(Slow) Progress Towards Uncovering Sex-Linked Differences in Drug and Device Safety and Efficacy

In 2000, the General Accounting Office (since re-named the Government Accountability Office) reported that more women than ever were being included in clinical trials funded by the National Institutes of Health.  In fact, the GAO noted, over 50% of the participants in the trials that NIH funded in fiscal year 1997 were women.  At the same time, the NIH had made much less progress implementing the requirement that certain clinical trials it funds be designed to reveal sex-linked differences in a treatment’s safety and efficacy.  In 2012, sex-linked differences in responses to treatments are still not being studied in research funded by the government or by the private sector.  In a summary released last month of an Institute of Medicine workshop on the problem, Theresa Wizemann reports that “[e]ven when women are included in clinical trials, the results are often not analyzed by sex” despite “growing acknowledgement that men and women have substantial and widespread biologic differences.”

As its title — “Sex-Specific Reporting of Scientific Research” — suggests, a focus of the IOM Workshop was whether medical journals could drive reform in this area by requiring that authors report sex-specific data.  Wizemann writes that because “[r]esearchers are eager to have their papers published in high-profile journals[,]” “editorial policies implemented by those journals can be effective in modifying behavior.”  But several participants in the IOM Workshop noted that studying population subgroups poses “methodologic and analytic” challenges.  In many cases, Wizemann reports, “achieving statistical significance for subgroup analyses would require unattainable or unjustifiable numbers of participants.”  Workshop participant Gregory Curfman, who is the Executive Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, “cautioned against editorial policies that require trials to be designed to reach valid statistical conclusions for males and females separately[,]” because “[s]uch editorial policies would create a ’steep mountain to climb for investigators and for funding agencies[.]‘”

The participants in the Workshop seemed to be largely in agreement that journals could not, acting alone, re-shape “research culture to embrace consideration of sex differences as part of sound study design.”  There are steps that journals could (and should, I think) take short of dictating study design, though, including requiring study authors to tabulate and make available raw sex-specific data to facilitate future studies that draw on data from multiple trials.

Government agencies and other funders have a role to play too.  The NIH should more stringently enforce the statutory requirement that certain later-stage trials it funds be designed to evaluate sex-linked differences, and the FDA should take similar action with regard to trials funded by drug and device companies.

A study published last year by Sanket Dhruva, Lisa Bero, and Rita Redberg in the journal Circulation highlighted how little progress the FDA made on the device side over the last decade.  In 1994, the FDA issued a directive requiring that every time it makes a decision on an application for approval to market a new device, it issue a Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED) that includes, among other things, a “gender bias” statement addressing the following two questions: (1) Did the proportion of men and women in the clinical trial reflect the distribution of the disease? and (2) Were there any sex-linked differences in safety or effectiveness?  Dhruva and colleagues reviewed all of the of the SSEDs for all of the cardiovascular premarket approval applications submitted and approved between 2000 to 2007 and found (1) that women were underrepresented in the underlying clinical trials and (2) that less than half (41%) of the SSEDs included the required “gender bias comment or analysis.”  Nearly a third (28%) did not even report the percentages of men and women enrolled in the studies supporting the application.  And, there was no improvement over time; “[t]here was no change in the presence of gender bias comments or analyses over the 8-year period” studied.

The FDA has been working for several years to address the problem and in December of 2011 it released a draft guidance in which it “strongly recommends” that device companies work closely with the agency to “investigate and report differences in study outcomes of treatment by sex.”

The Guidance provides clear direction for companies regarding (1) increasing the percentage of enrollees in device trials who are women, (2) designing studies to allow for the “consideration of sex and associated covariates” such as body size, (3) analyzing study data for sex-linked differences, and (4) “reporting sex-specific information in summaries and labeling for approved devices.”  Whether these strong recommendations translate into strong and consistent agency action remains to be seen, but the Guidance is an excellent start.  As Carolyn Clancy, the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, who participated in the IOM Workshop, emphasized, “[b]etter data on women would be better data for everyone,” allowing for more specific clinical practice guidelines and better-tailored care of individual patients.

New Evidence on Smoking Marijuana and Lung Function; Update on New Jersey’s Nascent Medical Marijuana Program

This week’s JAMA includes an article reporting on new evidence that smoking marijuana does not negatively affect lung function. Smoking tobacco has long been known to harm the lungs and to increase the risk of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and lung cancer, both leading causes of death. The risks posed by smoking marijuana, on the other hand, have largely been assumed, based on the fact that “[m]arijuana smoke contains many of the same constituents as tobacco smoke[.]”

The authors of the JAMA article analyzed data from a 20-year longitudinal study of 5,115 people in 4 American cities who “comprise a broad cross-section of typical tobacco and marijuana use patterns” and found that “[w]ith up to 7 joint-years of lifetime exposure (e.g., 1 joint [a day] for 7 years or 1 joint [a week] for 49 years)” there was no evidence of an adverse effect on the lungs. Very heavy marijuana use in excess of 7 joint-years of lifetime exposure could prove harmful, but there were not enough heavy users in the study to demonstrate this.

