Category Archives: FDA

FDA’s Resources for Evaluating and Monitoring Medicines and New Science

Posted on by
Reply

For several years it has been clear that funding limitations are impairing the FDA’s ability to attract and retain qualified clinicians and scientists to review applications for new drugs and biologics, and to support their internal research and analysis concerning new drug development, manufacturing and monitoring technologies – particularly for biologic medicines. In addition, the FDA hasn’t been able to update its information technology systems to maximize staff productivity. (I suspect some people will be tempted to comment on the “productivity” of government employees, but I have found the FDA’s professional staff generally very qualified and hard working.)

On Tuesday, the Energy and Commerce Committee in the US House of Representatives held a hearing about the FDA’s ability to adequately oversee foreign production of medicines being sold in the US. This was part of the ongoing dialogue that was heightened by the contaminated heparin from China.  (The Government Accountability Office also released their study about foreign drug inspections on Tuesday.)

What I found interesting about reports from the hearing was its predictable political theatrical aspects: Chairman Dingell excoriating the FDA Commissioner for not admitting that the FDA needs more resources, and Commissioner von Eschenbach responded that he had asked for more funds to increase foreign inspections. But he also adhered to the Administration’s rhetoric that reforms are needed in addition to some extra funding. As the NY Times reports him saying, “the solution needs to be much more comprehensive than simply inspecting a facility.”

While this hearing focused on foreign inspections – which are clearly a concern – I believe the FDA also needs to step up their monitoring of medicines once they are already here in the US. While counterfeit medicines don’t appear to be a major problem in the US (at least yet), the continuing news reports of problems with generic medicines are worrisome – including a Wall Street Journal report that including the information that one patient’s generic pills had no markings, which is a violation of FDA regulations.

The FDA’s budget, staffing and technology challenges, together with the growing domestic and international quality and safety problems with various medicines raises concerns about how well prepared the FDA is to review and monitor biosimilar medicines and genomic based diagnostics.

I believe that Congressman Dingell is right, and that Commissioner von Eschenbach needs to be a stronger advocate for increased funding for the FDA, even if it means tearing up the Administration’s script he’s told to stick with. This Administration has only another 9 months of shelf life, so he doesn’t need to worry about being fired for speaking off-script – unless he is planning on running for office and wants to remain the good graces of the Republican Party. And if this is the case, then he is violating his duty as FDA Commissioner to fulfill the agency’s mission:

The FDA is responsible for protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy, and security of human and veterinary drugs, biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation. The FDA is also responsible for advancing the public health by helping to speed innovations that make medicines and foods more effective, safer, and more affordable; and helping the public get the accurate, science-based information they need to use medicines and foods to improve their health.

I’ll get off my soapbox now, and check to see if the soap that came in it was made in China.

Information Can Change Medical Practice, Patient Behaviors, and Kill Kids

Posted on by
1

Medical information can change how clinicians treat patients, how patients care for themselves, and how healthcare payers promote or prevent the use of treatments and diagnostic tests. However, this information can act as either a broad sword or a scalpel, and produce good or bad outcomes.

A recent report from a Canadian new service about an article from the Canadian Medical Association Journal describing the outcomes from warning about the use of anti-depressants in children brings this issue down from a general concept to being very specific. This news report stated:

Two years after Health Canada warned about prescribing anti-depressants to children, the number of children and teens who died by suicide increased 25 per cent after years of steady decline, major new Canadian research shows.

And the increased suicide rate coincided with a 10-per-cent decrease in the rate of visits to doctors for the treatment of depression in children.

For the study, researchers tracked what happened in Manitoba before and after Health Canada warned in 2004 that newer antidepressants may be associated with an increased risk of “suicide-related” events in patients under 18.

They found the warning was followed by an overall 14-per-cent drop in antidepressant use among children and adolescents, fewer visits to doctors for depression, and – among eight- to 17-year-olds – increased rates of completed suicide.

More than 90 per cent of the children and teens who killed themselves were not taking antidepressants when they died.

Published Tuesday in the journal of the Canadian Medical Association Journal, the study is the first to document “such a wide range of unintended health consequences” from a major drug warning, the authors say.

