DrugWonks on Twitter
Tweets by @PeterPittsDrugWonks on Facebook
CMPI Videos
Video Montage of Third Annual Odyssey Awards Gala Featuring Governor Mitch Daniels, Montel Williams, Dr. Paul Offit and CMPI president Peter Pitts
Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels
Montel Williams, Emmy Award-Winning Talk Show Host
Paul Offit, M.D., Chief of the Division of Infectious Diseases and the Director of the Vaccine Education Center at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, for Leadership in Transformational Medicine
CMPI president Peter J. Pitts
CMPI Web Video: "Science or Celebrity"
Tabloid Medicine
Check Out CMPI's Book
A Transatlantic Malaise
Edited By: Peter J. Pitts
Download the E-Book Version Here
CMPI Events
Donate
CMPI Reports
Blog Roll
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
DrugWonks Blog
“So far, most new (cancer) drugs offer only marginal extensions of life and few cures. “
Now a look at the facts and where Pomalyst fits in the progress we are making against MM. Pomalyst was studied in people with MM who had no other options. As in, their MM was no longer responding to other drugs and they were going to die.
Clinical trials showed that median overall survival for people getting Pomalyst was 13.7 months.
Another study looked at response of patients who were no longer responding to other drugs and whose MM had already come back:
Clinical trials showed halfway into the study that nearly 50 percent of people receiving Pomalyst responded rapidly (as in the MM stopped progressing) and 78 percent had a median surival time of between 3-6 months. Patients receiving Pomalyst were seven times more likely to respond (and live) then those who received an old MM drug.
Now overall survival is the average time half of all patients in a study will live after treatment. So a median survival of 13.7 months means that after 13.7 months, 50% of people with that condition would be alive, and 50% would have passed away. Which also means that many people in the trials are living much longer than 13.7. Or in the other study, 3-6 months.
Several studies have shown that the median survival of people diagnosed with MM has gone from 3 years in 1997 to up to 20 years. The first MM drug was introduced in 1998. Two others were introduced in 2003 (Velcade) and Revlimid (2005) thereafter. W hen age is controlled for, that means an increasing number of people with MM can expect to have the same life expectancy as people who do not have the disease. And we can't measure the full impact of these drugs let alone Pomalyst in a precise manner.
But we can say that MM drugs have increased average life expectancy more rapidly among MM patients than it has average LE in the population as a whole.
And we can say that just as a few HIV drugs introduced over a 5 year period dramatically saved lives, so too have a handful of drugs for MM turned an incurable disease into a controllable condition in less than a decade. And these drugs work because they target specific disease mechanisms in patients for whom they work the best and offer the most hope. The averages are indicators of profound and rapid gains among more and more people.
If we had bought the story about marginal benefits 10 years ago and delayed and dragged out approval and use of other cancer drugs, where would we be today? If we accepted the arrogant assertion that "most new (cancer) drugs offer only marginal extensions of life and few cures.“ how may more people would be dead? Let me go out on a limb and say that while not all new products are useful and effective, the current effort to control health care costs is biased and shaped by this naysaying approach to innovation, an approach delays access to new medicines -- indeed an approach that subsidizes a industry of underachieving social scientists to study average cost effectiveness in an era of personalized medicine -- assures more people will die who did not have to or want to. Recently, the National Pharmaceuetical Council held a conference on The Myth of the Average Patient.. All well and good. But how about a conference on what CER will cost people seeking better medicines for cancer and Alzheimer's in terms of lives saved. My late colleague John Vernon and I did a lot of work in this area but somehow the "stakeholders" always ignore the impact of adding CER to the rate of innovation and the number of lives saved. Why is industry and patient groups silent about the impact of CER on medical progress? What gives?
Finally, why does it take so long to conduct clinical studies. In both of the trials mentioned above, response was immediate and highly effective. (Less than 6 months in most cases). Can't we find other ways to confirm what works and what doesn't? Here's Eric Topol on this important topic..
We have this big thing about evidence-based medicine and, of course, the sanctimonious randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Well, that's great if one can do that, but often we're talking about needing thousands, if not tens of thousands, of patients for these types of clinical trials. And things are changing so fast with respect to medicine and, for example, genomically guided interventions that it's going to become increasingly difficult to justify these very large clinical trials.