High-quality epidemiological evidence like this latest JAMA study will be key to filling in the gaps in our knowledge about marijuana’s safety profile. While double-blinded randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard for evaluating the safety and efficacy of drugs, they are not always an option, particularly where the goal is to gather data over many years. Marijuana’s classification as a Schedule 1 controlled substance adds to the difficulty of mounting clinical trials. Given this, it is (or will be) a very good thing that New Jersey’s still-nascent medical marijuana program will include a registry of de-identified patient treatment and outcomes data that will allow researchers to learn more about the drug’s safety and efficacy.

The statute authorizing New Jersey’s medical marijuana program was passed two full years ago, in January 2010, but the road to implantation has been a long and rocky one. (My previous posts on the subject are here, here, here, and here.) While the Christie Administration is now on board, local towns have proved resistant to efforts to site alternative treatment centers that would grow and/or dispense marijuana there. In the Associated Press earlier this week, Geoff Mulvihill writes that “[s]o far, only one [of the six groups authorized by the state to operate alternative treatment centers] has announced that it has secured local approvals. … Three others have been shut out of their chosen locations by local government bodies, despite assurances that security at the dispensaries would be tight and that pot would be given only to patients who are truly sick.”

The state may be fighting back. Nina Rizzo reports in the Asbury Park Press that Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon has announced “that he will introduce legislation next week that would prohibit counties and municipalities from interfering with the development of medical marijuana cultivation and distribution centers by extending their protections under the Right to Farm Act.”

Such a heavy-handed approach may be necessary in the short term, to ensure that all six authorized alternative treatment centers can get off the ground. If the New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act and its regulations work as they are intended to, however, public confidence in the program should grow.

Physician Payment Sunshine Act Proposed Regulations Out

CMS has published proposed rules for its implementation of the Physician Payment Sunshine Act (SUNSHINE ACT or Act), which was enacted by Congress as part of the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.  In short, the SUNSHINE ACT requires life science companies to report annually to CMS their conferral of anything of value, whether it be payment for services or a dinner, in connection with a particular product of the paying company.  By requiring CMS to post the information on its website, the Act seeks to ensure that interested patients become aware of physicians’ conflicts of interest that could affect their prescription of a branded drug or choice of a specific medical device.

The SUNSHINE ACT represents another example of the transparency movement, which has had varying degrees of success in either changing the behavior of the parties subject to disclosure, and/or enabling consumers to make better decisions based upon their access to the disclosed information.  It is likely that the SUNSHINE ACT will impact physicians and manufacturers’ behavior more than it will enlighten consumers about conflicts of interest.  Some physicians will simply conclude that accepting certain gifts or benefits from pharmaceutical or medical device companies isn’t worth having their names on the CMS website.  Some companies have already discovered that they haven’t necessarily reaped the value of the costs of gifting many physicians, or that the cost of recording certain activities simply isn’t worth the return on investment.  Unquestionably, certain transactions will continue to be valuable to both physician and company, and will continue.

It is unlikely that most patients will access the information either before or after a physician visit, or know what to do with the information even if they discover that their physician has an equity interest in the knee she plans to use in next week’s surgery - does such a close relationship with the knee manufacturer signal that the physician is great, or that something nefarious is going on?  The information is likely to be used by consumer watchdog groups, as well as hospital formulary committees and medical school deans interested in knowing the sources and amounts of outside income being earned by faculty.  Divorce attorneys are likely to find the information useful if their client’s soon-to-be ex-spouse hasn’t reported significant pharma consulting fees as income.

CMS rulemaking is behind schedule, thereby delaying the SUNSHINE ACT’s implementation.  It is likely, however, that the ultimate rules will still require that 2012 data be submitted, even if not by the deadline originally contemplated by Congress.

The statute requires manufacturers of drugs, devices, biological or medical supplies covered by Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) (”applicable manufacturers”) to report annually to HHS payments or transfers of value to physicians and teaching hospitals (”covered recipients”).  Failure to comply will result in Civil Monetary Penalties.  HHS, in turn, must publish this information on a public web site which is searchable, downloadable and able to be aggregated.  Compliance with the SUNSHINE ACT’s reporting requirements does not exempt applicable manufacturers from application of fraud, waste and abuse laws.

Applicable Manufacturer

The proposed rule merges the SUNSHINE ACT definition of “manufacturer of a covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply”[1] with the statutory section clarifying that the entity covered by the SUNSHINE ACT must be “operating in the United States, or in a territory, possession, or commonwealth of the United States”[2] to define applicable manufacturer as one

(1)    Engaged in the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, or conversion of a covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply for sale or distribution in the United States, or in a territory, possession, or commonwealth of the United States; or

(2)    Under common ownership with an entity in paragraph (1) of this definition, which provides assistance or support to such entity with respect to the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion, marketing, promotion, sale, or distribution of a covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply for the sale or distribution in the United States, or in a territory, possession, or commonwealth of the United States.

