and the design and implementation of safety systems and educational programmes to minimise these errors. Drug safety and medication safety are subsets of patient safety.Recent guidance documents and initiatives at the US FDA indicate the agency’s awareness of the paramount importance of safety considerations throughout drug development and pharmacotherapy, its commitment to expand and enhance its governance role in lifecycle drug development, and its commitment to play an infl uential role in the safe use of medicines."

Turner's discussion of REMS, safe use, FDAAA, the Sentinel initiative, and other important items makes this article a must read.

They don't call him "Page" Turner for nothing.


Yom HaShoa fell on Hitler's birthday.  Two groups of people were mindful of this dark coincidence.  All Israelis -- or at least everyone I talked to -- knew about the overlap.  They thought it was both poetic justice and divine intervention.    Hitler didn't just want to destroy the Jewish people, he wanted the world to remember us.  He envisioned creating a museum to house our corpses and conquered religious treasures -- torahs, talmuds, menorahs, tallit (prayer shawls), etc. to make eternal mockery of a people who believed in a G-d and way of life in which the absolute worth of each individual was the eternal foundation of society, behavior and technological progress.   And of course the opposite has happened.  Hitler is now a re-run on the History Channel and the Jewish people thrive and remember and are a reminder of both the mindless hatred of our enemies as well as our determination to fight and thrive as a nation.

The other group of people were of course not the clueless in the mainstream media.  They were the audience the President of Iran played to by speaking -- on Hitler's birthday at a UN sponsored conference on racism rigged to engender more hate and promote the destruction of the Jewish state.   As Ahmadinejad spoke European delegates to this conference on racism walked out in protest.  Yet many of their own countries were party to cancelling Holocaust Remembrance ceremonies in various cities to "protest"  Israel's military operation in Gaza in response to both rocket attacks and it's continuing project of establishing medium and long range missle capacity against major cities in Israel, courtesy of Iran.    The irony of siding with those who eliminate the Jewish state as a form of protest was lost on these nation states.  Similarly, the willingness to abet militant Islam in meaningless international conferences and expect to be congratulated for walking out on the speech of a monster...well now that I think about it, that's something the students at Columbia University didn't do!

Once again history and the future of the Jewish people appear to be on a collision course.   Throughout the world lip service is paid to our "right to exist", as if this is some sort of special gift from the family of nations and not something Jews -- mostly Israelis in the past 60  years -- have had to defend with their lives almost  yearly.   The promise of "Never Again" is uttered but in Europe and in the the halls of Congress and the mainstream media, attacks on the Jewish lobby are now part of the conversation. Modern day blood libel (the Gaza operation) is now the grist for playwrights  who explore the Jewish soul and conclude it is dark, violent and racist to the core.  England has become a cesspool of anti-Semitism and many in the American left are following suit.    Sometimes I fear the world is slouching from indifference back to eon-old habits.

Yet I believe Israel will prevail and the Jewish people will thrive precisely because of day's such as this one.  In Israel at 10 am sirens wailed, traffic stopped, people stood still.  For a minute the entire nation as one remembered, not just as a collective reminder of what preceded the establishment of Israel, but to show that one nation carved out of national tragedy will eternally bear witness to both the evil that nearly consumed the world and to our capacity not only rouse the conscience of others but to defend our existence the next time such evil rises again.  We pause in silence.  Not just to remember, but to underscore our willingness to set aside "normal" life and do what is required to survive, thrive and contribute to the world.

It is 10:01 am.  Life in Israel goes on.  Am Yisroel Chai. 

No Pain, No Gain

  • 04.20.2009
The issue at hand is opiods –but there’s a larger issue – how can the FDA, industry, physicians, pharmacists and patients work together to enhance the safe use of medicines.

The theory is that the way to make drugs “safer” is to ensure they are used appropriately. 

And communications is the weak link in the chain.  Hence REMS as a tool for safe use.  Seems to make sense.

