Latest Drugwonks' Blog
Creating the conditions for biomedical innovation is a lot cheaper than spending bailout money to keep car companies operating by lending them money, giving consumers loans to buy the cars they can't afford in the first place and then covering the warranties and car payments.
Biotech gets short shrift from Obama
His policies don't support entrepreneurial medical innovation.
By ROBERT GOLDBERG
Vice president, Center for Medicine in the Public Interest
President Barack Obama said last month that small businesses "are the heart of the American economy." He promised his administration would do everything it could to help entrepreneurs since they were the "core of America's story."
Yet, Obama's policies are threatening biotechnology – one of the most vibrant and important forms of small business our nation has ever produced.
Medical innovations have added wealth and health to our nation. From 1970-2000, increased longevity added approximately $3.2 trillion per year to national wealth, the equivalent of half of the average annual gross domestic product over the period.
According to a 2004 study by the Milken Institute, biopharmaceutical companies are responsible for creating over 2.7 million jobs across the United States. The industry was directly responsible for $63 billion in real output in 2003 and a total output of over $172 billion when its ripple effect is figured in across other sectors.
The president has increased federal funding for basic research and stem-cell science. With $20 billion a year in research funding, the National Institute of Health is important. But to translate discoveries into treatments will require more than the nearly $60 billion in money currently being invested by pharmaceutical, biotech and venture capital firms on cutting-edge treatments for cancer, Alzheimer's, AIDS, mental illness and heart disease.
That investment is (in real dollars) declining. Less than half of all public biotech firms have six months of cash left for research. For startups the situation is direr, even though the scientific promise of their investment is great.
Yet at every step of the way, President Obama supports policies that will stifle the entrepreneurship that he praises, and which are vital to actually producing real cures.
Obama supports de facto price controls that would allow the "reimportation" of prescription drugs. In essence, this is an effort to force every pharmaceutical and biotech company to sell drugs here at the controlled prices imposed in Canada and Europe.
Yet these are the same price controls that shut down medical innovation in those nations – companies sell their wares there for a small profit, but they don't risk the money to develop new lifesavers for those markets. If reimportation worked to force down prices here, it would also shut down the innovation Obama claims to favor.
Obama is establishing a comparative effectiveness council to slow down the introduction of new medical technologies. This entity would, like similar agencies in England and elsewhere, allows economists to compare old treatments with new ones and then tell doctors how much someone's life is worth – and whether it's worth saving – in order to save money.
The impact on innovation and patient well-being should be obvious. The UK's comparative effectiveness panel said new cancer pills were more effective than debilitating chemo treatments and extended life but still weren't worth paying for. No wonder the UK biotech industry issued a report blaming comparative effectiveness for killing not only people but the incentive for innovation.
Obama wants to apply comparative effectiveness to Medicare and eventually to every health plan. This would delay and ration the elderly's use of breakthrough drugs and ultimately let the government control what drugs and treatments everyone can take. In Europe, over the past 10 years, similar restrictions have caused the development of new drugs to stall. From 1993-97, Europe launched 81 breakthrough drugs; from 1998-2002, just 44. Meanwhile, U.S. drug launches jumped from 48 to 85.
Finally, it is disappointing that Obama made food safety, not medical progress, his number one concern in reforming the Food and Drug Administration. Indeed, Obama added money to the FDA's budget to inspect spinach but not to speed up the approval of breakthrough drugs for spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis and rare diseases. The agency has a program using 21st-century science – such as gene and stem cell-based tests – to determine if new medicines work. But Obama has refused to add money for that effort. You can score more political points sticking it to drug and biotech companies than standing shoulder to shoulder with dying patients.
Together, these policies are draining the life out of the biotechnology industry. The president is investing in "green" technologies to promote the environment. Yet, his health care policies will undermine private sector investment in medical innovations critical to solving public health problems related to the aging and growth of the world's population.
For all his rhetoric, thanks to his policies the medical discoveries the president supports will never be translated into economic prosperity or treatments that transform humanity.
Click Here to Read the Full Article
Biotech gets short shrift from Obama
His policies don't support entrepreneurial medical innovation.
By ROBERT GOLDBERG
Vice president, Center for Medicine in the Public Interest
President Barack Obama said last month that small businesses "are the heart of the American economy." He promised his administration would do everything it could to help entrepreneurs since they were the "core of America's story."
