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
The PDUFA "primary season" is almost over
Today, BioCentury reports, the Senate HELP Committee will deliberate on a PDUFA reauthorization bill that would relax conflict-of-interest restrictions on advisory committee members, and enact new provisions intended to improve risk-benefit decision-making, facilitate global harmonization of clinical trials and promote regulatory science.
The PDUFA reauthorization manager's amendment would eliminate limits on the numbers of conflict-of-interest waivers FDA can issue for advisory committee members. It would require FDA to "implement a structured risk-benefit assessment framework in the new drug approval process to facilitate the balanced consideration of benefits and risks, a consistent and systematic approach to the discussion and regulatory decision-making, and the communication of the benefits and risks of new drugs." It also would instruct FDA to work with international regulators and industry to "encourage uniform, scientifically-driven clinical trial standards" that would facilitate simultaneous global development of new medical products. Another new provision would require FDA to identify regulatory and scientific gaps that impede product reviews and approvals and draft plans with specific milestones for addressing the gaps.
The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health will mark up its version of the FDA user fee reauthorization legislation on Thursday.
Is the final vote a sure thing? Probably.
But is any election ever a sure thing?
Read More & Comment...
When it comes to drug shortages, pounding Big Pharma isn’t the answer. Finally someone is focusing on the perverse economic incentives of Average Sales Price (ASP) as a key factor behind the problem. And that someone is Senator Orrin Hatch (R, UT.)
His Patient Access to Drugs in Shortage Act is out for comment through April 25, 2012. This proposed legislation is the only bill dealing with the economic causes of the shortages.
Some important codicils include:
* Price Stability — The draft would change the Medicare reimbursement rate for generic injectable products with 4 or fewer active manufacturers from Average Sales Price (ASP) + 6% to Wholesale Acquisition Cost (WAC) in order to achieve market price stability.
* Medicaid/340B Rebate Exemption — The draft exempts generic injectable products with 4 or fewer active manufacturers from Medicaid rebates and 340B discounts in order to achieve market price stability.
* Extended Exclusivity — Manufacturers who hold an approved application for a drug that would mitigate a shortage can extend by 5 years any period of exclusivity, even if the drug is eventually moved from drug shortage designation.
* Drug Shortage Database — The Secretary would establish a mechanism by which health care providers and other third-party organizations may report evidence of a drug shortage.
This last point may sound innocuous – but it’s crucial. There are many players in the drug shortage game – not just innovator pharmaceutical companies and the FDA. There are generics manufacturers, hospitals, Group Purchasing Organizations (GPOs), and physicians. (For more on the GPO issue, see this new op-ed in today’s Washington Examiner).
As the Japanese say – don’t fix the blame; fix the problem.
Read More & Comment...Earlier this week the Supreme Court heard arguments as to whether representatives of pharmaceutical companies are entitled to overtime. The answer, it seems, turns on whether those visits are actually sales calls.
According to Paul D. Clement, lawyer for the defendant, the pharmaceutical sales representatives plaintiffs, “ … were hired for a sales job. They were given sales training. They attend sales conferences. They are assigned to sales territory, and they are evaluated and compensated as salespeople.”
But, commented Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr, “They don’t do sales. Your long list sort of stopped one step short. They don’t make sales.”
As the New York Times accurately reports, industry reps “do not sell products in the strict sense of the term. Rather, they encourage doctors to write prescriptions for patients to buy drugs from pharmacies.”
Interesting semantical and practical questions and it’ll be interesting to see how the Supremes rule. In the meantime here’s a related question – depending on the final judgment – will government detailers (aka “academic detailers”) qualify overtime pay? They’re not supposed to be “selling” anything either.
Read More & Comment...I like BIO CEO Jim Greenwood's proposal to give FDA a chief innovation officer who who would examine whether the number of drug rejections is reasonable, or whether it is stunting innovation and causing unwarranted delays.
“People who die because a product is not approved quickly enough are just as dead as those who die because a product is not safe,” Greenwood said. “It’s not just the job of the FDA to protect us, it’s also to promote innovation.”
