Latest Drugwonks' Blog

Oui Ministre

  • 11.03.2008
At the recent Center for Medcine in the Public Interest conference, "Physician Disempowerment:  A Transatlantic Malaise," Francois Sarkozy, MD (yes, the brother of the guy who didn't really call Sarah Palin) presented a videotaped interview with the real French Minister of Health, Roselyne Bachelot.  Her topic, "The evolution of the practice of medicine."

To view the interview, click
here.

And to view Dr. Sarkozy's PowerPoint presentation, click here


This issue is becoming ever more urgent when you consider today's news from the UK that NICE (the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence) has extended until January its assessment of four kidney cancer drugs, none of which was deemed cost-effective in a draft appraisal issued in August .

NICE, which "assesses" technology for the national health service in England and Wales, said that bevacizumab (Roche's Avastin), sorafenib (Bayer's Nexavar), sunitinib (Pfizer's Sutent) and temsirolimus (Wyeth's Torisel) did not represent the best use of NHS resources when used to treat advanced and/or metastatic RCC, despite acknowledging their clinical effectiveness in some settings and the narrow choice of other treatment options.

Is this what we want in the US?  Because this is what (at least in the current context) "comparative effectiveness" means.

What we need are 21st century assessment tools for a personalized approach to the "4 rights" -- the right medicine in the right dose for the right patient at the right time.  In other words, tools for patient-centric rather than cost-based comparative effectiveness.

Opening Arguments

  • 11.03.2008
Today the Supreme Court takes up Wyeth v. Levine. Many are calling it "the business case of the century."  And even though our century is still in its infancy -- it's hard to argue otherwise.  But preemption is more than just a legal argument -- it's an important public health issue.

Consider some of the arguments from the pages of
the Journal of Life Sciences.

Attention must be paid.

First we have the revelation that many doctors prescribe a real "nothing" for patients, in part because nothing is wrong from them (or us) but just want time and the "laying of the hands" from a healer. 
http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/10/30/ep.doctors.prescribe.placebos/

Next, rather than paying doctors for keeping people healthy or simply being there, health plans are -- even as legislative and ideological forces seek to eliminate the role of drug, biotech and device companies in discussing products with physicians -- filling the void with dollars and demands to swtich patients or start them on generic drugs.     Nothing wrong with generic drugs, they are saving Medicare billions, but ultimately we want to get to point where prescribing is based on value, not just cost.  But getting information about that will require close and open communication between everyone. 
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hsuaRf6mJu1lKskznFkkD9tHg6MAD944C4HG0

So you see, both power and knowledge abhor a vaccuum.   And it will be filled by those pushing a financial and political agenda, such as trial attorneys and the consumer groups that benefits from their largesse, medical quacks and shakedown artists (like Steve Nissen). 

How does this pentultimate preemption affect patients?

The most recent study from my former perch at the Center for Medical Progress at the Manhattan Institute (home to many solid Yankee fans!) tells the tale.  The analysis, conducted by Columbia University Frank Lichtenberg is entitled:

Alive and Working: How Access to New Drugs has Slowed the Growth in America’s Disability Rates

It concludes that "
access to pharmaceutical innovations has been responsible for keeping large numbers of U.S. residents off disability rolls who otherwise would have joined them."

The study shows that if " the average vintage of drugs prescribed since 1995 and paid for by Medicaid had not become more recent, the rate of increase at which working-age people were classified as disabled would have been 30 percent higher than it actually was, resulting in 418,000 additional people receiving disability payments in 2004. Social Security benefits paid to this population would have been an additional $4.5 billion."

Are generics really the best value for Americans?  For millions of us, of course they are.  But to say it's better to prescribe generics in all cases is to suggest that the only valuable thing doctors do is not to prescribe new drugs... 

Better drugs (the right drug for the right person!), more time with doctors.  That's a much better bang for the buck than what the social engineers and health policy elite have in mind.

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/mpr_07.htm

Preemptive Strike

  • 10.31.2008
Today on CNBC's "PowerLunch" I debated the issue of preemption.

(I represented the "pro"/public health side of the argument.  The "anti"/tort lawyer argument was proferred by Brian Wolfman of Public Citizen.)

Here's a link to the segment. 

Have a look and judge for yourself.

Some memorable comments, questions, clarifications – and challenges from the recent Risk Management and Drug Safety Summit held at the National Press Club, October 28-29.

Janet Woodcock, MD, Director, CDER, FDA

“Safety means doing the right things for patients.”

“FDA must consider post-approval issues as part of a drug’s lifecycle.”

Dr. Woodcock also addressed the environment in which REMS exists.  She pointed out that there is a real difference between “headlines and help.”  In other words, REMS and other safety mechanisms can be viewed as either “headlines” about “unsafe” drugs or in a more appropriate context of “safe use.”