Yet, Obama's policies are threatening biotechnology – one of the most vibrant and important forms of small business our nation has ever produced.
Medical innovations have added wealth and health to our nation. From 1970-2000, increased longevity added approximately $3.2 trillion per year to national wealth, the equivalent of half of the average annual gross domestic product over the period.
According to a 2004 study by the Milken Institute, biopharmaceutical companies are responsible for creating over 2.7 million jobs across the United States. The industry was directly responsible for $63 billion in real output in 2003 and a total output of over $172 billion when its ripple effect is figured in across other sectors.
The president has increased federal funding for basic research and stem-cell science. With $20 billion a year in research funding, the National Institute of Health is important. But to translate discoveries into treatments will require more than the nearly $60 billion in money currently being invested by pharmaceutical, biotech and venture capital firms on cutting-edge treatments for cancer, Alzheimer's, AIDS, mental illness and heart disease.
That investment is (in real dollars) declining. Less than half of all public biotech firms have six months of cash left for research. For startups the situation is direr, even though the scientific promise of their investment is great.
Yet at every step of the way, President Obama supports policies that will stifle the entrepreneurship that he praises, and which are vital to actually producing real cures.
Obama supports de facto price controls that would allow the "reimportation" of prescription drugs. In essence, this is an effort to force every pharmaceutical and biotech company to sell drugs here at the controlled prices imposed in Canada and Europe.
Yet these are the same price controls that shut down medical innovation in those nations – companies sell their wares there for a small profit, but they don't risk the money to develop new lifesavers for those markets. If reimportation worked to force down prices here, it would also shut down the innovation Obama claims to favor.
Obama is establishing a comparative effectiveness council to slow down the introduction of new medical technologies. This entity would, like similar agencies in England and elsewhere, allows economists to compare old treatments with new ones and then tell doctors how much someone's life is worth – and whether it's worth saving – in order to save money.
The impact on innovation and patient well-being should be obvious. The UK's comparative effectiveness panel said new cancer pills were more effective than debilitating chemo treatments and extended life but still weren't worth paying for. No wonder the UK biotech industry issued a report blaming comparative effectiveness for killing not only people but the incentive for innovation.
Obama wants to apply comparative effectiveness to Medicare and eventually to every health plan. This would delay and ration the elderly's use of breakthrough drugs and ultimately let the government control what drugs and treatments everyone can take. In Europe, over the past 10 years, similar restrictions have caused the development of new drugs to stall. From 1993-97, Europe launched 81 breakthrough drugs; from 1998-2002, just 44. Meanwhile, U.S. drug launches jumped from 48 to 85.
Finally, it is disappointing that Obama made food safety, not medical progress, his number one concern in reforming the Food and Drug Administration. Indeed, Obama added money to the FDA's budget to inspect spinach but not to speed up the approval of breakthrough drugs for spinal cord injuries, multiple sclerosis and rare diseases. The agency has a program using 21st-century science – such as gene and stem cell-based tests – to determine if new medicines work. But Obama has refused to add money for that effort. You can score more political points sticking it to drug and biotech companies than standing shoulder to shoulder with dying patients.
Together, these policies are draining the life out of the biotechnology industry. The president is investing in "green" technologies to promote the environment. Yet, his health care policies will undermine private sector investment in medical innovations critical to solving public health problems related to the aging and growth of the world's population.
For all his rhetoric, thanks to his policies the medical discoveries the president supports will never be translated into economic prosperity or treatments that transform humanity.
Click Here to Read the Full Article
That would be me -- caught in an April Fool's joke about a new FDA draft guidance on social media. My request about this at FDA was, "huh?"
Sorry if I caused any marcomms gyrations.
(But it's still a good idea to replace ambiguity with some clarity in the social media space.)
Sorry if I caused any marcomms gyrations.
(But it's still a good idea to replace ambiguity with some clarity in the social media space.)
Well -- now that I have your attention:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 1, 2009
Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
New FDA Draft Guidance Aims to Improve Health Information Obtained via “Social Media” Websites
The Food and Drug Administration today issued a draft guidance document designed to improve communications to consumers and health care practitioners about health conditions and medical products that they obtain on “social media” Websites such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and online bulletin boards. The guidance is the result of FDA research and policy development, and was influenced by the success of the recent social media based peanut recall program.