My pick for the position: Janet Woodcock. No one (except for Bob Temple) could and has balanced these two missions better. And no one has done more to promote personalized medicine, which allows products to more efficiently embody safety and innovation.
There are a lot of important bi-partisan ideas to accelerate the innovation process. A chief innovation officer should not be a ceremonial add-on or be limited to reviewing product development after the fact. That official could report to the Commissioner, search out and encourage companies with innovation products for fast track approval, be in on the development of products from the beginning. That's something Dr. Woodcock would and could do effectively.
Read More & Comment...
But the way to change FDA to promote those broader objectives is to hold it accountable to new standards for product approval and oversight reflecting dramatic changes in the science sustaining innovation. Congressman Rogers and others can help the FDA by getting them out of the comparative effectiveness business. Reauthorization of PDUFA will give the agency more resources and more direction with regard to increasing the predictability in the development process for drugs, devices, diagnostics and combination products. However, the FDA would get a boost if legislation stipulated that any products that use biomarkers or other tools to target treatments and improve the ability to monitor disease progression or response would be automatically approved for use in Medicare, Medicaid, etc.
The more we can defang what is an increasingly worthless CER enterprise the more FDA can achieve the mission the Congressman Rogers wants the agency to carry out. CMPI will be releasing a study, supported by the Kauffman foundation, that estimates how much innovation and health value our nation will forfeit if CER becomes the focus of commercialization instead personalized medicine. The estimates, even with conservative assumptions built in, are staggering.
Every time someone at FDA has to pay lip service to CER it is a signal to companies that all the work put in on diagnostics, combination products and targeted treatments will go to naught because they have to wait for a bunch of underachieving health economists and other professionals to conduct systematic reviews or horizon scams, I mean scans, or clinical trials. Then again, as I noted in my last post, it looks at though PCORI will be handing out dough to to figure out how to conduct patient-centered research and how to engage patients, though the last time I checked no one -- except the stakeholders who will also get the PCORI cash -- was asking for such government help.
You want to make medicine patient-centered? Produce patient-centered medicine. Tools and treatments that reduce hassles, improve life, increase health.
That's something FDA can, should and is trying to do in collaboration with companies. If you asked people should we spend $3 billion on medical decision making or the same amount making better medicines more quickly available to people who need them, I don't have any doubt that faster approvals would win.
The FDA could do a lot with $3 billion over the next decade and do much more for our health and nation than PCORI ever will. Just a suggestion if Congressman Rogers wants to amend his bill....
Read More & Comment...
Yesterday the HELP Committee released a draft version of PDUFA legislation and plans a April 25 PDUFA mark-up.
The Senate draft creates a new pathway for review of "breakthrough" therapies, requiring FDA to work with sponsors to expedite approval of products to treat serious or life-threatening diseases based on "preliminary clinical evidence indicating that the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies on one or more clinically significant endpoints."
On the other side of the Capitol, the House Energy and Commerce Committee released a discussion draft of PDUFA reauthorization legislation on Wednesday. Both the House and Senate bills incorporate the Generating Antibiotic Incentives Now (GAIN) Act, which would extend market exclusivity by five years for drugs that treat antibiotic-resistant pathogens. The E&C version includes an additional six month extension for drugs approved along with a companion diagnostic; this provision has been deleted from the Senate version.
The House draft also seeks to permanently reauthorize two laws that create incentives for conducting clinical trials in pediatric populations, the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the Pediatric Research Equity Act. Similar legislation, the Better Pharmaceuticals and Devices for Children Act, was introduced with bipartisan sponsorship in the Senate on Tuesday; it is likely to be incorporated into the Senate PDUFA reauthorization bill.
House lawmakers said they were optimistic that any outstanding issues in the GOP draft would be resolved in the coming days, and full committee Chairman Fred Upton (R, MI) said he was convinced the panel is on track to meet his goal of approving the legislation by the end of June.