Lead author Dr. Laurence Katz, a child and adolescent psychiatrist in Winnipeg, warns the increased risk of suicide could be a “random fluctuation.”

“We can’t say the warning, or the change in antidepressant use or the physician office visits caused changes in suicide rates,” says Katz.

The suicide rate among children and teens was also still relatively small, from 0.04 for every 1,000 children and adolescents before the warning, to 0.15 per 1,000 after.

But Katz worries the widely publicized drug warnings have led to more cases of untreated depression, and an impact “beyond what was intended.” The drop in doctors visits for depression suggests that some vulnerable children are getting no treatment, including psychotherapy, at all. He says his hunch is that families were afraid to go to the doctor for fear their child would be put on medication.

“But that’s not the only treatment for depression. Not going to the doctor deprives you of all forms of treatment.”

If anything, researchers expected office visits to go up after the warning was issued because physicians were urged to increase the monitoring of patients for potential adverse reactions.

Katz, an associate professor of psychiatry at the University of Manitoba, says the drug warnings and media response may have “generated a lot of fear.”

“Understandably parents who kept bringing their children, their teenagers in for troubles with depression were already struggling, and fearful (and) often appropriately cautious about whether their child or teenager should be put on a medication.”

Katz believes the findings could be applied to any Canadian jurisdiction. Other studies coming out of the U.S. are showing similar results. [Emphasis added]

The antidepressant warning involved drugs known as SSRIs, or selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, a class that includes Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft, as well as serotonin noradrenaline re-uptake inhibitors (SNRIs), which include Effexor. The drugs have not been approved in Canada for children, but doctors have prescribed them “off-label,” which they are legally permitted to do, to tens of thousands of toddlers, children and teens for depression, social phobia, anxiety and obsessive-compulsive disorders.

In 2003 the U.K. banned antidepressants for children. The only exception was Prozac. Studies have shown the drug is safe and effective in children.

A year later, Health Canada warned that people taking the newer-generation antidepressants may experience behaviour or emotional changes that may put them “at increased risk of self-harm or harm to others.”

Katz says he didn’t have a problem with the warnings themselves. But he says some people leaped to the assumption “that these medications lead people to kill themselves.”

[The report also notes that, “For young adults, there was no significant change in the rate of completed suicide.”]

Obviously, the outcomes found in this study are very worrisome, but it also a too dramatic example of the principle of unintended consequences.

It also reminds me of how a news story in the early 1990s about adverse reactions with the second medicine to treat AIDS.  This news report caused many AIDS patients to stop taking the medicine, and given that there was only one other medicine to treat AIDS, this certainly wasn’t a good thing for their long-term survival

Although correlations don’t prove causations, I think this study definitely underscores the importance of healthcare regulators – and their media colleagues – carefully considering how they present new health information and notices to the public – for both good findings or dire warnings. With all the proposals to empower patients to make their own decisions through consumer directed insurance plan, and to give people more health information, there should also be much more research into how people respond to health related information delivered in different forms from various sources.

Toxic Dietary Supplements

Posted on by
Reply

I’m usually either supportive or neutral about alternative therapies because they generally aren’t harmful, and can be beneficial. However, there seem to be more and more recalls of these products by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for mislabelings that are significant, although seemingly not extremely dangerous.

On the other hand, I was struck by a press release I got yesterday from the FDA about a recall for the dietary supplement products “Total Body Formula” and “Total Body Mega Formula.” The recall was because these products had more than 200 times the amount of selenium than was printed on the products’ label – and the press release noted that, “Excessive intake of selenium is known to cause symptoms to include significant hair loss, muscle cramps, diarrhea, joint pain, fatigue, loss of finger nails and blistering skin.”

I guess this is another instance of how too much of something that is normally good, can be, well, not so good. And with 43 adverse reactions reported to the FDA, the recall seems like a very good thing.

UPDATE: The FDA updated their warning and information on this issue this afternoon – click here to see the FDA website notice.

Canada’s Proposal for Subsequent Entry Biologics

Posted on by
Reply

After writing about Follow-On Biologics in a recent posting, I saw a notice about Health Canada’s proposal for how they would approve biologic products that are similar to already approved biologics whose patents have expired. They call these products Subsequent Entry Biologics (SEBs), and the proposal is open for public comment from March 14, 2008 until April 16, 2008.