To this point she specifically discussed warfarin and abacavir – are these “dangerous drugs” or medicines that, with the appropriate diagnostic tools, can be used safely?  Two sides of the same coin.  Janet opts for “safe use,” while others (in the media and elsewhere) seem more predisposed to the other.

She also mentioned that the FDA’s Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology needs to hire “real experts” on “REMS issues” who can develop “predictable procedures and best practices.”

Per the agency’s forthcoming “safe use” program, Dr. Woodcock called for a public/private partnership to make the design and outreach of this important initiative more robust.

Laurent Auclert, MD, Head, Risk Management Plan Unit, Global Pharmacovigilance & Epidemiology, sanofi-aventis

Dr. Auclert began his talk by pointing out that “epidemiologists and statisticians must talk with each other.”  Everyone seemed to agree that this is both a good idea and an interesting sociological experiment.

He also considered the difference between RMPs in EU (“risk assessment”) versus REMS in the US (“risk minimization”).  A contentious proposition.

Jane Axelrad, JD, Associate Director for Policy, CDER, FDA

Jane pointed out that of the 15 post FDAAA REMS plans required by the agency, 12 were “MedGuide only.”  Her point was that the agency is using its REMS authority “judiciously.”

They don’t call her “Judicious Jane” for nothing.

She also reinforced the point made by Janet Woodcock that the FDA is trying to provide clarity to the process by developing both templates and clarity (per FDAAA) of classifications – and that the agency is preparing official guidance. 

Carmen Bozic, MD, Vice President, Drug Safety & Risk Management, Biogen Idec

Dr, Bozic presented the risk management plan for Tysabri (TOUCH -- TYSABRI Outreach: Unified Commitment to Health).  Fascinating stuff.  She called it “elaborate.”  A more appropriate adjective is “elegant.”

Robert Goldberg, PhD, Vice President and Director of Programs, CMPI

CMPI’s very own Bob Goldberg opined that ‘REMS may very well be a way to revive applications that once looked dead.” 

I hope so – and so do many others who look at the current “safety jihad (and jihadists) along with the current parched pipeline and wonder whatever became of the hoped-for miracles of the “biomedical century.”

Donald Therasse, MD, Vice President, Global Patient Safety, Lilly Research Laboratories

Don said what everyone was thinking, “The drug label must remain the central tool in risk minimization.”  And considering the current and heated debate over preemption, this is not only a timely comment – but a core and crucial one.  He also opined that, “REMS must complement rather than direct or impede the practice of medicine.”

John Ferguson, MD, Vice President & Global Head, Pharmacovigilance and Medical Safety, Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics

John discussed REMS in the context of “string theory,” specifically outcomes, probability, and values (perceptions) – referring not to benefit and risk, but rather “composite benefit and composite risk.” He posed a disturbing question, “In an age of risk management – what happened to benefit.”  Indeed.

Cherif Benattia, MD, Vice President, Pharmacovigilance & Public Health, Vertex Pharmaceuticals

Cherif began by saying that we must shift the conversation “from information to communication and information.”  Sounds obvious – so why aren’t we doing it?  He also asked a disturbing question:

“Who should manage drug safety?  Lawyers?  Doctors?  The FDA?  State legislators?  Federal legislators?”

And that’s a good place to stop – but not for too long.

If you read the article that Kevin Freking wrote for the AP, based on a report produced by Henry Waxman entitled.

And you would have missed this penultimate statement from the flurry of memos (I read them all) 

"I agree with the idea that we should preempt state requirements for labeling of drugs. It makes no sense for us not to have a federal system for labeling approved drugs that is based on a careful scientific review of the available data and a consistent application of labeling policies across products. I see this as a legitimate FDA area of involvement given our statutory authority over the drug approval process."

That was John Jenkins.  And not one of the memos take issue with the position that FDA should preempt state requirements, especially those dredged up from tort proceedings. 

The issue was and is about whether the FDA had enough control over labeling and safety monitoring in a coordinated fashion to produce the appropriate balance between risk and benefit, patient rights and company behavior.   The goal is to encourage companies to do more to make sure labeling reflects the most up to date science and is communicated clearly and quickly to patients and everyone else to improve the use of the product and public health.   The idea that FDA officials and their words are being twisted to promote a trial attorney agenda is disgusting beyond imagination...

Jenkins seeks a compromise which is now part of the fabric of the Critical Path and FDA authority under FDAAA:

"If we are going to go this route to protect sponsors, the appropriate balance in the favor of public health may be to give FDA more authority over labeling."