Read More & Comment...That PCORI was able to get JAMA to publish two fluffy and self congratulatory editorials that explain how patient-centered reflects the extent to which PCORI, AHRQ and the consultants it funds will be able to disseminate about any crap that it produces through the 'major' medical media outlets. AHRQ, PCORI and cronies are able to get anything it produces published in medical journals. It is spending hundeds of millions of dollars peddling CER to doctors who in exchange get CME credit just for clicking on to a website. And PCORI will be spending hundreds of millions of dollars holding conferences, webinars, etc to explain to 'stakeholders' how patient-cetered they are.
But what exactly is PCORI producing?
In the JAMA puff piece, Joe Selby and colleagues note:
"The institute's first funding announcement solicited projects focused on methods for engaging patients and other stakeholders in all aspects of the research process. "
They conclude that "The proposition that greater involvement of patients, clinicians, and others in the research process could help reorient the clinical research enterprise, reduce clinical uncertainty, and speed adoption of meaningful findings holds great promise, but remains to be tested. PCORI will test this hypothesis. The underlying imperative is to improve patients' care experience, decision making, and health outcomes. Patients as well as the physicians and other health care professionals who care for and about them are invited and encouraged to join in this effort. "
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/307/15/1583.full?ijkey=2UlGCXlTXheck&keytype=ref&siteid=amajnls
This sounds alot like maximum feasible participation encouraged in community action programs during the 1960s. In his book "Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding," Daniel Patrick Moynihan noted that the "war on poverty was not declared at the behest of the poor. It was declared in their interests by persons confident in their judgment on such matters."
The War on Poverty was not a war and did not do much about poverty. But it did employ and give out grants to the policy entrepreneurs who conceived the War on Poverty in the first place. That consisted of professional economists, professional social scientists, government officials and professional philanthropists.
Similarly, PCORI was not created in response to an outcry from patients about the lack of inclusion of their "voices" in medical decision making. It was a product of the same said professionals who supported PPACA and who believe that spending $3 billion on making sure the CER they produce is marketed and used is in the nation's interest.
The article by the Methods Committee on how it plans to spend money on grants reflects a similar disconnect between the needs of patients and the myopic goals of the CER community. See if you can figure out the punchline of this paragraph:
"Ms M is a 45-year-old woman with depression (Box 2), whose situation similarly highlights the gap between existing research and the characteristics and concerns of patients. Little evidence exists about which sequence of treatments is optimal for Ms M's constellation of symptoms, adverse effects, or initial response. Despite more than 1000 trials on antidepressants and related treatments, most studies include patients with narrowly defined characteristics who are followed up for short periods, do not take place in settings in which care is routinely delivered, and include a limited spectrum of comparators, including drugs and other therapeutic approaches.11 How can clinical research focusing on much larger, long-term issues trials yield more personalized guidance for patients like Ms M?12"
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/307/15/1636.full?ijkey=419QnSMR.MBDU&keytype=ref&siteid=amajnls
The Methods Committee presumes that since all manner of studies have never been able to identify what treatment is right for Mrs M that the solution is to spend more money on methodologies that will be larger and more long term but at the same time yield more personalized guidance.
Does anyone believe that bigger studies that take longer to produce will, especially at a time when medical information is becoming digitized and atomized, yield personalized guidance that patients will abide by and obey? Am I the only one who sees a social science scam in all this? Is this too cynical on my part?
More later.
Read More & Comment...
They’ve got a list. And they’re checking it twice.
The giant PBM Express Scripts is launching ScreenRx, a program that uses a computer to sift through hundreds of factors that affect patients and forecast who is most likely to forget a refill or simply stop taking their drugs. The company then plans to contact those patients to help them stick with their doctor's orders.
It’s estimated that about $317 billion in additional medical expenses were incurred by the U.S. health care system last year because people didn't comply with prescriptions. These additional expenses might include a heart attack for someone who stops taking cholesterol medicines or an amputation for someone who doesn't adhere to diabetes treatment.
The analysis, called predictive modeling sorts through more than 400 variables that could affect a patient to see which people have enough red flags to warrant concern.