The operative activity that invokes statutory coverage, then, is sale of a product in the United States, as opposed to where the product is produced, or where the entity is located or incorporated. Pursuant to the rationale that risks inhere in conflicts of interest irrespective of where the manufacturer is located if the product is sold in the United States, any entity under common ownership with the manufacturer that is involved in the production, distribution or sale of at least one covered product in the United States must report all payments and conferral of value upon covered recipients. Further, as proposed, the product sponsor (i.e., the entity that obtained FDA approval) is subject to the reporting requirement, even if the sponsor is not involved in the manufacture of the covered product.  CMS is considering alternative interpretations of the common ownership concept.

Covered Drug, Device, Biological, or Medical Supply (”covered product”)

The SUNSHINE ACT focuses upon those products for which Medicare, Medicaid and CHIP pay.  This is relatively straightforward in many contexts, but CMS seeks to ensure that it captures situations where such products are part of a composite rate payment, such as the inpatient or outpatient hospital reimbursement, or the end-stage renal disease prospective payment system.  As such, CMS proposes to define “covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply” as:

Any drug, device, biological, or medical supply for which payment is available under Title XVIII of the Act or under a State plan under title XIX or XXI (or a waiver of such plan), either separately, as part of a fee schedule payment, or as part of a composite payment rate (for example, the hospital inpatient prospective payment system or the hospital outpatient prospective payment system).  With respect to a drug or biological, this definition is limited to those drug and biological products that, by law, require a prescription to be dispensed.  With respect to a device or medical supply, this definition is limited to those devices (including medical supplies) that, by law, require premarket approval by or premarket notification to the Food and Drug Administration.

CMS seeks comments on its plan to exclude from the scope of regulation those manufacturers who produce and sell only over the counter (OTC) products.  More specifically, this exemption would not extend to a manufacturer who sells even one prescription product who is otherwise subject to the reporting requirements of the SUNSHINE ACT.  Similarly, CMS seeks to interpret the SUNSHINE ACT to cover only those medical devices that require premarket approval, on the theory that this is the segment of the market most likely to have extensive provider relationships.  If a device manufacturer produces a single product that requires pre-market approval, it would have to report all payments and conferrals of value to covered recipients.

Covered Recipients

The SUNSHINE ACT defines “covered recipients” as (1) a physician, other than a physician who is an employee of an applicable manufacturer; or (2) a teaching hospital.   The term physician includes both doctors of medicine and osteopathy as well as podiatrists, optometrists and licensed chiropractors. CMS interprets the statute to include within its scope those who act on behalf of covered recipients.  Teaching hospital is not defined by the statute; CMS seeks comments on its proposal to identify such entities by virtue of their receipt of Medicare graduate medical education funds. CMS will publish this list annually on its website for manufacturers’ reference.

CMS plans to utilize the National Plan & Provider Enumeration System, which it maintains on its website, to collect the data regarding covered recipients required by the SUNSHINE ACT: covered recipient’s name and business address, and, for physicians, the National Provider Identifier and specialty.

Payments or Other Transfers of Value

The report must also include the date, form (i.e., cash, stock, ownership interest), nature (i.e., education, research, consulting fees, food) and amount of payment, and the market name of the product associated with the payment.  CMS continues to consider how to handle payments made to a single covered recipient related to multiple products.  CMS seeks to generate data in a form most easily understood by consumers.

The statutory definition requires such conferrals to be reported irrespective of whether they were requested by the physician or hospital and includes those made by third parties as long as the applicable manufacturer knows the identity of the covered recipient. CMS proposes that payments made through a group practice be reported under the specific recipient physician’s name.  If a physician requests the conferral to be directed to another physician or entity, the manufacturer should report the conferral under the requesting physician’s name as well as the name of the actual recipient.

Charitable contributions by an applicable manufacturer to, at the request of, or on behalf of a covered recipient are reportable.

The SUNSHINE ACT excludes from its reporting requirement the following payments:

• Transfers of value less than $10, unless the aggregated amount exceeds $100 in a calendar year
• Product samples not intended to be sold that are intended for patient use
• Educational materials that directly benefit patients or are intended for patient use
• The loan of a covered device for a period not to exceed 90 days, to permit evaluation
• Items or services provided under a contractual warranty
• A transfer of value or payment to a covered recipient when that person is receiving the conferral in his/her capacity as a patient
• Discounts, including rebates
• In-kind items used for the provision of charity care
• A dividend or profit distribution from ownership or investment interest in a publicly traded security or mutual fund
• Self-insurance payments to covered employees by an applicable manufacturer
• Non-medical services
• Transfers of value made by third parties where the applicable manufacturer is unaware of the identity of the covered individual

CMS will be moving rapidly to respond to comments and finalize these rules, which will likely involve changes from the discussion here.  State laws that pre-date the Act are pre-empted to the extent that they require reporting of the same information, which leaves them the discretion to retain those reporting requirements that are not redundant.  States seeking to impose as much of a burden on manufacturers as possible are likely to retain their individualized reporting requirements, others may find the costs not worth the benefits now that the feds have finally stepped in.

---

[1] Section 1128G(e)(9).

[2] Subsection (e)(2) further clarifies that the entity covered by the SUNSHINE ACT must be “operating in the United States, or in a territory, possession, or commonwealth of the United States.”