"We intend to do all we can under the law to make sure that the information conveyed by prescription drug promotion is as useful as possible," said acting FDA Commissioner, Dr. Joshua M. Sharfstein. "Our new regulatory guidance provides new direction to sponsors on how to provide higher-quality health information to the public via social media sites, based on recent evidence on what works and what doesn't. The evidence shows that social media promotions directed to consumers can play an especially important role in helping patients start a discussion about conditions that are often unrecognized and therefore undertreated, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, depression, and obesity. And we think those discussions should reflect a better understanding of the key risks and benefits of a product. Without participation by pharmaceutical companies in those discussions, there is increased likelihood of false or dangerous information being promulgated throughout the Internet."
According to an FDA study, a majority of interactive agencies surveyed feel that social media product messages increase patient awareness and involvement, and improve compliance. That study also shows that social media-stimulated visits to a physician can help identify a previously undiagnosed condition. Importantly, of patients who visited their doctors because of an online discussion they participated in, 95% actually had the condition the drug treats. That percentage was even greater than that reported among patients who viewed DTC ads on TV.
The draft guidance provides (1) a simple method by which sponsors can insert a notice about reporting adverse events in their posts to social media sites, (2) “safe harbor” conditions that relieve manufacturers of responsibility for reporting adverse events they may hear about on social media sites, and (3) advice for manufacturers on the types of branded and unbranded communications that fall under the rules set forth in the guidance.
"Clear, evidence-based regulatory guidance will help FDA use its limited resources to police the marketplace as effectively as possible," said Sharfstein. "FDA will take action against sponsors whose ads violate the law by presenting false or misleading information to the public via social media sites. Our new draft guidance is intended to help responsible companies comply, for the benefit of the public health. If they don't, we now have an even stronger basis for pursuing enforcement actions."
More on this to be sure.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
April 1, 2009
Media Inquiries: 301-827-6242
Consumer Inquiries: 888-INFO-FDA
New FDA Draft Guidance Aims to Improve Health Information Obtained via “Social Media” Websites
The Food and Drug Administration today issued a draft guidance document designed to improve communications to consumers and health care practitioners about health conditions and medical products that they obtain on “social media” Websites such as Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and online bulletin boards. The guidance is the result of FDA research and policy development, and was influenced by the success of the recent social media based peanut recall program.
"We intend to do all we can under the law to make sure that the information conveyed by prescription drug promotion is as useful as possible," said acting FDA Commissioner, Dr. Joshua M. Sharfstein. "Our new regulatory guidance provides new direction to sponsors on how to provide higher-quality health information to the public via social media sites, based on recent evidence on what works and what doesn't. The evidence shows that social media promotions directed to consumers can play an especially important role in helping patients start a discussion about conditions that are often unrecognized and therefore undertreated, such as diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, depression, and obesity. And we think those discussions should reflect a better understanding of the key risks and benefits of a product. Without participation by pharmaceutical companies in those discussions, there is increased likelihood of false or dangerous information being promulgated throughout the Internet."
According to an FDA study, a majority of interactive agencies surveyed feel that social media product messages increase patient awareness and involvement, and improve compliance. That study also shows that social media-stimulated visits to a physician can help identify a previously undiagnosed condition. Importantly, of patients who visited their doctors because of an online discussion they participated in, 95% actually had the condition the drug treats. That percentage was even greater than that reported among patients who viewed DTC ads on TV.
The draft guidance provides (1) a simple method by which sponsors can insert a notice about reporting adverse events in their posts to social media sites, (2) “safe harbor” conditions that relieve manufacturers of responsibility for reporting adverse events they may hear about on social media sites, and (3) advice for manufacturers on the types of branded and unbranded communications that fall under the rules set forth in the guidance.
"Clear, evidence-based regulatory guidance will help FDA use its limited resources to police the marketplace as effectively as possible," said Sharfstein. "FDA will take action against sponsors whose ads violate the law by presenting false or misleading information to the public via social media sites. Our new draft guidance is intended to help responsible companies comply, for the benefit of the public health. If they don't, we now have an even stronger basis for pursuing enforcement actions."
More on this to be sure.
As you have surely seen, a group of the usual suspects, often referred to in the media as “a group of leading doctors and researchers” (WSJ) is calling on medical associations to forego funding from drug and device companies.