Once a patient has been flagged, they receive a phone call. An Express Scripts representative will talk to the person to see if they need help. The PBM then might send the patient a pillbox if they have a hard time remembering their prescriptions or a special beeper that goes off when it's time to take medicine.
If the patient struggles to pay for the drugs, Express Scripts will provide information on assistance programs.
According to a report in the Washington Post, “Analysts say predictive modeling programs that aim to forecast patient behavior and improve care have been evolving in health care over the past few years, and the Express Scripts product is the latest evolution.”
Survival of the most compliant. Would Darwin have approved?
Read More & Comment...Eli Lilly’s John Lechleiter believes that the biopharmaceutical industry exists in an “innovation ecosystem.” A new study by the Tufts University Center for the Study of Drug Development (funded by PhRMA) confirms that notion by exploring the breadth and nature of partnerships between biopharmaceutical companies and academic medical centers (AMCs).
The full study can be found here.
The Tufts study examines a subset of public-private partnerships – more than 3,000 grants to AMCs from about 450 biopharmaceutical company sponsors. The Tufts report describes the various types of partnership models that exist, and recent trend as well as identifies next generation academic-industry collaboration models emerging from the public-private-partnership paradigm.
To add to Lechleiter’s phrase, the report discusses the importance for and a model of a sustainable innovation ecosystem. This is in keeping with the ethical and pragmatic policy of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) and the American College of Endocrinology (ACE) regarding the disclosure of conflicts of interest:
“There is no inherent conflict of interest in the working relationships of physicians with industry and government. Rather, there is a commonality of interest that is healthy, desirable, and beneficial. The collaborative relationship among physicians, government, and industry has resulted in many medical advancements and improved health outcomes.”
Some findings from the Tuft’s study:
The partnerships examined in this report fall into three primary categories: joint clinical trials (75%), studies targeting public health priorities (14%), and health research and education projects (11%).
* 72 percent of the joint clinical trials are for pharmaceuticals.
* Studies targeting public health priorities cover a range of topics, including breakthrough-investigations involving multiple disciplines.
* Joint health research and educational activities ranged from basic medicine to translational research to new technologies, particularly nanotechnology and pharmacogenomics.
Tufts found that these relationships often involve company and AMC scientists and other researchers working side-by-side on cutting-edge science with advanced tools and resources, enabling the U.S. to rise to the challenge of various biomedical opportunities, such as personalized medicines and a growing understanding of rare diseases.
The report outlines the 12 primary models of academic-industry collaborations and highlights emerging models, which reflect a shift in the nature of academic-industry relationships toward more risk- and resource-sharing partnerships.
* Unrestricted research support has been one of the most widely used models. While these models have generally represented the most common form of academic-industry collaboration, Tufts research found that they are becoming less frequently used.
* The report found a range of innovative models emerging, from corporate venture capital funds to pre-competitive research centers to increasingly used academic drug discovery centers.
Examples of emerging academic-industry partnership models include:
* The Coalition Against Major Diseases, a consortium under the Critical Path Institute, involves biopharmaceutical companies, academic institutions, and others working together to facilitate the development of effective treatments for Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease.
* Eli Lilly and Company launched the Open Innovation Drug Discovery program to facilitate research on molecules around the world that have the potential to ultimately be developed into medicines by allowing academic and other researchers to submit molecules for free screening as potential drug candidates.
* Sanofi has a strategic alliance agreement with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT’s) Center for Biomedical Innovation focused on advancing knowledge in the area of human health through basic and applied research and promoting scientific exchange between MIT and Sanofi researchers to support the development of health care solutions for patients.
The report highlights the mutual benefits of partnerships:
* Both academia and industry are facing increasingly complex scientific challenges. According to the report, as the scope of some of the scientific challenges is so large, collaboration is viewed as increasingly important to making significant progress.
* Partnerships benefit both industry and academia by providing the opportunity for the leading biomedical researchers in both sectors to work side-by-side to explore the promising new technologies and scientific discoveries that have the potential to treat the most challenging diseases and conditions facing patients today.