We are not just standing in the way of medical progress, we are putting up obstacles based on outdated science and sanctimony.
Read More & Comment...
Herding Katz.
The departure of Rusty Katz as FDA’s Director of the Neurology Products Division is an inflection point in the agency’s 21st century direction. Will his replacement continue his philosophy that the FDA must be a partner in innovation – or will political considerations turn back the clock?
Following Katz at FDA is an important analysis of the situation.
Read More & Comment...Pleased and proud to report that, according to the Healthcare 100 ranking of the world’s top blogs on health and medicine, Drugwonks is tied for #5. That puts us ahead of the health blog of both the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal.
Thank you for your support – and pass the word!
Read More & Comment...
Read More & Comment...
From the pages of the Des Moines Register (and hello Senator Grassley):
Changes to Part D won't save Medicare
By: Peter Pitts
With a debt-ceiling showdown just around the corner, Republican lawmakers are insisting upon more government spending cuts in exchange for raising the country’s borrowing limit.
President Obama says the debt ceiling shouldn’t be used as a negotiating tool. But it’s inevitable that additional cuts will be seriously considered. And, unfortunately, lawmakers are likely to take aim at Medicare Part D, the highly successful prescription drug benefit.
This approach is misguided. Cuts to Medicare Part D would have devastating consequences for seniors and taxpayers.
Created in 2006, Medicare Part D has helped ensure that America’s seniors have access to prescription drugs. Today, nearly 47 million Americans are eligible for Part D.
The program was built to rely on market mechanisms. Under Part D, seniors choose from a wide variety of drug coverage plans — in fact, there are now over 1,000 different plans available across the country. With so many insurers competing for seniors’ business, they have a strong incentive to keep costs low and benefits generous.
This fierce competition has kept expenses down for both seniors and the government. Overall, Part D has cost $435 billion, or 43 percent less than original estimates predicted — practically unheard of for a government program.
Part D monthly premiums will again average just $30 in 2013, according to officials at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. That number has held basically steady for four years, and premiums are up only 2.5 percent since 2006.
Part D rates are even more impressive when compared to what is happening in the regular health insurance market. The typical premium for an employer-sponsored family health plan rose 4 percent from 2011 to 2012 and increased 9 percent the year before, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Seniors, moreover, are pleased with their Part D coverage. A new poll sponsored by Medicare Today found that 90 percent of enrollees are satisfied — up 12 points from 78 percent in 2006.
Still, many Democrats are willing to compromise this highly successful program. Their proposal would require drug companies to pay a so-called “rebate” to the government for every medication sold to a Medicare Part D participant who also qualifies for Medicaid, the government health program for the poor. There are about six million of these dual-eligible seniors.
The Obama administration believes that its plan to overhaul Medicare spending will save nearly $600 billion, with 42 percent of those savings coming from the Part D drug rebates.
But this scheme won’t work the way the president intends. It will drive up health care costs for a large portion of Medicare beneficiaries.
Just look at what is already happening in our Medicaid program. Drug companies are required by law to sell their wares to Medicaid at below-market prices, and consequently they have been forced to raise prices elsewhere. In other words, the proposed Part D rebate program would effectively levy a new tax on every senior who is not eligible for Medicaid.
Indeed, two independent studies have estimated that the rebate plan will raise premiums for traditional Medicare enrollees by 20 to 50 percent.
Higher premiums are a big concern for most Part D beneficiaries. According to the Medicare Today poll, 84 percent of enrollees were worried that a Part D restructuring would increase their out-of-pocket drug costs, while 53 percent were afraid it would cause them to cut back or stop taking their medicines altogether.
Our government health programs are still in serious need of comprehensive reform. Unfortunately, the president continues to attack the very part of the system that is most financially sound. Changes to Medicare Part D will raise only minimal revenue — at the expense of seniors.
Read More & Comment...Sins of omission are seldom fun, and (per Health Care’s Trick Coin, NYT, 2/3/13), Ben Goldacre makes a number of serious mistakes – specifically the claim that the Clinicaltrials.gov registration requirement in FDAAA isn't implemented and that only full transparency/publication of clinical trial will address the issue. As the former senior government official in charge of clinicaltrials.gov, it’s important to look at the facts – and the numbers.