While the draft guidance is lengthy, it does strike an overall well-balanced tone:

  • “SEBs are not ‘generic biologics’”
  • Approval of an SEB does not mean it can automatically be substituted for the original biologic that it is “similar” to
  • Comparative studies will be required to generate data showing similarity to the original biologic in terms of quality, safety and efficacy

In many ways, the draft guidance is similar (no pun intended) to the process the US FDA used to approve some generic drugs prior to the 1984 Hatch-Waxman Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act. (This was the law that created the abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) process which allowed generic drugs to only demonstrate bioequivalence, and obviated the requirement that they replicate the original drugs safety and efficacy trials.) By referencing published studies about the innovator drug as proof of safety and efficacy, these so called “Paper-NDAs” allowed generic companies to be approved much faster and more cheaply.

Health Canada’s “paper biologic licensing application” like proposal, would allow them to rely on published information about the original biologic, while also handling each SEB application individually to decide what additional studies need to be done to demonstrate quality, safety and efficacy of the SEB.

As I pointed out in my previous post, there are many levels of structural and biological complexity with biologic treatments, so Health Canada’s draft approach seems very appropriate and reasonable.

What do you think?

More on Counterfeit Medicines & Safety

Posted on by
Reply

My last post contained some perspectives about fake medicines. That same day, the LA times ran an article about California’s long-delayed pedigree requirements for tracking prescription medicines. This law was prompted by the discovery of fake medicines for HIV/AIDS in 2000, and was intended to achieve what the FDA has been trying to implement for many years.

The LA Times article blames the delays in the state’s drug tracking system on the industry – from the manufacturer to the retail pharmacy. I suspect that the real challenge is not in the technical or cost aspects from the manufacturers – who certainly have lots to gain by stopping counterfeits of their products from being sold instead of the real thing, but from the wholesalers and to a lesser extent the pharmacies.

I’m assuming that wholesalers don’t knowingly sell counterfeit medicines, but under the current system, they can potentially make a lot of money doing so – particularly when buying them allows for a larger mark-up to the pharmacies than the real medicine. This is part of the economic reality of wholesalers, who in effect are arbitraging the differential costs of pharmaceuticals as a commodity by buying someone else’s excess supply and delivering it where it is needed. Now normally this would be market forces working to efficiently delivery medicines to where they were needed. However, without adequate pedigrees (i.e. paper or electronic documentation demonstrating the entire chain of custody of the medicines from the time it left the manufacturer), there is a great economic incentive for counterfeiters to push their fake medicines into this supply chain and make a huge profit.

Of course, the pedigree system needs to be sophisticated enough that it too can’t be forged – otherwise it is worthless. This is why retail pharmacies may be balking at the cost of implementing a system where they aren’t going to benefit, and don’t believe they are part of the problem. In general, pharmacies, don’t have great incentive for selling fake medicines – they would get paid the same dispensing and product fees whether the product was real of fake. The only case where pharmacies would increase their profits is if they were to be able to buy the fake medicines for less, but this would probably only occur for large chain pharmacies where they are essentially acting as their own wholesalers and wouldn’t be the case for the independent pharmacies – the few that are left.

Because pharmaceutical companies have incentive to track shipments of their medicines and make sure they aren’t stolen, some are starting to use RFID technology. This is surely a big investment that is worth the cost. Implementing a secure pedigree tracking system might be more costly, but would certainly be a worthwhile expense to ensure the safety and quality of medical care.

In general health policy people in the US don’t like to talk about counterfeit medicines because it raises the potential that people won’t trust their medical systems or their medicines. That attitude would be OK if there was nothing to be done about it, but since there is a solution, I think it should be talked about. The other challenge to pushing for drug tracking systems is that as health reform initiatives go, it’s not as “sexy” as electronic medical records, checklists, “evidence based medicine” or eliminating fraud and abuse and using the savings to expand insurance coverage to the uninsured. But it is a doable improvement. The challenge is figuring out how to pay for it, and convincing all the stakeholders effected to work together to make it happen.