Presented for your consideration -- questions posed by the FDA in advance of a two-day public meeting set for May 27-28 on whether class-wide opioid REMS should include a certification process for prescribers, pharmacists and other heath care providers, a strong patient education component, and prescriber-patient agreements.

According to a report in the Pink Sheet, “Since FDA's announcement that it intended to seek the class-wide REMS in February, pharmaceutical companies have been charting new territory as they try to work together to develop a REMS framework for the whole class.”

Working together to advance safe use.  Good idea.  The Pink Sheet continues, “The evolution of the opioid class-wide REMS will set an important precedent for trying to get competitors to work together on post-marketing programs in the future.”

In short, competitors must also be allies in pursuit of the public health.  And that means both innovator and generic companies.

Not easy.  But important advances rarely are.


The President has recently reaffirmed his conviction that "we must have quality, affordable health care for every American.”  This is an important goal. In the health care debate, though, misconceptions abound — and this hurts reform efforts. As lawmakers move forward, they must be aware of the facts. And they must be clear on the precise causes of America’s health care woes.

The American health care system is broken in important respects. American health care is designed to provide acute care, but too often neglects the urgent imperative of chronic conditions. This disconnect will become even more problematic as Baby Boomers continue to age and the fastest growing demographic segment in America is the over-75 population. The argument that health care is "too expensive" is too broad. A better argument is that waiting until Americans become seriously ill to intervene is too expensive. Earlier diagnosis and earlier, continuing care is crucial to the future health of both Americans and the American health care system.

Prevention must be our first line of defense. Our health care system often works miracles when people become very ill, but it needs to do a better job at keeping people healthy before disease attacks. Although proper diet and nutrition are misunderstood and undervalued, better health care habits will not prevent the diseases that all Americans (and Baby Boomers in particular) will develop as we age. There are effective treatments, including medicines, which stop diseases such as hypertension and diabetes from progressing, allowing millions of Americans to lead active and productive lives rather than undergoing surgery, emergency care, hospitalizations, disabilities, and nursing home care.

We cannot afford, in terms of either dollars or lives, to continue playing the health care "blame game," tending to focus on health care prices - for hospitals, insurance, drugs, and doctors. Disease is the enemy and the cost of disease is staggering. Rather than looking for a villain, it's time to start asking the hard questions and finding the right answers - focusing on how to reduce the price of a diabetic amputation is the wrong approach. We need to focus on prevention because that's the best way to save money and improve lives. Now is the time to do this, so that we can invest in and afford better treatments for other conditions such as cancer and Parkinson's disease, which are so desperately needed and that hold so much promise.

All Americans deserve access to quality health care, but how can Americans get broader access to health care without diluting the quality of health care and compromising the future of health care? If miracles have become expectations - "What's a miracle worth?"

The first step in this process is an honest, broad-based dialogue. In order to revitalize our health care system we must refocus the debate about health care on the prevention of disease before it becomes expensive and deadly. In order to save lives, reduce costs, enhance quality, and deliver on the promise of robust health to all groups of Americans, all of the players in the health care debate - including government - must work together as a team, as a unit, as a public health defense force armed and ready to advance the public health

For the rest of the story, see here.

Comparative effectiveness research might lead to people being denied life saving care but at least they would get to choose the music they die to...free of charge I hope....

Hallelujah or Highway to Hell? Songs to die for

Hallelujah or Highway to Hell? Songs to die for
AFP/File – US entertainer Frank Sinatra sings in Washington, 1992. Sinatra's "My Way" is the most …

LONDON (AFP) – Frank Sinatra's "My Way" is the most popular song played at funeral services, but other more arresting death-bed choices were revealed in a poll published in Britain Thursday.

Australian rockers AC/DC's "Highway to Hell" has stormed into the funereal charts along with Queen's "Another One Bites The Dust," while Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" has a new lease of life after its recent success on a talent show.

More traditionally, hymns including "The Lord Is My Shepherd" and "All Things Bright And Beautiful" are among music chosen by people to accompany their final journey.