In 2000, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched ClinicalTrials.gov to provide public access to information on clinical studies. Although it initially contained information primarily on NIH-funded research, it has been expanded to include both publicly and privately supported clinical research.
Since the launch of the site, it has been enhanced to significantly increase data sharing. The ClinicalTrials.gov database includes information on nearly 140,000 clinical trials in all 50 states and 182 countries.
Is anyone accessing this wealth of information? Yes! The NIH reported last year that ClinicalTrials.gov “receives more than 95 million page views per month and 60,000 unique visitors daily.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. Mr. Goldacre should realize that reality, although sometimes inconvenient to ones argument, remains reality.
Read More & Comment...Great BioCentury lead article by Steve Usdin, Debating Limited Use.
Usdin writes:
FDA is asking the public to consider whether it should supplement the current all-or-nothing approval structure with a system that would couple approval of selected new drugs with measures designed to discourage off-label use.
The agency says it could approve drugs for conditions such as antibiotic-resistant infections and life-threatening obesity based on small, fast trials if it were confident use would be limited to well-defined populations.
There is little controversy about approving drugs based on relatively small studies that demonstrate high levels of efficacy in tightly targeted populations. But FDA’s suggestion that it could work with physicians and payers to limit use of a marketed drug in the absence of documented safety concerns is controversial.
To say the least.
Patient and medical groups support the concept of a limited-use pathway, and the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) has endorsed the idea. PCAST’s recommendation to create a Special Medical Use (SMU) pathway was drafted in close consultation with senior FDA officials and reflects the agency’s thinking.
But, whether or not you believe the FDA has the legal authority for a “new” pathway, Janet Woodcock nails the problem dead on:
“We can indicate things for small populations, but often we are very concerned there might be a temptation to use them much more broadly.”
There are many important issues, let’s discuss two.
First – does the FDA have the authority, the resources, and the desire to direct the practice of medicine? Can the agency really do anything other than suggest, via labeling, how physicians should prescribe approved medicines? No doubt they can deter pharmaceutical companies from detailing or even discussing off-label use via prior agreement (and Caronia notwithstanding). Whether or not doctors are “tempted,” however, is another matter entirely. Is the FDA going to “ban” certain scientific publications or conference presentations? Is the FDA going to add a new tenet to the Hippocratic oath, “First do no reading?”
It’s a slippery slope indeed.
Woodcock added that FDA is not seeking to ban off-label prescribing of drugs approved through a new limited use pathway. The agency is interested in exploring whether payers might play a role in reducing inappropriate use, she said.
More power to the payers? Is that something we want?
Next is the issue of whether such expedited approval pathways are in the best interests of the sponsor. While there’s no doubt getting new treatments for serious and life-threatening diseases to market more swiftly is a good thing, is the threat of having a product license revoked after a “test” period in the sponsor’s best interest? Isn’t it a penny-wise, pound-foolish proposition? It depends. What is certain is that such decisions should not be driven by financial considerations of biotech venture capitalists or the panjandrums of Wall Street.
Naïve? Perhaps -- but none-the-less disturbing.
Is FDA PCAST-ing it’s net too wide?
Whenever there is authority, there is a natural inclination to disobedience.
-- Thomas Haliburton
Read More & Comment...A group of six Congressional Republicans sent a letter to HHS's Health Resources and Services Administration seeking details on the agency's audits of the eligibility of healthcare entities for the 340B drug discount program. The program requires manufacturers to give deep discounts on outpatient drugs to hospitals and clinics that bear the brunt of providing healthcare to low income and other special populations.
HRSA began the audits in FY12 after a 2011 report from the Government Accountability Office said HRSA's oversight of the 340B program was "inadequate to provide reasonable assurance that covered entities and drug manufacturers are in compliance" with the program's requirements. According to the letter, during 2012 HRSA decertified about 250 entities from the 340B program. The agency said it recertified more than 3,800 entities during the same time period.
The lawmakers are seeking information on audits that HRSA is currently conducting. The lawmakers also are seeking information on the decertified entities, including whether the agency plans to take legal action or recoup any ineligible 340B discounts.
The letter was sent by Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.), as well as Reps. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.). The lawmakers asked for a written response by Feb. 14. HRSA said it is working on a response.