At the just-completed
And healthcare in
Maybe not.
According to ACC’s chief executive Jack Lewin, drug and device companies, “have zero impact on the content of any program here” He also said banning industry support could force a spike in registration fees, discouraging doctors from attending.
You can look it up under “Pyrrhic Victory.”
If you work for a pharmaceutical company, ask yourself this question: What business are you in? To the average American, you are in the business of selling. To survive and thrive you must be in the business of advancing the public health. And to do that you must be seen as both teacher and expert.
Once-a-day heart combo pill shows promise in study
By: Marilynn Marchione, Ap Medical Writer – 2 hrs 38 mins ago
ORLANDO, Fla. – A single daily pill that combines aspirin and four blood pressure and cholesterol medicines has passed its first big test, potentially offering a cheap, simple way to prevent both heart disease and stroke.
The experimental "polypill" proved as effective as nearly all of its components taken alone, with no greater side effects, a major study found. Taking it could cut a person's risk of heart disease and stroke roughly in half, the study concludes.
This "one-size-fits-most" approach could make heart disease prevention much more common and effective, doctors say.
"Widely applied, this could have profound implications," said Dr. Robert Harrington, an American College of Cardiology spokesman and chief of Duke University's heart research institute. "President Obama is trying to offer the greatest care to the greatest number. This very much fits in with that."
The polypill also has big psychological advantages, said Dr. James Stein of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
"If you take any medicines, you know that every pill you see in your hand makes you feel five years older. Patients really object to pill burden," and respond by skipping doses, he said.
The study was led by Dr. Salim Yusuf of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, and Dr. Prem Pais of St. John's Medical College, Bangalore, India. Results were presented Monday at the cardiology college's conference in Florida and published online by the British medical journal Lancet.
The study tested the Polycap, an experimental combo formulated by Cadila Pharmaceuticals of Ahmedabad, India. It contains low doses of three blood pressure medicines (atenolol, ramipril and the "water pill" thiazide), plus the generic version of the cholesterol-lowering statin drug Zocor, and a baby aspirin (100 milligrams).
Participants were about 2,000 people at 50 centers across India, average age 54, with at least one risk factor for heart disease — high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, diabetes or smoking.
Four hundred were given the polypill. The rest were placed in eight groups of 200 and given individual components of the pill or various combinations. Treatment lasted 12 weeks.
Compared to groups given no blood pressure medicines, the polypill lowered systolic blood pressure (the top number) by more than 7 units and diastolic (bottom number) by about 6 — comparable to levels for people given the three drugs without aspirin and the cholesterol drug.
LDL, or bad cholesterol, dropped 23 percent on the polypill versus 28 percent in those taking the statin drug separately. Triglycerides dropped 10 percent on the combo pill versus 20 percent with individual statin use. Neither pill affected levels of HDL, or good cholesterol.
Anti-clotting effects seemed the same with the polypill as with aspirin alone.
Side effect rates also were the same for the polypill as for the five separate medicines.
"That was a big surprise. I would have expected five times the number of people to have side effects," said Dr. Christopher Cannon, a cardiologist at Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston who had no role in the study.
Collectively, the results show the polypill could cut the risk of heart disease by 62 percent and the risk of stroke by 48 percent, based on what previous studies show from lowering risk factors by these amounts, the study concludes.
Polycap's maker sponsored the study, and Yusuf has been a paid speaker for several makers of heart drugs. No price for the polypill is available, but its generic components cost only $17 a month, Cannon said.
A bigger study is now needed to see whether the polypill actually does cut heart attacks and strokes, he wrote in a commentary in the medical journal.
A polypill also would need federal Food and Drug Administration approval, even though all of its components have long been sold separately. The dosing issue could become a regulatory nightmare, Cannon warned.
"A final challenge: would the availability of a single magic bullet for the prevention of heart disease lead people to abandon exercise and appropriate diet?" he wrote in the medical journal.
That could make the risk of heart disease worse, and undo the good of the drug, Cannon said.
By: Marilynn Marchione, Ap Medical Writer – 2 hrs 38 mins ago
ORLANDO, Fla. – A single daily pill that combines aspirin and four blood pressure and cholesterol medicines has passed its first big test, potentially offering a cheap, simple way to prevent both heart disease and stroke.
