Latest Drugwonks' Blog

A new study in the Journal of Public Health shows that German physicians have "a feeling" when evidence-based medicie is being used as a cost containment tool rather than a clinical tool to improve patient outcomes. The study also indicates that for certain disease states (i.e., diabetes) EBM may play a greater role than in others (i.e., CNS ).

Here’s the abstract:

Background

In Germany, evidence-based medicine (EBM) is increasingly used to standardize medical decision making and patient treatment. As a consequence this development leads to a shift of influence in health care decision making from physicians to institutional representatives, payers and health care policy makers. However, EBM’s practical role in day-to-day patient care is less clearly defined.

Aim

The aim of this study was to evaluate a potential difference between EBM assessment of therapy benefits and empirical judgment by prescribing physicians and their patients.

Methods

Interviews were conducted with practicing physicians to evaluate reasons for selecting treatments and attitudes towards EBM. The physicians’ view was complemented by a patient telephone survey evaluating treatment satisfaction in selected indications.

Results

The findings of the physician survey suggest that many general practitioners (GPs) as well as specialized practitioners in Germany do not share EBM’s paramount concern with clinical effectiveness, but see it as one aspect in a wider concept that also includes patient-oriented concerns such as patient satisfaction, minimal infliction on patients’ day-to-day life and incompatibility with other needs or treatments. Another important finding is the notion that EBM is misused by health care policy aimed at restricting clinical practice options by focusing entirely on clinical effectiveness without considering the complex physician-patient interaction required for implementing a successful treatment process. Results from the patient survey reveal the patients’ expectation that their individual needs as well as their personal experiences with a given therapy are being considered and that a dialogue between patient and physician shall guide the course of treatment with the aim of finding an optimal balance between EBM-derived therapy effectiveness and individual, patient-based assessment of a particular treatment approach with respect to entirely subjective impressions and judgments.

Discussion

The results of this study demonstrate that practicing physicians consider not only evidence-based information, but also patient-oriented criteria to achieve adequate patient care and compliance. Patients wish to discuss disease and personal therapy experiences with their physician and emphasize their intention to actively participate in the treatment process. Therefore, the concept of patient-based medicine is proposed as an extension of current EBM practice in everyday patient treatment as well as for regulatory decision making regarding health care services.

Here is a link to the article

From a recent press release issued by our regulatory cousins over at the MHRA:

LONDON MAN FINED FOR ILLEGAL INTERNET SALE OF MEDICINES

Mr Hafid Essadki (39) formerly of 341 Boardwalk Place, Trafalgar Way, London, E14 5SQ was fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £1,500 costs at Snaresbrook Crown Court for the illegal online sale and supply of Viagra and Cialis. The sentencing followed a prosecution by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

The MHRA started investigating Mr Essadki in January 2006 after receiving information from Pfizer that customers had complained about two websites advertising Viagra and Cialis for sale. On March 2006 MHRA enforcement officers, accompanied by representatives from Pfizer and Eli Lilly together with the Metropolitan Police, went to Mr Essadki’s home address and found a quantity of Viagra and Cialis tablets. These were seized along with computers, mobile phones and a laptop.

Mick Deats, Group Manager of Enforcement at the MHRA said, “The MHRA will not hesitate to take action against those who undermine public health. There is considerable risk to the public from obtaining medicines through unregulated websites. A medicine bought in this way has no guarantee of safety, quality or effectiveness. It could be counterfeit. It may not contain the right amount of medicine. At worst it may cause a severe side effect."

Jolly good work, right?  Well let’s look at this operation a little more closely.

First – the operation began in March 2006 – over two years ago. 

Second – the penalty is a total of £2,500.  And that includes “costs.”  Could the entire 15+ month-long investigation have cost Her Majesty only £1,500?  Such a deal!

Third – no jail time.  What kind of message does this send?

Answer:  It sends a very strong message which goes as follows, “Selling counterfeit drugs is a low risk/high reward business.”

Is that really the message we want to send?  Obviously not, since the MHRA’s Mr. Deats appropriately points out the real dangers of unsafe and unregulated products being sold over the Internet.

According to the Wall Street Journal, “Powerful members of Congress want to remake the Food and Drug Administration by giving it broad powers to levy fines, order drug recalls and restrict drug-industry advertising. Leading the drive are Rep. John Dingell (D., Mich.) and his longtime friend in Congress, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa).”

“The lawmakers say an FDA restructuring should build a much taller wall between the agency and the industry it regulates. The FDA would gain authority to recall drugs, which it can't do today, and to impose significant fines on drug companies for safety violations. The lawmakers also want the FDA to inspect generic-drug makers before approving a new product. Perhaps most importantly, they want the next president to appoint a tough FDA commissioner completely independent from the industry.”

Can anyone out there think of even one drug that the FDA wanted recalled that was not “voluntarily” recalled?

No – I didn’t think so.

(Also, isn't the FDA already an entirely independent government agency?)

FDA officials "are too cozy with the companies they regulate," Mr. Grassley said, adding that new leadership must "fix the culture."

What does “too cozy” mean? Really, what does it mean?

Senator Grassley believes the FDA Office of New Drugs, which he said has been compromised by its relations with industry lobbyists, among them former top FDA officials.”

And what does that mean? Any evidence to back up such blowhard accusations?

Too boot, here’s some really shoddy reporting by the Journal’s Alicia Mundy,

“Some current and former FDA safety reviewers have opened a whistleblower Web site to air their concerns that FDA leaders are pushing them to approve some drugs”

She is referring to www.thoreau-fda.com/index.php.

This site defines itself as “a website launched and operated by current and former US Food and Drug Administration staff who believe public health is being put at unnecessary risk. These concerned civil servants and ex-civil servants have either experienced or are aware of wrongful directives by US FDA upper management – directives that put public health at avoidable risk.”

That’s nice. But when you check out to whom the site is registered, it turns out to be Jim Dickinson of FDAWeb.com – long-time FDA antagonist -- and no former FDA employee.

Oops.

But who needs facts when you have red-hot rhetoric and a gullible reporter who's willing to take a leak anywhere?

Ya gotta love gov-speak. Bureaucrat-ese has its own unique and lovely lilt.

Consider the Federal Register notice announcing the August 14/15 meeting of the FDA's Risk Communications advisory committee:

"The committee will meet for presentations and discussion of the scientific basis for translating principles of risk communication into practice in situations of emerging and uncertain risk."

And this is the committee that's mandated to create clear ways to discuss risk communications (or as it's cool to say in DC "Plain English").

I think it was Albert Einstein who said something along the lines of, "If you can't explain a complicated topic in a simple way -- then you don't really understand it."
What happens when you put Mark McClellan (Chairman of the Reagan/Udall Foundation), Michael Weber (Chairman of the Center for Medicine in the Public Interest), Ralph Snyderman (of Duke reknown), Tevi Troy (Deputy Secretary of Health and Human Services), Jeff Cossman (President of the Critical Path Institute) and other leaders in progressive healthcare policy together in a room?

What happens is the meeting of the Patient-Centric Health Leadership Forum.

This new report shares the cutting edge thinking of the folks mentioned above along with other similarly talented leaders. And the key phrase is patient-centric.

The report can be found at the top of this page or here, the first item under "reports."

A worthwhile and important read.

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