Read More & Comment...Clearly, the practice of medicine, perhaps better described as the delivery of healthcare, is undergoing a radical, permanent change, at least for the foreseeable future. After all, we are only a few weeks into the first year of ObamaCare, and already HHC, one of the largest hospital corporations in the country, has decided to hold their physician employees financially responsible for the mandatory changes outlined by CMS. The complexity of these changes makes their adoption into current practice a daunting task for many physicians.
The simple fact is, that the future of medicine looks very different than it did when many of today’s doctors started medical school, even for those who have graduated in recent years. For those who entered the field to treat patients, cure disease and make a real difference in the lives of others, the current tasks that consume much of their time and energy are carrying them further and further away from that goal. The optimists in the field would like to believe that pay-for-performance is simply a resetting of the status quo, which will take considerable time and effort, but ultimately benefit our profession and our patients in the long term.
I am hesitant to agree with this view for two reasons, among others. First, I believe that many physicians are already at or near capacity in terms of their ability to deliver care, both in terms of organizational resources, and personal time and energy. Many individual and small-group practices simply do not have the resources to understand and implement the constantly changing mandates from CMS. Therefore, when you hand them a forever evolving checklist of arbitrary measures that they must follow in order to be reimbursed properly, you only increase confusion and frustration, and do little to impact productivity or foster a system that delivers better care.
Secondly, for any physician who sees their reimbursement cut by providing “sub-optimal care”, as deemed by CMS, what is to stop them from refusing to serve their sickest, most chronically ill and frequently hospitalized patients? In so doing, they raise the “quality” of care they provide, and lower the cost at the same time (they will not be responsible for those sick patients when CMS evaluates them the next year). Such a reaction to pay-for-performance would only further accelerate a current trend in medicine, which is seeing many physicians refuse to accept new Medicare patients.
It is impossible to forecast how pay-for-performance will ultimately impact the quality of care we provide, and the cost at which we do so. But one thing is certain; the job of physicians providing that care becomes more difficult every day.
Read the full piece here.
Read More & Comment...
Small is Big.
Bob Temple said he "would like to see more" comparative effectiveness trials for symptomatic treatments to help identify potential responders. In particular, Temple said trials that randomize non-responders to a drug to receive both that drug and an alternative drug have "a lot of potential" but are almost never done.
"For example, you could take people who don't respond to a migraine drug and randomize them back to a new migraine drug, the old migraine drug the one they didn't respond to, and a placebo. If it's true that there are individual differences that are important, then the new drug ought to be able to show its advantage over the drug that didn't work," he wrote in a post on FDA's From a Clinical Perspective blog.
When asked whether institutional review boards (IRBs) would approve such trials, Temple said there is no ethical issue in an informed patient. He added that such trials would not be done for indications where "not working would be dangerous."
This seems to jive with what Dr. Joe Selby (PCORI’s executive director) told me the other day – that he believes PCORI should focus on funding “narrow” clinical trials aimed at smaller, more targeted populations, that PCORI's mission is to ensure that CER helps to advance the cause of personalized medicine and “the right treatment for the right patient at the right time.” Bravo.
If Joe Selby can be the Good Witch of Comparative Effectiveness Research, so much the better. I think he’d look lovely in ruby slippers.
As would Bob Temple.
Read More & Comment..."YONKERS, N.Y., Jan. 30, 2013 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — In its March issue, Consumer Reports shines a light on oversold cancer screenings that might confuse rather than clarify. The report evaluates eleven cancer screenings, finding that eight should be avoided.
The report, available online at www.ConsumerReports.org and wherever magazines are sold, notes that the Ratings are for people who are not at high risk and without signs or symptoms of cancer
Screening tests for cervical, colon, and breast cancers are the most effective tests available, according to Consumer Reports’ first Ratings of cancer-screening tests. But most people shouldn’t waste their time on screenings for bladder, lung, oral, ovarian, prostate, pancreatic, skin, and testicular cancers. The Ratings are based mainly on evidence-based reviews from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, an independent group supported by the Department of Health and Human Services."
Oversold? And given that cancer is now the leading form of death, and that treatments are increasingly targeted to cancer causing mutations that can be detected earlier, who is not at risk? Should we wait until Obamacare autocrats determine what tests should be paid for? Will people actually pay Consumer Reports to peddle medical malpractice?