The experimental "polypill" proved as effective as nearly all of its components taken alone, with no greater side effects, a major study found. Taking it could cut a person's risk of heart disease and stroke roughly in half, the study concludes.
This "one-size-fits-most" approach could make heart disease prevention much more common and effective, doctors say.
"Widely applied, this could have profound implications," said Dr. Robert Harrington, an American College of Cardiology spokesman and chief of Duke University's heart research institute. "President Obama is trying to offer the greatest care to the greatest number. This very much fits in with that."
The polypill also has big psychological advantages, said Dr. James Stein of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
"If you take any medicines, you know that every pill you see in your hand makes you feel five years older. Patients really object to pill burden," and respond by skipping doses, he said.
The study was led by Dr. Salim Yusuf of McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, and Dr. Prem Pais of St. John's Medical College, Bangalore, India. Results were presented Monday at the cardiology college's conference in Florida and published online by the British medical journal Lancet.
The study tested the Polycap, an experimental combo formulated by Cadila Pharmaceuticals of Ahmedabad, India. It contains low doses of three blood pressure medicines (atenolol, ramipril and the "water pill" thiazide), plus the generic version of the cholesterol-lowering statin drug Zocor, and a baby aspirin (100 milligrams).
Participants were about 2,000 people at 50 centers across India, average age 54, with at least one risk factor for heart disease — high blood pressure, high cholesterol, obesity, diabetes or smoking.
Four hundred were given the polypill. The rest were placed in eight groups of 200 and given individual components of the pill or various combinations. Treatment lasted 12 weeks.
Compared to groups given no blood pressure medicines, the polypill lowered systolic blood pressure (the top number) by more than 7 units and diastolic (bottom number) by about 6 — comparable to levels for people given the three drugs without aspirin and the cholesterol drug.
LDL, or bad cholesterol, dropped 23 percent on the polypill versus 28 percent in those taking the statin drug separately. Triglycerides dropped 10 percent on the combo pill versus 20 percent with individual statin use. Neither pill affected levels of HDL, or good cholesterol.
Anti-clotting effects seemed the same with the polypill as with aspirin alone.
Side effect rates also were the same for the polypill as for the five separate medicines.
"That was a big surprise. I would have expected five times the number of people to have side effects," said Dr. Christopher Cannon, a cardiologist at Harvard-affiliated Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston who had no role in the study.
Collectively, the results show the polypill could cut the risk of heart disease by 62 percent and the risk of stroke by 48 percent, based on what previous studies show from lowering risk factors by these amounts, the study concludes.
Polycap's maker sponsored the study, and Yusuf has been a paid speaker for several makers of heart drugs. No price for the polypill is available, but its generic components cost only $17 a month, Cannon said.
A bigger study is now needed to see whether the polypill actually does cut heart attacks and strokes, he wrote in a commentary in the medical journal.
"It won't be for everybody," he said. Some people would be overtreated by getting medicines for conditions they don't yet have, such as high cholesterol. Others may be undertreated by too-low doses in the combo pill. Several polypills of different strengths may be needed, Cannon said.
"We have to be cautious about assuming that one size fits all," Stein said. "Treating risk factors is a lot like cooking — the ingredients count."
A polypill also would need federal Food and Drug Administration approval, even though all of its components have long been sold separately. The dosing issue could become a regulatory nightmare, Cannon warned.
"A final challenge: would the availability of a single magic bullet for the prevention of heart disease lead people to abandon exercise and appropriate diet?" he wrote in the medical journal.
That could make the risk of heart disease worse, and undo the good of the drug, Cannon said.
My mother was not a terrific cook. One of my most lucid memories of my mother in the kitchen was the always open "I Hate to Cookbook" by Peg Bracken. Who knew this would be an omen of healthcare reform to come?
My mother didn't like to cook -- but she wanted her family to have "balanced" meals. (Remember "balanced" meals?) The results were predictable and adequate. (Sorry Mom.)
Similarly today, our comparative effectiveness nabobs want to field "comparative effectiveness" studies that don't make them think too hard. These studies (outlined here) will result in predictable findings based on "adequate" 20th century science that don't challenge any conventional wisdom. If we want real healthcare form -- is adequate acceptable?
No! No! No!
Literature reviews do not replace robust 21st century science.