Venture Capitalists Complain of ‘Regulatory Challenges,’ FDA Responds

Writing in this month’s Fortune, Dan Primack is the latest to raise the alarm about indications that venture capital funding of life sciences startups is on the decline.  The decline in funding is cause for concern because venture capital-funded startups are, in the words of Tracy Lefteroff of PricewaterhouseCoopers, “where all the drugs are coming from[.]“  “[L]arge pharma[,]” Lefteroff explains, has “been extremely ineffective at developing pipeline drugs internally.”

While there are still “plenty of venture dollars … going into the [life sciences] sector,” Primack reports, they are going to mature companies.  Startups, on the other hand, “are having a much tougher go of it, with 17% fewer raising venture capital during the first three quarters of 2011 than during the same period in 2010.”  According to Primack, “a number of veteran VC firms are formally ending their pursuit of pharma startups.”

What explains the increasing reluctance to invest in the life sciences sector?  The venture capitalists blame “regulatory challenges,” primarily “the hostile FDA.”   Primack quotes Kate Mitchell, co-founder and Managing Director of Scale Venture Partners, a venture capital firm which recently announced that it will make no new healthcare investments, as follows: “It just takes a lot longer now to get approval than it used to, or to even know what the [Food & Drug Administration] is thinking.  One of our companies, Prestwick Pharmaceuticals, supposedly was put on a ‘fast track,’ but it still took another three years before receiving FDA approval.  It’s incredibly frustrating and means we need to invest more to keep the companies running.”

The Medical Innovation and Competitiveness (MedIC) Coalition, a group of “life science investors, innovators and entrepreneurs,” has been lobbying hard for the FDA to approve more drugs and devices more quickly, that is, without the careful review of efficacy and safety that it currently undertakes.  Specifically, they have prioritized “[r]ebalancing benefit-risk assessments in the drug and device approval processes to appropriately reflect the value of new therapies to patients in need” and “[e]xpanding the accelerated approval pathway into a progressive approval system for drugs, diagnostics and medical devices.”  MedIC also believes that the FDA’s conflict of interest policy threatens to “hinder[] patient access to new treatments.”  It argues for increased “utilization of non-government outside experts to facilitate and strengthen the FDA review and approval process,” presumably experts who would be barred from serving by the FDA’s current conflicts policy.

Not all of MedIC’s priorities are so extreme.  They have also called for more timely, consistent, and transparent decision-making at FDA, while acknowledging that to achieve these ends the agency must be “well resourced and endowed with state-of-the-art scientific tools, clinical input, processes and procedures.”  With this, even the most ardent consumer advocate can agree, and the FDA has recently acted to improve its decision-making in ways that do not risk sacrificing health and safety.  This is a promising development.  The results of a recent survey of venture capitalists suggests that increasing the predictability and speed of the FDA’s decision-making would have a higher impact on their willingness to invest in the life sciences sector than would “rebalancing” the agency’s weighing of safety and efficacy.

Distribution Controls: A Potentially Powerful Weapon Against Inappropriate or Dangerous Off-Label Use

When supplies of sodium thiopental dried up earlier this year, states turned to other drugs to carry out executions by lethal injection.  The anti-seizure drug pentobarbital, marketed as Nembutal, is one such drug.  An estimated two-thirds of the thirty-four states with the death penalty have switched or considered switching to Nembutal; states that have made the switch include Georgia, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas.  As of earlier this month, Nembutal had been used in eighteen executions this year.

Like sodium thiopental, Nembutal is an off-patent drug that serves a relatively small market.  The sole company licensed to manufacture Nembutal in the United States, the Danish firm Lundbeck Inc., has been the target of a public relations and investment campaign by human rights activists calling for the end to the use of the drug in executions.  Lundbeck has never sold Nembutal directly to prisons, however, and initially the company said that there was nothing it could do to control the drug’s re-sale.  As a spokesperson explained:

We can’t withdraw the product because it is used for treating severe epilepsy and sometimes it’s the only treatment option.  All we can do is write to the prisons urging them to stop misusing using our product which was designed to help sick people.  It’s a really unfortunate situation.

Earlier this month, Lundbeck announced that it had determined that there were steps it could take beyond letter writing.  The company considered ceasing production of the drug altogether–it represents less than one percent of the company’s sales and is, in the company’s words, “economically insignificant”–but decided against doing so in light of survey evidence that the fifty million doses of the drug it sells in the United States each year are important for treating epilepsy that is severe and refractory (that is, unresponsive to other drugs).

Lundbeck decided instead to distribute Nembutal through Cardinal Health’s Specialty Pharmaceutical Services on a “drop-ship” basis, directly to hospitals.  Less than ten percent of drugs are distributed directly to end-user customers in this way, typically “cancer treatments that are expensive, difficult to make, or not in high demand.”  Lundbeck will review each Nembutal order and deny those from “from prisons in states currently active in carrying out death penalty sentences.”  Every purchaser will be required to represent in writing “that the purchase of [Nembutal] is for its own use and that it will not redistribute any purchased product without the express written authorization of Lundbeck.”  Lundbeck’s CEO has warned that the company will take unspecified “legal action” against any purchaser who violates these terms.