The report finds that the nature of collaboration occurs across all aspects of drug discovery. According to Tufts, companies are funding and working collaboratively with the academic component of the public sector on basic research that contributes broadly across the entire spectrum of biomedical R&D, not just for products in their portfolios.
The report concludes that academic-industry partnerships are growing in number and importance as “the translational gap between discovery and clinical development has become increasingly difficult to bridge.” The complementary nature of partnerships involving AMCs and biopharmaceutical companies increases synergies between the two sectors, ―enabling the nation’s R&D enterprise to tackle the most complex and challenging diseases and conditions.
How’s that for sunshine?
Read More & Comment...The official comment period is over and it's pretty clear that FDA’s February 9th biosimilar draft guidance has sparked resistance among some industry players – specifically over certain definitions and requirements. No surprises there.
Stakeholders sent criticisms over the suggested protocols as well as several recommendations for change. The draft guidance, contained in three documents, represent FDA’s interpretation of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation (BPCI) Act of 2009.
Biosimilarity
Two drug developers said that the agency should tighten its proposed biosimilarity standards. While commending FDA for “an excellent job drafting guidance on quality considerations for demonstrating biosimilarity to a reference product,” Genentech took issue with FDA’s proposed wording that manufacturers “should” thoroughly assess the analytical similarity of their biosimilars to their reference products, and “should” perform in-depth chemical, physical, and bioactivity comparisons with side-by-side analyses of “an appropriate number of lots of the proposed biosimilar product and the reference product.” FDA also suggested that “where available and appropriate,” manufacturers compare their products with the reference standard for specific suitable attributes such as potency.
The assessment of the analytical similarity of a biosimilar product and the robustness of these methods are fundamental requirements for a biosimilarity assessment, and use of the word “should” implies that it does not necessarily need to be done, Genentech noted. “Please replace ‘should’ with ‘is expected to’ or ‘needs to,’” Genentech stated in a letter transmitted to the agency by Earl Dye, director of technical regulatory policy and strategy.
Novo Nordisk urged FDA to define biosimilars as products that are as similar as scientifically possible to their reference products, at least through sharing the same amino acid sequence, without exception, as their reference products. The company cited FDA’s emphasis on the importance the 3-D structures of proteins play in their biological functions and the ability of post-translational modifications to alter the proteins’ functions.
“FDA should never permit biosimilar applications for products that cannot be adequately characterized,” Novo Nordisk stated in its letter, signed by James C. Shehan, Novo Nordisk’s corporate vp, legal, government, and quality affairs.
Biosimilar producer Biocon counter-suggested that FDA should expect that the expression construct and/or the processing of a proposed product would result in the same primary amino acid sequence as the reference product. Some expression constructs may give a precursor protein that only after modification in the process will yield the same amino acid sequence as that of the reference product, Biocon noted in its letter, submitted by Siriam Akundi Ph.D., associate vp, quality, and regulatory.
Demonstrating Safety
Novo Nordisk also believes that biosimilar applicants “should always submit the results of comparative animal toxicity studies.” It added, “In the current state of science, some form of comparative safety and effectiveness testing will be necessary for almost all biosimilars.
“All biosimilar applicants should conduct at least one comparative clinical pharmacokinetic study and, where there is a relevant pharmacodynamic marker, at least one comparative clinical PD study,” Novo Nordisk added. “Similarly, a biosimilar applicant should always conduct at least one comparative clinical immunogenicity study.”
Two patient groups also called for FDA to promote greater safety. The Colon Cancer Alliance asked FDA to require “extensive” clinical testing of biosimilars, with a system capable of rigorously tracking and tracing them back to their product of origin. “It is critical to the safety of patients that these drugs be submitted to open and robust clinical studies and are marked with a unique and transparent product labeling system that will facilitate robust pharmacovigilance,” Global Healthy Living Foundation (GHLF) president Seth Ginsberg wrote in GHLF’s letter.