My mother didn't like to cook -- but she wanted her family to have "balanced" meals. (Remember "balanced" meals?) The results were predictable and adequate. (Sorry Mom.)
Similarly today, our comparative effectiveness nabobs want to field "comparative effectiveness" studies that don't make them think too hard. These studies (outlined here) will result in predictable findings based on "adequate" 20th century science that don't challenge any conventional wisdom. If we want real healthcare form -- is adequate acceptable?
No! No! No!
Literature reviews do not replace robust 21st century science.
I don’t think I could make this up if I wanted....these are actual RFPs from NIH. Talk about creating cookbook or one size fits all medicine.... Just do a literature review and....presto! Out pops an “optimum” treatment for an entire group of people. Meanwhile it funds studies on personalized response to drugs and biomarkers for aging but fail to incorporate them into the RFPs!!! Do they miss the irony?
“Comparing Drug Treatment Effectiveness in Ethnic Minority Populations. Research suggests that treatment response can vary among different minority populations due to genetic, environmental and cultural factors. Still, it is unknown which treatments work best for which ethnicities. Comparative effectiveness studies in ethnic minorities would test pharmacotherapies and behavioral treatments for substance abuse that have already shown efficacy in some populations. Results could reveal optimal treatment types for various populations, many of which are currently under-studied or under-served in terms of treatment need, including African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics. “
Comparative Effectiveness Research on Cancer Screening. The effectiveness of cancer screening has been established through randomized trials and other evidence for breast, colorectal and cervical cancer. However since screening for these cancers were initially introduced, there has been rapid and substantial innovation in new early detection technologies. Many of these technologies have disseminated into the practice of screening but without sufficient evidence as to their comparative effectiveness relative to earlier established technologies. In addition newer technologies may influence how the earlier technologies are most effectively used. Comparative effectiveness research in this area would augment evidence from controlled screening trials with: data from observational studies in defined populations of screening, intermediate and final outcomes; head-to-head studies of the technical performance characteristics, physician and patient acceptability and cost of alternative screening technologies, and decision models designed to project the costs and benefits of different screening technologies and strategies over the long-term at the individual, program and policy level
Comparative Effectiveness Studies of Non-Pharmacological Treatments for Chronic Low Back Pain. Observational studies or secondary data analyses to compare the effectiveness of: non-pharmacological treatments or integrative health care approaches for chronic low back pain when used in addition to and/or as an alternative to standard conventional care.
Comparative Effectiveness Research in Cancer Primary Prevention. A number of chemoprevention agents have been shown to be potentially effectiveness for the prevention of common cancers. But dissemination of chemoprevention remains low and controversy remains about the side effects associated with these agents. Comparative effectiveness research in this area would have the following aims: to document the level of dissemination of chemoprevention agents and the examine the physician, patient and health system factors that either facilitate or retard this dissemination; to conduct head to head studies of alternative chemoprevention agents and or approaches (e.g. risk stratification) to determine the relative clinical risk and benefits and economic cost of these alternatives. These studies could be conducted as adjuncts to existing controlled trials, as retrospective analysis of health system data or as prospective studies of cohorts of patients and physicians within the context of various healthcare delivery systems.
Selecting the Optimal Initial Treatment Regimen for Patients With Newly Discovered Type 2 Diabetes. The natural history of type 2 diabetes, treated by widely used current regimens, is marked by gradual increases in glucose levels, loss of insulin secretion, progressive increases in drug therapy, and frequent development of chronic complications. Clinical trial data suggests that aggressive early therapy attempting to keep glucose levels near normal is associated with a more benign long-term course. The optimal treatment regimen (effectiveness and avoidance of hypoglycemia) is not known, but current drugs provide options for multiple treatment approaches. In view of the numerous options, pilot studies are needed to assess the short-term effectiveness of common treatment strategies.
Personalized drug response and toxicity. Application of pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics, quantitative and systems pharmacology (this could be part of a larger grouping to include systems biology and systems genetics), ADMET pharmacology, preclinical models, and new technologies and approaches to complement pharmacogenomic studies to enhance signal-to-noise ratios and aid mechanistic studies, and consensus standards for normal and altered phenotypes in drug response and toxicity.
Imaging and Fluid Biomarkers for Early Diagnosis and Progression of Aging-related Diseases and Conditions including Neurodegenerative Diseases. Diseases and conditions of aging have a huge public health burden, and the ability to diagnose these early and follow their course would greatly help in treating and managing them.