Lundbeck’s decision to use a drop-ship program and purchaser agreements to take responsibility for the off-label uses to which its product is put once it leaves the company’s control raises the question whether other companies could or should be asked to do the same.  In some cases, issues of scale will foreclose such an approach.  In other cases, a company and/or regulators may have concerns about inappropriate or dangerous off-label use but not be able to link it to an easily identified class of would-be purchasers like “prisons in states currently active in carrying out death penalty sentences.”  (Note that even in Lundbeck’s case the agreements are overbroad to the extent that they deny access to Nembutal to prisoners in death penalty states who need the drug to treat severe, refractory epilepsy.)  In still other cases, however, taking control of distribution will be a feasible, and powerful, compliance tool.  The Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for Lazanda (fentanyl) Nasal Spray, recently posted to the Food and Drug Administration website, which provides that would-be distributors enroll in the REMS program and agree to limit their distribution to specially-certified pharmacies which are also enrolled in the program, is just one example.

FDA Recalls and Selective Analysis

Researchers at the National Research Center for Women & Families and the Cleveland Clinic published a controversial report in the Archives of Internal Medicine in February.   The research team, led by Diana Zuckerman, analyzed high-risk medical device recalls from 2005 to 2009.  The report concludes that “reform of the [510(k)] regulatory process is needed to ensure the safety of medical devices.”

510(k) Process: Cause for Concern?

Zuckerman’s team determined that of the 113 recalls from 2005 through 2009, eighty (71%) medical devices — or the vast majority of those recalled — passed through the 510(k) process.  Twenty-one (19%) medical devices had passed through the more rigorous premarket approval process and eight (7%) were exempted from review.

Consumer advocates and the study authors argue that the disproportionate number of medical devices recalled after being reviewed under the 510(k) process demonstrates the need to reform the review process.   But do these statistics demonstrate a flaw in the 510(k) process?

Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), an industry lobbying group says no.  It calls the study flawed.  Why?  The vast majority of devices (~90%) are cleared through the 510(k) process.   Therefore, it would be expected that more recalls are for 510(k) cleared devices.  A 2010 AdvaMed report, analyzed the recall rates for the PMA approval and 510(k) clearance processes.  The report demonstrated that the overall recall rate was very low for both — less than 1% and that PMA approved devices were more likely to be recalled.

In fact, during the Zuckerman study period, 19,000 devices were cleared through the 510(k) process, making the overall recall rate for 510(k) cleared devices approximately 0.4%.

When NPR asked Zuckerman to compare her study with the AdvaMed study, she agreed that most devices had not been recalled. “But I’m taking the public health perspective. How many people have been harmed by these products? We know that 112.6 million devices have been recalled in the last five years. That’s a lot of products. We know thousands of people have died. And those are deaths that did not have to happen.”

But what about all the lives saved?  Mark Adelman, MD, of the NYU Langone Medical Center in New York City, counters, “While some lives have been lost by expedited approval, many lives have been saved by getting better devices to market quickly. How many lives have been saved by the 510(k) fast track?”  Public health advocates, like Zuckerman, would offer a more complete analysis if they took account of both the risks and the benefits in their evaluation of the FDA approval processes.

Misclassification and Proper Review Path?

What if the processes are adequate, but some devices get thrown in the wrong review bucket?  Physicians Rita Redberg and Sanket Dhruva of USC San Francisco wrote in the invited commentary that “Zuckerman and colleagues demonstrate the dangers to patient safety posed by these innumerable device misclassifications.”  The Zuckerman report focused on “high-risk” recalls, or “those that could cause serious health problems or death.”

The report states that “[o]f the recalled devices cleared for market through the 510(k) process, 12% were marketed for risky or life sustaining Class III indications, which are required by law to undergo a full PMA regulatory review.”  In an email to MedPage Today, study author Steven Nissen, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, elaborated:

There should be NO recalls for ’serious injuries or death’ amongst 510(k) approved devices. The FDA is supposed to require a PMA for Class III devices, those used to sustain life or preserve health. If a PMA is required for devices used to support or sustain life, why were so many of the devices recalled for ’serious injury or death’ originally approved using 510(k)?

Unfortunately, Nissen conflates risk of injury with the life-sustaining capacity of the device.  Although the failure of a Class III device will more likely result in serious injury or death, medical devices in all three Classes may cause serious injury or death if improperly designed or manufactured.  But maybe there is something to this.

Strengthening 510(k) process

What about the steps the FDA has already taken to improve the process?  In late 2009, the FDA began a review of its 510(k) process.  Last August, 55 recommendations were issued by two working groups.  In January, the FDA announced the adoption of 25 changes to the 410(k) process to take place this year.

According to Dr. Jerry Avorn, a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School in Boston, “The current FDA leadership has been trying to improve the carefulness of device review, and that is very good for patients. But those attempts have been met by self-serving complaints from the device industry that better review and surveillance will somehow stifle innovation, which is not the case.”  Avorn suggests that both industry innovation and consumer safety can be achieved.