Safety, Costs and Quality of Medicines

Posted on by
1

I’ve been trying to figure out how to write something meaningful about the many reports over the last several months about the safety, costs and quality of medicines. I finally concluded that rather than a too lengthy blog post, a series of snapshots would create a good description of the situation – sort of like a slide show rather than a feature film:

Safety of Generic Drugs: A recent LA Times article discussed patients who had adverse reactions when switched from a brand name to a generic medicine. This article includes physicians’ experiences with several types of generic medicines, e.g. for epilepsy, depression, high blood pressure, irregular heart rhythms, and to prevent rejection of organ transplants. Aside from epilepsy, these are different types of medicines from “narrow-therapeutic-index” (or NTI) medicines which have a small dosage range which produces the desired clinical effects before causing known side-effects. Also, the current safety concerns are not related to what happened in the early 1990s, when some generic companies where caught submitting false safety data — they used the brand name medicine for the bioequivalency testing required by the FDA instead of actually testing their generic versions. (Yes, people went to jail.)

Safety of Medicines Imported into the US: Medicines imported from other countries have raised safety concerns because of lack of quality oversight and the murkiness of the chain of custody. These concerns have recently been highlighted by the contamination problems of herparin from a factory in China, and reminds me of how the head of the Chinese State Food and Drug Administration was convicted last summer of taking bribes in exchange for approving generic drugs that hadn’t had the required testing. (They sentenced him to death, and actually hanged him shortly after he was convicted.)

Fake Medicines: Whether produced in the US or someplace else, there is a growing market in fake medicines. The economic incentives are huge, and unlike illegal recreational drugs, the risk of your customer to violently come after you for selling substandard products is very low. There have been cases of fake medicines made here in the US, and the World Health Organization estimates that up to 30% of medicines in some parts of the world are fake.

Fake antibiotics are of particular concern: Fake antimalarial medicines sometimes contain tylenol or asprin which lowers the malarial fever without actually treating the infection – so people think they are getting better while they continue to spread the infection. And subpar medicines that only contain a fraction of the antibiotic promote the spread of resistant strains of bacteria. So fake or substandard antibiotics may actually be worse than no pills at all.

Even the New York Times editorial board recognized the global dangers of fake medicines in a December 12, 2006 editorial.

Follow-On Biologics: There has been a lot of interest in new versions of biologic treatments. These have many names: generic biologics, biogenerics, biosimilars, and follow-on biologics. One of the great confusions with this issue is that drugs and biologics are different categories of treatments. Because of their different chemical natures they are covered by different parts of US law, and until recently they were regulated by separate divisions of the Food and Drug Administration.

While drugs and biologics are both made up of atoms, drugs are much simpler, generally much more stable, and produced by chemical reactions starting from raw chemical ingredients or from a natural compound purified from a plant or animal source. Biologics on the other hand are much larger compounds (often proteins), and are generally made by living cell cultures (or in some cases whole animals), with the active drug is purified from that source.

The different structural complexities of drugs and biologics is because small molecular drugs are based upon a limited number of configurations of their atoms – usually 1, or 2, or sometimes 4 variations that are either mirror images of each other, or forms that exist in a predictable equilibrium. Biologics on the other hand have 2 or 3 more levels of structural complexity beyond that found in small molecules. (See here for a description of the primary, secondary, tertiary and quaternary structures of proteins.) Printing is a good an analogy to the structure of drugs and biologic, with a drug being like a sentence, where the series of letter and punctuation defines it. Conversely, a biologic is a like a book, where the construction of the paragraphs and chapters are its secondary and tertiary structures, and the footnotes, references, bibliography and appendices are the quaternary structures. Obviously it is easy to copy a sentence to look like the original, but replicating a book, with the same pagination and structure is much more complicated.

As a semi-avid baker, another analogy I like for the difference between drugs and biologics is a comparison between baking powder and eggs. Baking powder is a combination of chemicals designed to produce a chemical reaction to yield the right chemical/baking effect when used in the right amount. It is generally stable, and lasts for a long time when not exposed to air. Eggs on the other hand, can easily spoil (particularly if the shell is cracked), and have two major parts – the yolk and the white. The whites are mostly protein, and yield very different results depending upon how they are used. For example, adding raw egg whites to cake batter produces a very different result than if they are heated first and then added. (Think about the difference between an angle food cake and a quiche.) Egg yolks are mostly fat are are nicely separated from the whites. Mixed with the whites they cook up one way, and separately are used in pudding, custards, etc.