Read More & Comment...
I’m in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia where I just spoke at the first Saudi Quality Forum (sponsored by King Saud University). I also had the opportunity to meet with the leadership of the Saudi Food and Drug Authority (SFDA) -- which is also the national reimbursement agency. (And no product gets licensed without first concluding price negotiations.)
And you thought FDA swings a big stick.
My suggestion to their executives is that they form an Office of Policy and Planning – and that one of the first items on the agenda be chairing a regular meeting of industry (both innovator and generic) and academia to address issues of common interest including API and excipient quality, biosimilars (specifically the issues of biosimilarity and interchangeability), 21st century pharmacovigilance, generic interchangability, and other issues that fill the Arabian regulatory gulf -- like re-registration.
The SFDA aspires to be not only the gold standard for the region, but also a world-class regulatory agency. But to do so they must recognize their responsibility to be both regulator and colleague to industry and an innovation enabler. Sound familiar?
My favorite sound-bite from the conference came courtesy of the SFDA’s Mohammed Dahhas (Executive Director of Inspection and Law Enforcement, Drug Sector): On the issue of quality by design, “Quality is the magic key.”
My favorite new concept came from Accenture’s Pierre Anhoury, who introduced the conference attendees to notion of “value vigilance” – a new way to view post-approval value-based reimbursement via pharmacovigilance, quality of life, therapeutic benefit, and pharmaco-economic impact. Maybe we should call it Phase 4.1.
(Have a look at Anhoury’s new white paper on the topic, Approval is Nothing: Why Pharmaceutical Companies Need a Value Management Operating Model.)
Wouldn’t it be NICE to bury the QALY in the sands of Saudi?
Read More & Comment..."We are thankful to all of you who have prayed for Michal and expressed your support in other ways. Here is another opportunity for those interested.
On March 3, 2013 both our sons-in-law, Ben Coleman (Michal’s husband) and Sean Wasserman, will be participating in Cycle for Survival, the national, indoor team cycling event that has raised more than $20 million in support of life-changing research on rare cancers at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, one of the world's premiere cancer research institutions.
100% of the funds raised through this ride go directly to MSKCC's research of rare cancer, like Synovial Sarcoma, making us feel very personally connected to this cause. With your help, we can move closer to finding out how to cure cancers like the one Michal is battling right now.
The 2012 ride donations were already put to work in twenty-eight different MSK labs and clinics – targeting a wide range of rare cancers. This progress – and the hope it brings to patients and their families – is only possible because of thoughtful contributions from people like you! We are asking you to join the battle and make a gift to support our ride against cancer. The link below will bring you to our fundraising page, where you can make a tax-deductible online donation."
http://mskcc.convio.net/site/TR/CycleforSurvival/AG_Cycle_Event?pg=team&fr_id=1818&team_id=26100
Read More & Comment...
How many times have you read, “The FDA is not required to follow the advice of its advisory panels but usually does."
Except when it doesn’t.
Recently an agency advisory panel voted against recommending making oxybutynin transdermal patch (Oxytrol) available over-the-counter (OTC) for overactive bladder (OAB) in women.
In their 5-6 vote, panelists on the FDA's Nonprescription Drugs Advisory Committee noted their concerns that women would use Oxytrol thinking they had OAB when they really had some other ailment that needed a physician's treatment. They also were concerned about men using the product off-label.
Some also were worried about the high amount of potential misuse -- whether it was by patients who did not have indications for proper use, or those it was meant for that didn't use the product correctly.
Well, today the FDA ruled that a patch containing oxybutynin (Oxytrol) for controlling overactive bladder may be sold over-the-counter for women 18 and older.
Men will continue to need a prescription for the drug, the agency said. The OTC product will be marketed by Merck as Oxytrol for Women.
In considering an Rx-to-OTC switch, the FDA looks to see whether patients can use the product safely without the oversight of a physician or pharmacist. This includes ensuring that the right patients use the drug in the appropriate way ("safe use"). The agency is not evaluating the risk-benefit of the product, since that was done earlier when it was approved as a prescription drug.