Meanwhile, the Institute of Medicine is working on a comprehensive report, commissioned by the FDA, on what’s wrong with medical device regulation. That’s due later this year.

Left to Our Own Devices?

Lucia Burgos sued Satiety, Inc. after an experimental stomach stapling device perforated her esophagus.  Her first complaint was dismissed on preemption grounds, but she was given permission to “replead her claims as state-law parallel claims.”  So called “state-law parallel claims” are state law tort claims where the duty that the defendant manufacturer is alleged to have violated stems from the Food Drug & Cosmetic Act or its implementing regulations.  Such claims are not preempted because they do not impose additional duties on defendants, beyond those imposed by Congress and the Food & Drug Administration.

Ms. Burgos amended her complaint to state two new claims, including a state law negligence cause of action founded on Satiety’s alleged failure to manufacture the device in conformance with the requirements of its investigational device exemption (IDE).  Ms. Burgos believes that it was the device (as opposed to human error) that caused her injury because of an incident report filed by her treatment team, but, because the documentation supporting the FDA’s grant of an IDE is confidential, her complaint does not specify how the device deviated from the IDE.  On April 5, 2011, Judge John Gleeson of the Eastern District of New York held that Ms. Burgos had stated a claim for negligence and that, despite the lack of specifics, her suit could proceed “to a brief and strictly-cabined period of discovery in order to determine the terms of Satiety’s IDE, and to explore whether or not the specific device used in her procedure was manufactured in accordance with the IDE.”

The Burgos case is of interest to civil procedure buffs because of what the BNA Medical Research Law & Policy Report characterized as Judge Gleeson’s “liberal approach” to the pleading of parallel claims, but it is important to the rest of us, too, because of what it tells us about the state of the products liability backstop to FDA’s oversight of medical devices.  In the words of Ms. Burgos’ attorney, there is only a “narrow window” for parallel claims.

The limited recourse that those injured by medical devices have in court makes the FDA’s pre-market clearance and approval processes and its post-market surveillance and recall oversight efforts that much more important.  Testimony given earlier this month by Marcia Crosse, Health Care Director at the Government Accountability Office, before the Senate’s Special Committee on Aging suggests that there is cause for concern.  As Ms. Crosse explained, in January 2009 the GAO issued a report in which it “found that a significant number of high-risk devices-including device types that FDA has identified as implantable; life sustaining; or posing a significant risk to the health, safety, or welfare of a patient-were cleared for the U.S. market through FDA’s less stringent 510(k) review process.”  Section 510(k) of the FD&C Act allows for streamlined review and clearance of devices that are shown to be substantially equivalent to devices already on the market.  Data from clinical trials is typically not required to make this showing.

The FDA agreed with the GAO’s 2009 recommendations.  If the devices at issue did not actually belong in the highest-risk class, Class III, they should be re-classified.  On the other hand, if they did belong in Class III, they should be subject to the more stringent premarket approval process, which typically requires clinical data in support of an agency determination that a device is safe and effective for its intended use.  In her testimony, Ms. Crosse noted that, to date, the FDA has issued a final rule reclassifying one device — a blood test for herpes — from Class III to Class II.  Rules regarding the classification of another five devices are pending.  “There are still 26 types of high-risk devices, including, for example, automated external defibrillators and implantable hip joints, that can enter the market via 510(k).”  Moreover, since January 2009, “FDA cleared at least 67 individual submissions that fall within 12 of these class III device types through the 510(k) process.”

While the GAO has not completed its review of the FDA’s post-market activities, Ms. Crosse testified that their “preliminary findings suggest that shortcomings in FDA’s oversight of the medical device recall process may limit the agency’s ability to ensure that the highest-risk recalls are being implemented in an effective and timely manner. These shortcomings span the entire range of the agency’s oversight activities-from the lack of a broad-based program to systematically assess trends in recalls, to inconsistencies in the way FDA ensures the effective completion of individual recalls.”

Why Reduce Health Care Costs?

One rare point of elite consensus is that the US needs to reduce health care costs. Frightening graphs expose America as a spendthrift outlier. Before he decamped to Citigroup, the President’s OMB director warned about how important it was to “bend the cost curve.” The President’s opponents are even more passionate about austerity.

Journalists and academics support that political consensus. Andrew Sullivan calls health spending a “giant suck from the rest of the working economy.” Gregg Bloche estimates that “the 30% of health care spending that’s wasted on worthless care” is “about the price of the $700 billion mortgage bailout, squandered every year.” He calls rising health spending an “existential challenge,” menacing other “national priorities.” Perhaps inspired by Children of the Corn, George Mason economist Robin Hanson compares modern medicine to a voracious brat:

King Solomon famously threatened to cut a disputed baby in half, to expose the fake mother who would permit such a thing. The debate over medicine today is like that baby, but with disputants who won’t fall for Solomon’s trick. The left says markets won’t ensure everyone gets enough of the precious medical baby. The right says governments produce a much inferior baby. I say: cut the baby in half, dollar-wise, and throw half away! Our “precious” medical baby is in fact a vast monster filling our great temple, whose feeding starves our people and future. Half a monster is plenty.