Interchangeability
Ginsberg noted that it is difficult to designate a biosimilar as interchangeable with their innovator products unless there is sufficient data. He expressed concern that decisions on interchangeability could be made by pharmacists or insurers through states’ automatic substitution policies. “We believe that the choice of product should be decided only by patients and physicians, who are ultimately responsible for patient care and have the full spectrum of a patient’s medical history,” Ginsberg added.
Novo Nordisk urged FDA to confirm that it would not designate a new biosimilar delivery device or container closure system as interchangeable with its reference product “where additional training on the new device or system is necessary to guide safe use, or where the proposed delivery device or container closure has inequivalent performance or critical design features.”
And miles to go before …
“The keys to success for the biosimilar pathway are informing and educating patients and physicians on the benefits and safety challenges of replicating biologic drugs, providing a unique and distinctive naming and labeling system, and understanding that the FDA’s approval of a biosimilar as a standalone therapy does not mean that it is interchangeable with its biologic counterpart,” the Colon Cancer Alliance stated in its letter to FDA written by CEO Andrew Spiegel.
The alliance urged FDA to adopt a system that uses individual nonproprietary names for biologics and biosimilars, enabling physicians, patients, and regulators to differentiate between products easily—a suggestion also made by Novo Nordisk and the National Association of Chain Drug Stores.
Biocon took issue with FDA’s requirement that sponsors provide “sufficient scientific justification” for extrapolating clinical data to support biosimilarity determinations for each condition of use for which a license is sought. “Once biosimilarity is established, and product is approved for one indication, no additional clinical studies should be expected for obtaining approval for other approved indications,” Biocon stated. “If the route of administration, dosing frequency, and dosage amount of the proposed biosimilar is identical to the reference product for each indication, any additional clinical studies should not be expected.”
Novo Nordisk also urged FDA to publish product-class specific guidance for biosimilar and bioequivalent applications for complex proteins, like the EMA has done. With all the discord that FDA’s draft biosimilar guidance has created, the agency will have to work to balance the interests of innovators, biosimilar developers, and patient groups. The agency will have to ensure that it does not tilt its final guidance toward developers of new drugs by rules that unduly impede biosimilars. Nor should it tilt its requirements toward biosimilar makers seeking less rigorous review. It won’t be easy, but balancing competing interests will ultimately benefit companies, researchers, and especially patients, by finally providing a biosimilar pathway in the U.S.
And that's assuming the law that makes biosimilars possible remains on the books after the Supreme Court ruling.
In Vitro Veritas
A renegotiation of the EMA (European Medicines Agency) medical devices directives is imminent. Our spies tell us that, for in vitro diagnostics, a line will be drawn between tests used as companion diagnostics -- where clinical evidence of their applicability will be required -- and other in vitro tests such as PSA for prostate cancer -- where no such evidence will be required.
Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown
Eric Abadie, the chair of CHMP (The Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use) has resigned -- another victim of L’Affaire Mediator (the French anti diabetic /anti obesity drug remained questionably available in France and killed somewhere on the order of 5000 patients from pulmonary valve disease). The French Agency sacked him and the EMA opted not to pick up his salary.
Meanwhile on our own placid shores
Here’s an excellent article from the April edition of Nature Biotechnology on some of the key policy questions facing the US biotech sector pending PDUFA and presidential politics.
Read More & Comment...Part of the FDA’s promise for PDUFA V is a more patient-centered approach to risk/benefit analysis. A timely new analysis provides a closer look at how much cancer patients value hope --with important implications for how insurers value treatment, particularly in end-of-life care.
The analysis by Darius Lakdawalla, director of research at the Schaeffer Center at USC and associate professor in the USC Price School of Public Policy, surveyed 150 cancer patients currently undergoing treatment, and is part of a special issue on cancer spending from the journal Health Affairs.
Lakdawalla and his co-authors found the overwhelming majority of cancer patients prefer riskier treatments that offer the possibility of longer survival over safer treatments: 77 percent of cancer patients said they would rather take a “hopeful gamble” — treatments that offer a 50/50 chance of either adding three years or no additional survival — to “safe bet” treatments that would keep them alive for 18 months, but no longer.