For classical music fans, Schubert's "Ave Maria," Puccini's "Nessun Dorma" and Bach's "Air On A G String" are among the most chosen pieces to comfort their loved ones as they pay final farewells.

Television and radio music also features on the burial playlist: theme tunes from popular programmes like "Top Gear", "The Benny Hill Show" and even the Radio Four Shipping Forecast music, which many fall asleep to at night.


 Click Here to Read the Full Article

A new study recently released confirms our worst fears: Many physicians in the United States regret having gone into the medical profession.
 
The study, conducted by HCD Research, reveals that 30% of physicians in the United States would choose a different profession today if they had the chance to start over.
 
The two main reasons cited by doctors for their dissatisfaction are negotiated rates and medical malpractice lawsuits.
 
This study’s revelation is all the more troubling given that Congress is considering the establishment of a new public health plan which would impose more “negotiated” rates on physicians.
 
The Wall Street Journal recently reported that “A growing number of doctors have stopped accepting or limited the number of new patients they see on Medicaid, a state-administered insurance program for the poor, because governments have been freezing or reducing payments to caregivers. As a result, the Medicaid reimbursements often don’t cover physicians’ costs.”
 
Why are policymakers flirting with legislation that will only serve to exacerbate the growing frustration of physicians?
 

With health care reform front and center, opposing sides are easily reduced to citing stats and figures which purportedly prove their respective arguments correct.
 
Often not discussed (at least not in the way it should be) in the exchange is the level of care afforded those patients who face serious illness in the various systems being debated.
 
After all, it is one thing to be “covered.” It is another thing for the government (in a universal healthcare system) to pull out all stops in an attempt to save your life.
 
One such person who puts a human face on the grievous downsides of government-controlled health care is Virginia Postrel.
 
Virginia Postrel, a breast cancer patient, was saved by a drug called Herceptin. She recently detailed her battle against breast cancer and her ongoing fight to ensure that other cancer patients are not denied life-saving drugs because government bureaucracies deem said drugs not “cost-effective.”
 
Her story is emotionally potent and should be required reading for those US policymakers hellbent on taking this country down the road to government-run healthcare.
 
Here are a few excerpts from Postrel’s piece worth repeating.
 
On the U.S. health care system as a driver for biomedical innovation and medical progress:
 
The American health-care system may be a crazy mess, but it is the prime mover in the global ecology of medical treatment, creating the world’s biggest market for new drugs and devices. Even as we argue about whether or how our health-care system should change, most Americans take for granted our access to the best available cancer treatments—including the one that arguably saved my life.
 
On Herceptin:

Starting in the late 1990s, oncologists had used Herceptin to extend the lives of patients whose HER2-positive cancers were advanced and metastatic, buying them months, and in some cases years, of life. Then, in May 2005, reports of clinical trials on patients with early-stage HER2-positive breast cancer electrified the American Society of Clinical Oncology’s annual meeting. Herceptin halved the chances of cancer recurrence: from one in six to one in 12 after two years. No one knew what would happen after five or 10 years, but the preliminary results were, to quote a New England Journal of Medicine editorial, “stunning.”

For breast cancer that hasn’t spread elsewhere in the body, Herceptin offers the possibility of a cure. It enhances chemotherapy, encourages the immune system to attack cancer cells, and hinders those cells from reproducing. A year of the drug, with one dose every three weeks (or, for some patients, along with weekly chemotherapy), is now the international standard of care for patients with cancers like mine. So, along with chemotherapy, another round of surgery, and seven and a half weeks of daily radiation, that’s what I got. The Herceptin treatments cost my insurer about $60,000. A year later, I have no evidence of disease and, though it’s still early, I have hope of staying that way indefinitely.