But when you scratch the surface of these sentiments, you have to wonder: is the overall level of health care spending really the most important threat facing the country? Is it one of the most important threats? There are many ways to raise revenue to pay for rising health costs. Aspects of the Affordable Care Act, like ACOs and pilot projects, are designed to help root out unnecessary care.

I am happy to join the crusade against waste. But why focus on total health spending as particularly egregious or worrisome? Let’s explore some of the usual rationales.

Terrible Tax Expenditures and Suspect Subsidies?

Employment-based insurance gets favorable tax treatment, and much Medicare and Medicaid spending is drawn from general revenues. So, the story goes, medicine’s big spenders don’t have enough “skin in the game.” Once health and wealth are traded off at the personal level (as the Harvard Business School’s Clayton Christensen advocates), people will be much less likely to demand so much care. Government can attend to other national priorities, or individuals will enjoy higher incomes and will be free to spend more.

I respect these arguments to a point, but I worry they partake of the “nirvana fallacy.” If I could be certain that leviathan would repurpose all those wasted health care dollars on infrastructure, or green energy, or smart defense, or healthier agriculture, I’d be ready to end tax-advantaged health insurance in an instant. But I find it hard to imagine Washington going in any of these directions presently.

Giving tax dollars back to taxpayers also sounds great, until one processes exactly how unequal our income distribution is. In 2004, “the top 0.1% — that’s one-tenth of one percent — had more combined pre-tax income than the poorest 120 million people.” To the extent health-related taxes are cut, very wealthy households may see millions per year in income gains; the median household might enjoy thousands of dollars per year. Sure, middle income families will find important uses for those funds (other than bidding up the price of housing and education). But at what price? What if the insurance systems start collapsing without subsidies, and more physicians (who are already expressing a desire to work less) start seeking out pure cash practices? A few interactions with the the very wealthy may be far more lucrative than dozens of ordinary appointments.

Consider the math: billing a $20,000 retainer from each of 50 millionaires annually may be a lot more attractive to physicians than trying to wrangle up 500 patients paying $2000 each—or, worse, getting the money from their insurers. There are about 10 million millionaires in the US; that’s a lot of buying power. One $10,000 score by a cosmetic dentist from such a client could be worth 400 visits from Medicaid patients seeking diagnostic procedures. Providers are voting with their feet, and a Medicaid card is already on its way to becoming a “useless piece of plastic” for many patients. Given those trends, simply reducing health care “purchasing power” generally risks some very troubling outcomes for the very people the health care cost cutters claim to protect. No one should welcome a health care plutonomy, where the richest 5% consume 35% of services, regardless of how sick they are.

Is Anyone Underpaid in Health Care?

Health commentators rightly draw attention to big insurer CEO paydays. Top layers of management at hospitals and pharma firms are also getting scrutiny. Wonks are up in arms about specialist pay. Read more

Antibiotic Resistance on the Rise, Thanks to Capital Misallocation on a Grand Scale

After Makena: Could a Risk Corridors Approach Balance Incentives and Access?

The past few weeks have been worrying ones for expectant mothers who wanted a hormonal treatment designed to stop preterm births. As Rob Stein of the WaPo explains,

A form of progesterone known as 17P was used for years to reduce the risk of preterm birth. . . Because no companies marketed the drug, women obtained it cheaply from “compounding” pharmacies, which produced individual batches for them [at about $20 each]. Doctors and regulators had long worried about the purity and consistency of the drug and were pleased when KV won FDA’s imprimatur for a well-studied version, which the company is selling as Makena.

The list price for the drug, Makena, turned out to be a stunning $1,500 per dose. That’s for a drug that must be injected every week for about 20 weeks, meaning it will cost about $30,000 per at-risk pregnancy. . . . The approval of Makena gave the company seven years of exclusive rights, and KV immediately fired off letters to compounding pharmacies, warning that they could no longer sell their versions of drug.

A day after Stein’s article appeared, the FDA made it clear that it “does not intend to take enforcement action against pharmacies that compound” 17P, “in order to support access to this important drug, at this time and under this unique situation.”

This is a fascinating, and in some ways, troubling response to the accusations of price-gouging by KV. Compounding pharmacists had already averred that “many of [KV's] assertions that the compounding of an FDA approved product is prohibited are not supported by the legal citations it references.” Though the FDA’s letter preserves access to 17P for now, that access could be revoked at any time. As the FDA states on its website:

FDA understands that the manufacturer of Makena, KV Pharmaceuticals, has sent letters to pharmacists indicating that FDA will no longer exercise enforcement discretion with regard to compounded versions of Makena. This is not correct. In order to support access to this important drug, at this time and under this unique situation, FDA does not intend to take enforcement action against pharmacies that compound hydroxyprogesterone caproate based on a valid prescription for an individually identified patient unless the compounded products are unsafe, of substandard quality, or are not being compounded in accordance with appropriate standards for compounding sterile products. As always, FDA may at any time revisit a decision to exercise enforcement discretion.