Adverse Drug Events and Medical Errors in Hospitals: There have been many studies about medical errors in hospitals and how many of those relate to adverse drugs events because the patient received the wrong medicine or the wrong amount of the medicine. These studies clearly point out the value of electronic medical records which avoid handwriting mistakes, and can automatically check for drug-drug interactions. Another important organizational feature of hospital care is the integrated medical team that includes experienced pharmacists and nurses. Such teams ensure rapid and accurate communications about treatment issues among the clinicians writing the prescription and those dispensing it or delivering/administering it to the patient.

Conclusions: Medicines are extremely potent, they can be very complex, and they are central to one of the mantras of clinically and cost effective care: “The right treatment, to the right patient, at the right time.” Electronic medical records and electronic prescribing systems certainly can help achieve that goal, while substituting non-identical medications, or enabling the distribution or use of substandard of fake medicines undermines movement towards that goal.

Government’s Right & Left Hands

Posted on by
2

The US government issued two proposals last week that may seem to be a case of the right and left hands not knowing what the other is doing. In the first instance, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a proposal to allow bio-pharma and medical device companies to more easily distribute published articles that discuss uses not approved by the FDA. In the FDA’s press release discussing the “Good Reprint Practices” draft guidance, Randall Lutter, FDA deputy commissioner for policy, states that “Articles that discuss unapproved uses of FDA-approved drugs and devices can contribute to the practice of medicine and may even constitute a medically recognized standard of care,” and “This guidance also safeguards against off-label promotion.”

The other government proposal is aimed at controlling Medicare spending. This proposal responds to Medicare consuming an increasing share of general revenues. (See previous post.) The proposal’s major items include:

  • Expanding “value-based health care” in the Medicare program by:
    • Increasing the use of health information technology, including electronic medical records
    • Making more pricing and quality information available to patients
    • Authorizing the Department of Health and Human Services to release physician-specific measurements of the quality or efficiency of physician performance, and tying healthcare provider reimbursement amounts to quality measurements, and creating incentives for Medicare patients to see higher quality providers.
  • Medical liability reform that limits noneconomic damages to $250,000, and protects deep-pockets entitites from paying more than their “share” of responsibility, by “making each party liable only for the amount of damages directly proportional to such party’s percentage of responsibility.”
  • Income-relating the Medicare Part D premium for individuals with incomes greater than $82,000 and married beneficiaries with incomes greater than $164,000. (Note, these amounts would not be automatically increased with inflation.)

So on one hand, it seems that the government is looking to expand the use of innovative medical treatments, and on the other hand it looks like it is seeking to cut back reimbursements and make people with Medicare pay more for their treatments – something that has been shown to reduce use. However, I know that these right and left hands do know what the other is doing, and these two actions are compatible under the principle of individual responsibility and empowerment: Both proposals are advocating that patients, clinicians and companies should have and share more information about treatment options and outcomes, and that they should generally be able to make individual choices about their decisions – as long as they are financial responsible for it.

While this all sounds good in principle, there are real concerns about both sets of proposals. I personally am more comfortable with the FDA proposal since it is really extending practices that have existed since 1997 under a recently expired federal law. And assuming the FDA receives more resources to keep on top of these types of practices, I don’t think physicians will be easily hoodwinked, industry will not wildly abuse this information dissemination option, and patients with uncommon conditions will likely benefit. The Medicare proposal on the other hand is really about saving money. The provisions about increasing “value based health care” all sound good, but are very challenging to actually implement to increase the quality of care. The implementation of such quality improving initiatives is something I’m working on right now in a section of my book project involving cultural problems. Changing the cultural environment in healthcare delivery and financing are important parts of making successful processes changes in healthcare delivery. It is a very complicated area, but crucial to actually increasing the quality and efficiency of our healthcare system.

This post has gone on long enough for now. What are your thoughts?