“Comparing Drug Treatment Effectiveness in Ethnic Minority Populations. Research suggests that treatment response can vary among different minority populations due to genetic, environmental and cultural factors. Still, it is unknown which treatments work best for which ethnicities. Comparative effectiveness studies in ethnic minorities would test pharmacotherapies and behavioral treatments for substance abuse that have already shown efficacy in some populations. Results could reveal optimal treatment types for various populations, many of which are currently under-studied or under-served in terms of treatment need, including African Americans, Native Americans, and Hispanics. “
Comparative Effectiveness Research on Cancer Screening. The effectiveness of cancer screening has been established through randomized trials and other evidence for breast, colorectal and cervical cancer. However since screening for these cancers were initially introduced, there has been rapid and substantial innovation in new early detection technologies. Many of these technologies have disseminated into the practice of screening but without sufficient evidence as to their comparative effectiveness relative to earlier established technologies. In addition newer technologies may influence how the earlier technologies are most effectively used. Comparative effectiveness research in this area would augment evidence from controlled screening trials with: data from observational studies in defined populations of screening, intermediate and final outcomes; head-to-head studies of the technical performance characteristics, physician and patient acceptability and cost of alternative screening technologies, and decision models designed to project the costs and benefits of different screening technologies and strategies over the long-term at the individual, program and policy level
Comparative Effectiveness Studies of Non-Pharmacological Treatments for Chronic Low Back Pain. Observational studies or secondary data analyses to compare the effectiveness of: non-pharmacological treatments or integrative health care approaches for chronic low back pain when used in addition to and/or as an alternative to standard conventional care.
Comparative Effectiveness Research in Cancer Primary Prevention. A number of chemoprevention agents have been shown to be potentially effectiveness for the prevention of common cancers. But dissemination of chemoprevention remains low and controversy remains about the side effects associated with these agents. Comparative effectiveness research in this area would have the following aims: to document the level of dissemination of chemoprevention agents and the examine the physician, patient and health system factors that either facilitate or retard this dissemination; to conduct head to head studies of alternative chemoprevention agents and or approaches (e.g. risk stratification) to determine the relative clinical risk and benefits and economic cost of these alternatives. These studies could be conducted as adjuncts to existing controlled trials, as retrospective analysis of health system data or as prospective studies of cohorts of patients and physicians within the context of various healthcare delivery systems.
Selecting the Optimal Initial Treatment Regimen for Patients With Newly Discovered Type 2 Diabetes. The natural history of type 2 diabetes, treated by widely used current regimens, is marked by gradual increases in glucose levels, loss of insulin secretion, progressive increases in drug therapy, and frequent development of chronic complications. Clinical trial data suggests that aggressive early therapy attempting to keep glucose levels near normal is associated with a more benign long-term course. The optimal treatment regimen (effectiveness and avoidance of hypoglycemia) is not known, but current drugs provide options for multiple treatment approaches. In view of the numerous options, pilot studies are needed to assess the short-term effectiveness of common treatment strategies.
Personalized drug response and toxicity. Application of pharmacogenetics and pharmacogenomics, quantitative and systems pharmacology (this could be part of a larger grouping to include systems biology and systems genetics), ADMET pharmacology, preclinical models, and new technologies and approaches to complement pharmacogenomic studies to enhance signal-to-noise ratios and aid mechanistic studies, and consensus standards for normal and altered phenotypes in drug response and toxicity.
Imaging and Fluid Biomarkers for Early Diagnosis and Progression of Aging-related Diseases and Conditions including Neurodegenerative Diseases. Diseases and conditions of aging have a huge public health burden, and the ability to diagnose these early and follow their course would greatly help in treating and managing them.
The keyword: don’t ever go to hospital. Much as the French will prance about the superior quality of their health system, the facts are increasingly unfavourable in terms of public provision.
To witness, check “The black book on hospitals” (Livre noir des hôpitaux, Calmann-Lévy 2009) which enumerates an awful range of black spots, mishaps and tragic deaths of patients who nevertheless had full faith in the French model and universal care.
That figures; what about statistics? Try this one for size: on average 40 deaths every day, in terms of “undesirable events”. Obviously this figure covers more than people dying from medical errors, negligence and other mistakes in the hospital environment. The ballpark ranges from 350,000 to 460,000 deaths annually for hospital stays, of which some 120,000 to 190,000 might have been avoided, according to the authors.