Which is exactly what has happened since 2003 when the memos were written.   Where oh where have the self-serving solons at JAMA and NEJM been the past five years.  They keep flogging VIoxx as an example of why tort lawyers should have control over labeoling.   But within the FDA Vioxx was and is regarded as a safe drug under certain conditions that no longer apply since the drug was withdrawn:

Jenkins again:

"Had Merck not decided to voluntarily withdraw the product it would have been necessary for them to make labeling changes to add warnings about ,the new findings. We probably would not have issued an approval letter on the labeling changes since we would not have had access to the full study report for review so we could evaluate the actual data that would be added to the labeling. So, we probably would have agreed to interim labeling and asked Merck to submit it as a CBE and we would have made more official determinations later after we reviewed the full study report. "

It was the withdrawal of Vioxx and the failure to work with the FDA to make labeling changes that triggered the "Vioxx scandal" and the ensuing mess.  Waxman wants us to believe FDA officials want more of the same instead of a science-based approach to label changes..  The Waxman report is all about manipulating the truth and is an example of how "facts" are treated in the courts that he and others would want to determine what is said about medicine and how it's practiced.

REMS Creep

  • 10.30.2008
I recently chaired the "Risk Management and Drug Safety Summit" (co-sponsored by the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest, FDA News, and United BioSource Corporation).  It was a content-rich experience.

I am still colelcting my notes and my thoughts and will report on what the various speakers (including the FDA's Janet Woodcock, Jane Axelrad) had to say.  In the meantime, let me commence this reportage with my own opening remarks:

When I told my wife -- who is not in this line of work -- that I was chairing a conference on REMS, she asked me what I was doing at an event about rapid eye movement.

I can assure you that there will be no REMS sleep allowed during this event.

 
A common question I get about REMS is – how is it different from what we used to call RiskMAPS?  I see two main differences.  The first, obviously and importantly, is that REMS has actual legislative language.  And that’s an important detail – but it’s one-dimensional.

The second, more important and contentious difference is the environment into which REMS was birthed – an environment in which there is growing realization that the 21st century FDA must add a third leg to its mission of safety and efficacy – and that third leg is safe use.  The safe use of drugs.  And the formulation, implementation and communication of plans – REMS plans -- that will assist physicians and patients achieve better outcomes through the strategies and tactics devised therein.

According to Dr. Janet Woodcock, “FDA does not control the health care system, so our improving the use of marketed drugs, to a great extent, is going to involve influence rather than control.”

“Influence rather than control” is a savvy and sophisticated concept -- one that many of our elected members of Congress could learn from, and one in which REMS plays an important role.

The FDA’s new "Safe Use" initiative is the patient-facing sibling of the agency’s “Safety First” pharmacovigilance program. But it's more than that -- it's the FDA reasserting ownership of safety from those who would use it only as a mallet of fear. I will not mention names.

That being said, there are those in industry and in the broader healthcare policy arena who look at REMS and don’t see GEMS.

Many have looked at the FDAAA language on REMS and see it as an ill-advised green light for the FDA to inject itself into the practice of medicine.

 
While I agree that REMS does indeed represent an expansion of the FDA's authority, I do not agree that it is either ill advised or an over-extension of the agency’s purview.

REMS is the responsible extension of the FDA's mission of safety and efficacy into the new realm of safe use. The first real move into this space, if you think about it, was the FDA's change to the warfarin label. Warfarin is complicated to use because the optimal dose varies greatly among patients. With warfarin, if the dose is too strong the risk of serious bleeding increases and if the dose is too weak, the risk of stroke increases.

Via molecular diagnostics specifically called out in the amended FDA label, the health benefits and the resulting savings in health care costs generated by using personalized warfarin dosing decisions are estimated to prevent 85,000 serious bleeding events and 17,000 strokes annually – and that’s just in the

United States. And estimates predict the reduced health care spending from integrating genetic testing into warfarin therapy to be $1.1 billion annually.  And that’s the mid-range.

It's important to note that when the FDA announced the warfarin label change the agency (and Larry Lesko in particular) came under attack from critics who asserted that this was the FDA, inappropriately, telling doctors how to practice medicine.

In a recent paper, FDA Deputy Commissioner Randy Lutter said, “The Food and Drug Administration has a key role to play in facilitating the use of genetic information in drug therapies because it approves labels, and labels influence how doctors use drugs.”

It does not take even a small leap of faith to apply the philosophy of REMS to this trend of thought.

The concepts of "safe use" as an integral part of the FDA's 21st century mission and REMS as one of many tactics to achieve better patient care are contentious and crucial.  And it is that debate which brings us together today.

Later on this morning we’ll hear from Jane Axelrad, the associate director for policy at CDER.  Here’s what Jane had to say recently about REMS, “These safety plans allow patients to have continued access to certain medicines for which there are safety concerns that can be managed through appropriate use.”

Whether you say “appropriate” use or “safe” use – the principle is the same – making sure that the risk/benefit analysis of any given therapy is communicated in a lucid and (when required) strident manner. 

Sometimes that requires a label change.  Sometimes it requires a REMS plan.