But, considering all of the issues surrounding this particular switch (conditions can cause symptoms similar to those of OAB, including urinary tract infection, bladder malignancy, pregnancy, prostate disease, and uncontrolled diabetes mellitus), AdComm panelists (who voted no) said those conditions need a physician's care, and an OTC oxybutynin could delay treatment. Shouldn’t the FDA have asked Merck for a “safe use” plan – in addition to the age restriction? Sort of REMS for OTC products?
Note to FDA – there’s an app for that.
Read More & Comment...Drug companies and medical-device makers would be forced to publicly disclose any money paid to doctors under new U.S. regulations designed to make patients aware of conflicts of interest that may affect their health.
According to CMS, the Sunshine Act’s final rule will be released “soon.”
Expanded public disclosure, according to an interesting Bloomberg article is likely to focus greater scrutiny on physicians serving on FDA advisory panels.
Doctors who now sit on FDA advisory panels must inform the agency about conflicts of interest. The FDA determines when a waiver for a financial conflict may be necessary and otherwise keeps arrangements between doctors and companies secret, even from other panel members.
Peekaboo, Sid Wolfe sees you.
Read More & Comment...PMLive reports:
Pharmaceutical companies may have enthusiastically embraced Twitter, at least at a corporate level, but local European regulators have proved somewhat more reticent.
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) led the way by signing up to the social network in 2010, but few local bodies have followed suit.
One of those that did was the Medical and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), and the UK regulator has just expanded its use of Twitter and launched three new accounts on the social network.
One of these is a corporate account, the use of which tends be pharma’s first step into social media.
The MHRA says its new corporate Twitter presence, @MHRAgovuk, will be used to promote general information and updates, while two other accounts will focus on safety alerts and information about medical devices and medicines.
The regulator has been cautious in its approach to Twitter to date, launching dedicated accounts in 2011 for first herbal remedies and then its press office, the account names of which have been simplified as part of its Twitter expansion.
It remains to be seen how well the use of separate accounts for press and corporate purposes will work, given the potential for subject overlap between the two.
But the use of new, separate accounts for medicines and medical devices seems logical, given the differences in audience for a recall of Merck Sharp & Dohme’s Tredaptive versus that for a mass spectrometer.
• Links to all of the MHRA's Twitter accounts, and many more from regulators, industry associations and pharma companies, can be found in the Twitter section of the Digital Handbook’s pharma social media directory
Read More & Comment...The Drug Enforcement Administration has once again asked the FDA to consider tightening prescribing and other rules on hydrocodone drugs.
Proving, once again, that the DEA doesn’t understand the problem. Denying access to patients in pain (the unintended but obvious consequence of up-scheduling) does nothing to stop those who provide hydrocodone – via inappropriate prescribing or illegal means.
The FDA will hold hearings tomorrow and Thursday to consider whether to move hydrocodone products from schedule III to the more highly regulated schedule II class under which narcotics such as OxyContin (oxycodone) fall. In a briefing document released as background material, FDA scientists said that although "patients taking hydrocodone products might develop moderate or low physical dependence, they would not be expected to develop addiction."
This is regulatory-speak for not wanting to change the classification.
CDER Deputy Director Dr. Doug Throckmorton said an analysis conducted internally by scientists at the agency does not reflect the FDA's "official stance." He said the agency will refrain from making recommendations until after it has reviewed testimony and received a recommendation from the independent advisory committee, which scheduled the two-day hearing.
This is regulatory-speak for, “we know what we want to do – but we want to solicit informed opinion."
Please step up to the microphone and state your name.
Read More & Comment...FDA said in a statement that the government decided not to seek further review of a December decision that found that the federal government could not prosecute a sales representative for speech promoting the legal, off-label use of an FDA-approved drug. According to the statement, the agency does not believe the 2-1 decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Caronia "will significantly affect the agency's enforcement of the drug misbranding provisions" of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). FDA added that the decision "does not strike down any provision [of FDCA] or its implementing regulations, nor does it find a conflict between the act's misbranding provisions and the First Amendment or call into question the validity of the act's drug approval framework"
Surprised? Don’t be. Whenever the FDA goes to court on First Amendment issues it either loses or gets a stern rebuke for its unpredictable, ambiguous and sometimes capricious application of off-label speech constraints.