On New Zealand’s “cost-effective” approach to treating patients compared to the United States:

Not everyone in similarly rich countries is so lucky—something to remember the next time you hear a call to “tame runaway medical spending.” Consider New Zealand. There, a government agency called Pharmac evaluates the efficacy of new drugs, decides which drugs are cost-effective, and negotiates the prices to be paid by the national health-care system. These functions are separate in most countries, but thanks to this integrated approach, Pharmac has indeed tamed the national drug budget. New Zealand spent $303 per capita on drugs in 2006, compared with $843 in the United States. Unfortunately for patients, Pharmac gets those impressive results by saying no to new treatments. New Zealand “is a good tourist destination, but options for cancer treatment are not so attractive there right now,” Richard Isaacs, an oncologist in Palmerston North, on New Zealand’s North Island, told me in October.

A more centralized U.S. health-care system might reap some one-time administrative savings, but over the long term, cutting costs requires the kinds of controls that make Americans hate managed care. You have to deny patients some of the things they want, including cancer drugs that are promising but expensive. Policy wonks dream of objective technocrats (perhaps at the “independent institute to guide reviews and research on comparative effectiveness” proposed by Barack Obama) who will rationally “scrutinize new treatments for effectiveness,” as The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn puts it. But neither science nor liberal democracy works quite so neatly.

To read this piece in its entirety, click here.

Stop the presses.  This just in from the Gray Lady:  Genomics is hard.

According to an article in today’s New York Times, “The era of personal genomic medicine may have to wait. The genetic analysis of common disease is turning out to be a lot more complex than expected.”

Really?  More complex than expected?

The Times continues, “One issue of debate among researchers is whether, despite the prospect of diminishing returns, to continue with the genomewide studies, which cost many millions of dollars apiece, or switch to a new approach like decoding the entire genomes of individual patients.”

Specifically, “A set of commentaries in this week’s issue of The New England Journal of Medicine appears to be the first public attempt by scientists to make sense of this puzzling result.

But the Times story is somewhat misleading. The NEJM articles aren’t about molecular diagnostics (Herception, Warfarin, etc.) but rather the attempt by some companies “to offer personal genomic information” that would offer customers specific genetic risk for common diseases.

That’s something else entirely.  In fact, it's what confuses people (meaning "people" but also "journalists" and "politicians") about what “personalized medicine” is all about.

The unintended (one hopes) consequences of articles such as the one in the New York Times and the commentaries in NEJM are that the important momentum behind pharmacogenomic research gets slowed – along with all-important funding for same.  Case in point:  how will this article play in the battle to fund the FDA's Reagan/Udall Foundation?

Alas, there is no magic bullet.  Frustrating?  Sure.  But anyone who thought it was going to be easy wasn't paying attention.  But hype is like that -- you want to believe it. Just because alluring promises of a personalized genomic map aren’t panning out doesn’t mean that genomics aren’t the most crucial pathway forward for 21st century medicine and the roadmap in achieving the four rights (the right medicine for the right patient at the right time in the right dose).

The complete New York Times article can be found here.

Such misunderstandings also play into the hands of those who believe that the only way forward is through 20th century comparative effectiveness.  
And this is why we need a robust critical path for 21st century clinical effectiveness measurements.

At 9:30AM on May 14 at the National Press Club, the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest will launch the Odyssey Project -- conceived out of a concern that even as technology-sustained growth is offered as the hope for solving environmental problems, there are broad political and cultural forces that could undermine the development of biomedical technologies that offer the same promise for health care problems of a growing and aging population.

Please join the Honorable Anna Eshoo, (D-CA.) Vice Chair, 21st Century Health Care Caucus former Congressman Mike Ferguson (current Senior Fellow, CMPI), former NFL linebacker Elijah Alexander, President, Tackle Myeloma Foundation, and other special guests at the inauguration of this timely and important project

CMPI created the Odyssey Project because we believe that medical technology is a not a costly burden to be contained, but the solution to humanity’s greater challenges. The Odyssey Project will provide a forum to discuss how medical progress has added to the health and wealth of families over the past half century, create a roadmap to insure it generates tremendous near and long-term prosperity and offers patient-centered prescriptions for America’s health care crisis.

Please RSVP to Meryl Reichbach:  mreichbach@cmpi.org or 212.417.9169

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