Anecdotal evidence attests that astonishing number of physicians in the (public) hospital environment are either alcoholics, drug addicts or afflicted by some mental disorder. For obvious reasons, no statistics on this scandal are readily available; but how come these people, albeit hopefully a minority, are still allowed to practice? (Just imagine having surgery by a psychotic doctor!)
The primary reason is simple: hospital doctors (or nurses) are government employees and thus enjoy life-time employment. Any private company would try (with difficulty but still) to fire such people, especially in view of their life-or-death responsibilities.
France retains the advantage of a relatively dynamic private sector; but although private clinics are a lot more efficient and benefit from a much lower budget, they are under constant political assault. The budget divide is roughly 80/20 in favour of state-run hospitals. Nevertheless, France is world champion of hospitals/clinics per head: one institution per 20,000 people compared to one for 40,000 people on average in Europe.
The private sector has an obligation to perform; this is where most of restructuring has taken place for economic reasons. The public sector has an obligation to ask for greater budgets despite decreasing results.
Cherchez l’erreur.
To witness, check “The black book on hospitals” (Livre noir des hôpitaux, Calmann-Lévy 2009) which enumerates an awful range of black spots, mishaps and tragic deaths of patients who nevertheless had full faith in the French model and universal care.
That figures; what about statistics? Try this one for size: on average 40 deaths every day, in terms of “undesirable events”. Obviously this figure covers more than people dying from medical errors, negligence and other mistakes in the hospital environment. The ballpark ranges from 350,000 to 460,000 deaths annually for hospital stays, of which some 120,000 to 190,000 might have been avoided, according to the authors.
Anecdotal evidence attests that astonishing number of physicians in the (public) hospital environment are either alcoholics, drug addicts or afflicted by some mental disorder. For obvious reasons, no statistics on this scandal are readily available; but how come these people, albeit hopefully a minority, are still allowed to practice? (Just imagine having surgery by a psychotic doctor!)
The primary reason is simple: hospital doctors (or nurses) are government employees and thus enjoy life-time employment. Any private company would try (with difficulty but still) to fire such people, especially in view of their life-or-death responsibilities.
France retains the advantage of a relatively dynamic private sector; but although private clinics are a lot more efficient and benefit from a much lower budget, they are under constant political assault. The budget divide is roughly 80/20 in favour of state-run hospitals. Nevertheless, France is world champion of hospitals/clinics per head: one institution per 20,000 people compared to one for 40,000 people on average in Europe.
The private sector has an obligation to perform; this is where most of restructuring has taken place for economic reasons. The public sector has an obligation to ask for greater budgets despite decreasing results.
Cherchez l’erreur.
Well sort of. In the grade school play ground kind of way where you imitate someome or copy someone else without much experience. Or just for fun.
Or profit.
Because follow on biologics are no more copycats than my two children are copycats because they came from the same combinnation of DNA. You can't even say that about twins.
Needless to say, just by ignoring all the science and safety concerns and searing them into law doesn't make follow on biologics similar in structure, treatment or safety. It's just saying they do. Hell, in the Waxman bill you can even take the innovator's name. Why not just take over the company?
The propnents of a short cut to follow on products want to do testing...it's just that they want the testing to be unsuspecting doctors and patients who will not be told they are being put on an imitation until after the fact. Post market safety commitments? Why, that's just for start up biotech companies with no cash flow and only five years of market or data exclusivity... And by they way, forget about tracking safety if the killer takes on YOUR name.
Or profit.
Because follow on biologics are no more copycats than my two children are copycats because they came from the same combinnation of DNA. You can't even say that about twins.
Needless to say, just by ignoring all the science and safety concerns and searing them into law doesn't make follow on biologics similar in structure, treatment or safety. It's just saying they do. Hell, in the Waxman bill you can even take the innovator's name. Why not just take over the company?
The propnents of a short cut to follow on products want to do testing...it's just that they want the testing to be unsuspecting doctors and patients who will not be told they are being put on an imitation until after the fact. Post market safety commitments? Why, that's just for start up biotech companies with no cash flow and only five years of market or data exclusivity... And by they way, forget about tracking safety if the killer takes on YOUR name.
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.