But it will always require the active participation and leadership of the FDA in partnership with the pharmaceutical industry, physicians, and yes – even patients.  Because no safe use program will succeed without the secret ingredient of patient responsibility.

While some see REMS as mission creep, others see it as the natural and logical extension of FDA responsibility in our new age of more precise diagnostics and personalized medicine.

That’s how I see it and why the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest was pleased to be a co-sponsor of this conference.

Fear of Five

  • 10.30.2008
The anti-preemption crowd is running scared.

Their latest attempt to muddy the waters of FDA labeling authority comes in the form of internal FDA documents that, Waxman staffers claim, show career officials oppose agency regulations that weaken consumers' ability to sue drug makers.

Here’s one quote they’re using to make the case for “the FDA doesn’t believe in preemption" ...

"Much of the argument for why we are proposing to invoke preemption seems to be based on a false assumption that the FDA approved labeling is fully accurate and up-to-date in a real time basis," the report quoted Dr. John Jenkins, who oversees FDA's new drug reviews, as saying. "We know that such an assumption is false."

Nobody ever claimed that any FDA label is fully accurate. Such an assumption is indeed false – but nobody has ever said different. What supporters of preemption do say is that the FDA carefully considers the scientific evidence relating to any proposed warning, as well as the public health consequences of including or omitting particular language from drug labeling or advertising. Those who support preemption believe that a drug’s FDA mandated label deserves deference from courts and juries applying state tort law.

John Jenkins is right. But that doesn’t make preemption wrong.

The next “smoking gun” statement comes via Jane Axelrad, an associate director for policy at the agency, who wrote: "We rarely find ourselves in situations where sponsors want to disclose more risk information than we think is necessary," she said. "To the contrary, we usually find ourselves dealing with situations where sponsors want to minimize the risk information."

Jane’s right too. But that doesn’t change the argument for preemption. Of course drug companies would prefer to minimize risk information – and they make their arguments based on sound science. Sometimes the FDA agrees, other times they do not.

Labeling can and must be a valuable tool for improving and protecting America’s health. That’s the law. The FDA is concerned that current labeling practices are in direct counterpoint to the principle objective of current regulations, to facilitate a doctor’s ability to “rationally prescribe” any medical product approved by the FDA. Rational prescribing occurs when a health care professional orders an approved prescription drug or biological product in circumstances where the risk/benefit profile of the product is optimal. The FDA’s most potent weapon in the battle for accurate, timely, “rational,” prescribing is clear, approved labeling.

The FDA’s legal and legislative authority over labeling for prescription drugs and biological products is plenary. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act establishes mandatory and prohibited labeling content and manufacturers have no choice but to comply with these requirements. Less obvious, but equally important, is the principle that the Act also constitutes a “ceiling.” In other words, a manufacturer cannot add risk information to labeling unless the FDA has specifically granted its permission.

The FD&C Act clearly gives the FDA the authority to decide whether or not a product, when used properly, is safe, effective, and properly labeled. A product, used as described in FDA-approved labeling, should be considered safe and effective throughout the United States. Preemption is a well-recognized doctrine of constitutional law derived from the Supremacy Clause and analyzed by the Supreme Court in several cases. Federal law preempts state law here because FDA intends for federal regulation to be exclusive and preemption does not exceed statutory or constitutional limitations.

The “leaked” documents being aggressively peddled to the media change the sound legal and public health argument for preemption not a whit. What it does show is that there is a robust and collegial debate within the agency on this matter. Taking these conversations out of context, as is now being done by members of Mr. Waxman’s staff, just shows how desperate they are – and how weak their intellectual arguments.

"Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress. "
-- Mahatma Gandhi


In what seems like an about-face, the British government says that it will now allow patients to pay privately for cancer drugs and other end-of-life treatments without having to meet the full cost of their NHS care if they choose to do so.

But – and it’s a big but -- NICE, the National Institute of Clinical Excellence, is expected to introduce a big increase in the threshold to assess whether such treatments for relatively rare conditions are cost-effective.

In other words, NICE is going to even further restrict access to critical care – particularly for cancer patients.

Alan Johnson, the health secretary, told the Daily Telegraph at the weekend he wants "a fair system that doesn't deny people essential treatment unduly.”

Welcome to “benevolent government healthcare.”


The In Vivo Blog has a great post on how both campaigns are pandering to the "autism" vote such as it is and an honorable mention to Henry Waxman for standing up for science with regards to the autism-vaccine scare. 

What's troubling is that Cong. Carolyn Maloney wants to do randomized trials to compare autism rates between groups of kids vaccinated with thimerosal preserved shots compared to those without.

Of course this is the handiwork of David Kirby and other anti-vaccine freaks who know they can tease out of any data the slightest link and build their case in court.   The scientific community should say "no" to this pseudo-experiment. 

http://invivoblog.blogspot.com/
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