Regardless of the FDA’s decision, Caronia will impact the way FDA views off-label promotion within the context of the free-and-fair dissemination of scientific data. I believe a new (and hopefully more enlightened) FDA view based on intent will arise. Alas, that will not assuage any of the ambiguity that is currently driving FDA (OPDP) communications oversight. That being said, any revisitation and discussion is for the better.
Some believe that, if Caronia stands, pharmaceutical companies will no longer feel obligated to seek FDA approval for new indications, since they can openly "promote" them without fear of prosecution. This is a flawed argument. Indications of the on-label variety have many benefits—not the least of which is reimbursement. But such negative unintended consequences are important to discuss and consider. IMHO, any company that chose this route would be acting in a highly irresponsible manner, putting promotion before the public health.
“See you in court?” Not likely.
Read More & Comment...From: A Message from the Commissioner
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 10:54 AM
To: FDA-Wide
Subject: Personnel Announcement for the Office of Medical Products and Tobacco
Dear FDA Colleagues:
I wanted to make you aware of the upcoming departure of Dr. Stephen Spielberg, Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco. Due to a family medical issue, Dr. Spielberg will be leaving FDA on February 15 to return home to the Philadelphia area. In March, he will assume the role of editor-in-chief of “Therapeutic Innovation and Regulatory Science”, a new journal launched by the Drug Information Association.
For the past year and a half, Dr. Spielberg has been a terrific spokesperson for the Agency and a key member of my senior management team, supporting the invaluable work performed across the Centers for drug, biologics, medical devices, and tobacco products and the Office of Special Medical Programs. He has been an important partner in helping the agency toward a more integrated approach to medical product evaluation across the Directorate, in working together with Center leadership to address the rapid changes in human biology and therapeutic interventions, and in helping optimize FDA’s approach to evolving areas such as personalized medicine.
We will miss the leadership and wise counsel he has provided during his time at the agency.
I am pleased to announce Leona Brenner-Gati, MD, has graciously agreed to serve as Acting Deputy Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco. Dr. Brenner-Gati is currently the Associate Commissioner for Medical Products and Tobacco and comes with twenty years of experience in the private healthcare sector, where she has focused on emerging technologies and complex product development. She has extensive experience leading multi-disciplinary, cross-functional teams spanning pharmaceuticals, devices, diagnostics and consumer sectors, and has applied highly integrative scientific and administrative expertise to foster the development of groundbreaking medical products.
Dr. Brenner-Gati spent seventeen years at Johnson & Johnson, where she held senior leadership positions in Science and Technology, Clinical Research and Development, Global Project Management, Medical Affairs, and Business Development in the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices & Diagnostics Groups and Corporate Headquarters As a champion of Regenerative Medicine product development and initiatives, she founded J&J’s cell therapy for diabetes program, and chaired the Scientific Advisory Board and served on the Management Board. She was also Vice-Chair of J&J’s Human Pluripotent Stem Cell Committee, helped found and served as an officer and board member of the Alliance for Regenerative Medicine, and was a member of the FDA/California Institute of Regenerative Medicine Roundtable on Regenerative Medicine. Prior to J&J, Dr. Brenner-Gati led the Internal Medicine Clinical Research Therapeutic Area at Sandoz Pharmaceuticals and achieved successful registration of several products.
Dr. Brenner-Gati graduated from Princeton University, magna cum laude in Biology, Phi Beta Kappa, and received her medical degree from Harvard Medical School. She obtained her postgraduate medical training at New York University/Bellevue Hospital Medical Center, and held academic appointments at Cornell University Medical Center/New York Hospital, where she performed basic science and clinical research, taught medical students and had a medical practice. While at Cornell, Dr. Brenner-Gati was a clinical investigator for seven years in the landmark NIH Diabetes Control and Complications Trial. She is board certified in Internal Medicine and Endocrinology & Metabolism and holds medical licenses in New York and New Jersey.
Please join me in extending a warm welcome to Dr. Brenner-Gati as she takes on this new role, and please join me in thanking Dr. Spielberg for his significant contributions to our public health mission.
Sincerely,
Margaret Hamburg, MD
Commissioner for Food and Drugs
Read More & Comment...
Social Networks
Please Follow the Drugwonks Blog on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube & RSS
Add This Blog to my Technorati Favorites