“Consumers tend to dislike risk, and researchers and policy makers have generally assumed that patients care about the average gain in survival,” Lakdawalla said. “But patients facing a fatal disease with relatively short remaining life expectancy may have less to lose and be more willing to swing for the fences. This analysis points to the larger ideal — that value should be defined from the viewpoint of the patient.”
Read More & Comment...Reaching the wrong conclusion only makes a problem worse. Witness drug shortages and a bill pending in Congress that would require drug manufacturers to notify federal officials of a disruption to a drug supply six months in advance.
In theory, such a requirement would give the FDA an opportunity to prevent the shortage, notify health-care providers and develop a contingency plan. In reality, that’s not the problem.
“What we’re trying to find out is whether there’s a pattern behind the shortages that we can address,” comment senator Richard Durbin (D, IL). “We’ve got to get down to what is really behind it and try to solve it.”
Precisely.
While earlier and more robust communications between drug manufacturers (largely generic manufacturers of hospital injectables) and the FDA is important – lack of such interaction isn’t the major cause of the problem. The issue at hand is that that, because of the way hospitals purchase medicines, there is no incentive for drug makers to update manufacturing facilities or build new ones. Hence, when a facility goes off-line due to quality concerns (the major cause of supply line disruption) or is retooled for a different (and more profitable) use – shortages can occur. In such an instance, should a manufacturer advise the FDA of potential shortages? Certainly.
But that’s not the real problem. The unreported problem is the role of Group Purchasing Organizations (GPOs). GPOs control the purchasing of more than $200 billion in drugs, devices, and healthcare supplies annually for some 5,000 private, acute care hospitals nationwide. And they keep costs low. That’s the good news. The bad news is that they are also permitted (by law) to charge a fee to hospital suppliers based on percentage of sales volume for a particular product. And sometimes it’s a hefty one – often as high as 35-50%. That certainly throws a spanner in the supply-and-demand proposition. Six months supply at ever-lower margins becomes a non-starter for many companies – further exacerbating the problem rather than solving it.
GPOs are a monopsony (a buyer’s monopoly) dominated by six firms that control about 90% of the goods purchased by hospitals via GPOs. The power of these organizations is such that they can often dictate which drugs, devices and supplies are used in hospitals – and which companies are allowed to sell them.
These practices have created a concentrated market that excludes other existing and would-be suppliers and distributors. So, with no other suppliers able or available to fill the gap, increases in demand for generic drugs have resulted in shortages and surging prices. It is no coincidence that the problem is generally limited to generics sold to healthcare facilities through GPO contracts rather than directly to consumers through retail pharmacies.
GPOs have their critics. Among them is former Wall Street Journal reporter Phil Zweig who writes that, “GPOs have concentrated production of generic drugs in a handful of drug makers and have forced some manufacturers to cease production of various lifesaving drugs altogether and distributors to slash inventories to the bone. In a nutshell, these cartels have undermined the laws of supply and demand in this critical industry.”
We applaud Senator Durbin for striving to solve an important problem. We urge him to include not only drug manufacturers and the FDA in potential solutions – but also our nation’s giant Group Purchasing Organizations.
It’s time to actively and aggressively pursue FDA Commissioner Peggy Hamburg’s call for a regulatory Marshall Plan to help build, nation-by-nation, global systems for both quality and safety. A high tide floats all boats.
A new IOM report concludes the FDA should invest in advancing the regulatory capacity of developing low and middle income nations in order to secure the pharmaceutical supply chain and safeguard the American public.
The report, Ensuring Safe Foods and Medical Products Through Stronger Regulatory Systems Abroad, recommends 13 steps FDA and other regulatory bodies can take in the next five years to improve the regulatory systems of developing nations.
Rather than try to inspect all foreign establishments itself—something IOM conceded was unrealistic given FDA’s limited budget—FDA should instead invest in improving other regulatory systems to accomplish its goals of ensuring a safe pharmaceutical supply chain.
After all, as Peggy Hamburg has repeatedly said, ““We can’t inspect our way out of this problem."
The IOM reports, “The FDA should use partnerships to drive improvements in supply chain management. The committee recommends that the FDA work with strong regulators in other countries to plan inspections and pool data. There is no need for American and European inspectors to duplicate each other’s work, especially when a vast number of facilities go uninspected … One promising initiative is the two-year FDA Secure Supply Chain pilot program, which rewards firms that trace their products thoroughly from manufacture to entry into the United States.”
“The report urges FDA and its technologically advanced counterparts in the European Union, Canada, Japan, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Australia, and New Zealand to plan a system for mutual recognition of one another's inspections, which would eliminate the wasteful duplication of effort,” wrote IOM in a statement.
FDA, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and the World Health Organization have all announced their participation in a global active pharmaceutical ingredient inspection program that might go a long way toward accomplishing IOM’s recommendations—something IOM agrees with in principle.
IOM also called on industry association to “define a reliable way to share internal inspection results among their members within the next three years.
With scare resources, perhaps the best place to start is by committing to common standards for data capture and reporting.
After all, knowledge is power.
Read More & Comment...It is rare that the words “progress” and “Alzheimer’s Disease” are used (positively) in the same sentence.
Maybe that’s about to change.
Last week the EMA's CHMP adopted a qualification opinion that positive/negative PET imaging of amyloid can be used as a biomarker to identify patients in clinical trials with predementia Alzheimer's disease (AD) who are at increased risk to have an underlying neuropathology. Now an Eli Lilly & Co. diagnostic that detects the presence of proteins in the brain that are related to Alzheimer's disease is FDA-approved.
According to a report in the Wall Street Journal, “The tool could enable clinicians to detect Alzheimer's earlier and more accurately in patients at the earliest sign of memory problems—a potential boon to treatment and developing drugs against the disease.”
A lack of ability to reliably diagnose patients in the early stages of the Alzheimer's disease has hampered research. Some experts believe that investigational drug trials have failed because patients enrolled in such studies already had progressed too far for the treatments to be effective.
Proponents of using florbetapir and similar agents that are being developed have said that such technology will accelerate research by helping to accurately identify people at high risk of developing the condition and to enroll such people in therapeutic trials.
The test uses a chemical called florbetapir, known by the brand name Amyvid, which is a radioactive agent that tags clumps of a sticky substance called an amyloid. Amyloid proteins are hallmarks of Alzheimer's disease. The chemical, which costs $1,600 per dose, then is detected using a brain imaging technique called positron emission tomography, known as PET scans.
The Journal raises an important point, “Some experts have questioned how useful the test is since no treatments are available that significantly alter the course of the disease. But some doctors believe that patients may find a diagnosis helpful for planning purposes or just to know for certain that they have Alzheimer's.”
Question – will payers pay?
If a tree falls in a forest …
Read More & Comment...BioCentury reports:
EMA backs AD biomarkers
The EMA's CHMP adopted a qualification opinion that positive/negative PET imaging of amyloid can be used as a biomarker to identify patients in clinical trials with predementia Alzheimer's disease (AD) who are at increased risk to have an underlying neuropathology. CHMP also adopted a qualification opinion that the combination of low beta amyloid (1-42) and high tau in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF), and amyloid-related PET imaging, can be used to identify patients with mild to moderate AD who are increased risk of an underlying AD neuropathology. CHMP said the biomarkers are intended to enrich recruitment in trials aimed at studying products to slow the conversion to AD or severe AD.
Read More & Comment...The Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee released a discussion draft of legislation aimed at accelerating patient access to innovative medical treatments for life-threatening diseases.
The bipartisan Drug Approval and Patient Access Plan would overhaul the FDA's Accelerated Approval pathways and create a new "breakthrough" designation to provide more flexibility and certainty for developers of new medicines intended to address serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions.
The draft includes legislation introduced last week by Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) that would expedite FDA approval and provide more flexibility when a drug or treatment shows dramatic responses early in development.
Read More & Comment...
Social Networks
Please Follow the Drugwonks Blog on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, YouTube & RSS
Add This Blog to my Technorati Favorites