Moreover, the problem persists for at least one other drug, colchicine. As Arthur Allen explains at Slate,

The colchicine and [17P] stories have their roots in the FDA’s historically complex relationship with the drug industry. Since 1962, the agency has required that all new drugs be proven safe and efficacious before hitting the market. Many drugs marketed before 1962, however, remain on sale without having been formally approved by the FDA and are technically illegal. In 2006, the FDA launched the Unapproved Drugs Initiative, aimed at getting rid of as many of these drugs as possible. . . .

The FDA campaign has two approaches. In some cases, the agency simply warns companies to stop producing and shipping unlicensed drugs by a given date. In other cases the FDA warns a group of companies producing a particular class of drug, notifying them that it plans to crack down on their unapproved substances. The idea here is to give the companies an opportunity to submit their drugs to the rigorous testing required for FDA approval. This is what happened with . . . at least 86 newly approved drugs. The problem is that after submitting such drugs to expensive testing, drug makers typically jack up the prices, in a position to do so under congressional patent incentives aimed at producing innovative drug research. The FDA has no say in how a drug is priced.

As the Post notes, KV says it “is spending more than $200 million to develop the drug and conduct follow-up studies that the Food and Drug Administration demands.” Had it kept its pricing power, it was estimated that Makena would cost the US health care system $4 billion per year. Assuming that 3/4 of that would be revenue to Makena, and it lasted for the full 7 years of exclusivity, that would be a $21 billion return on a $0.2 billion investment. That seems excessive, especially given that KV didn’t develop the drug. On the other hand, if the Makena price were to be reduced one hundredfold, that’s a $0.21 billion return on a $0.2 billion investment. Unless we hit some serious deflation, that doesn’t cover the time value of the money invested in studies and development.

Are there any better models here? Stein’s story says that “experts said the FTC could sue KV if it concludes the company is illegally impairing competition,” but I don’t see the theory there. The FTC has lamented post-merger price hikes for life sustaining drugs (see FTC v. Lundbeck), but has precious little authority over price hikes here. Perhaps liberal constitutional law professors could fuse the “medical self-defense” theory of Eugene Volokh with the expansive Yoo/Vermeule/Posner theories of executive power, and find inherent executive authority here to save preemies? Probably not; the current Supreme Court is only receptive to creative con law from one side of the political spectrum.

Another idea is for legislation to create “risk corridors” for researchers who engage in the FDA’s Unapproved Drugs program, as CMS has for prescription drug insurance plans in Medicare Part D. As Kip Piper explains,

Using a system of risk corridors that compares actual incurred drug benefit costs to estimated costs submitted in bids, Medicare limits the profits and losses of Part D drug plans. Specifically, if a Medicare drug plan’s actual benefit costs exceed expected (bid) levels by a sufficient degree, the plan will receive an additional federal payment to cover a portion of the loss. However, if a drug plan’s actual spending falls sufficiently below projections, the plan must share some of the profit with the feds. Risk corridors apply to actual and expected drug benefits costs but exclude plan administrative costs and federal reinsurance payments.

Unfortunately, estimates of the value of testing unapproved drugs vary widely. The FDA’s director of the FDA’s Office of New Drugs and Labeling Compliance insists on the importance of these programs. But, looking specifically at colchicine, an Austin rheumatologist said “Doing one trial in patients and a few drug interaction studies doesn’t justify marketing exclusivity and a 50-fold increase in price.” As Allen puts it, we need “legislative remedies to improve the drug supply without costing the public an arm and a leg.”

In health care finance, the “cost-shift” hydraulic is a familiar model. When policymakers cut reimbursements for, say, Medicare or Medicaid, providers still have the same income target, and respond by raising prices for the privately insured. One scholar estimated that the privately insured pay over 120% of costs, while Medicare payments are between 95 and 99%. We might think of pharmaceutical patents as another manifestation of “cost-shifting,” from the future (which will enjoy drugs in the public domain) to the present (which must pay the monopolist’s price). Other forms of exclusivity can also lead to that type of cost-shift, as the Makena controversy makes clear. Perhaps the people most benefited by a regime of pharmacovigilance and evidence-based medicine should be asked to pay something for that new reassurance. But they shouldn’t be price gouged. A risk corridors approach might better balance patients’ interests in research on, and reasonable prices for, unapproved drugs.

Report Raises Questions About ‘Fast Track’ FDA Device Approvals

A report was published last month that seriously calls into question the effectiveness of the FDA’s regulation of medical devices. Authored by Diana Zuckerman Ph.D. et al., in the Archives of Internal Medicine, the report investigates the two-pronged process that governs medical device regulation under the FDA.

The first prong, known as the premarket approval (PMA) pathway, requires a device company to prove that its medical device is safe and effective. PMA applies to Class III devices which are defined by regulation to include those devices that support or sustain human life, are of substantial importance in preventing impairment of human health, or which present a potential, unreasonable risk of illness or injury. Class III devices include heart valves, pacemakers, and artificial hips.

The second (and less stringent) prong is what is known as the 510(k) pathway. As the FDA states:

A 510(k) is a premarket submission made to FDA to demonstrate that the device to be marketed is at least as safe and effective, that is, substantially equivalent, to a legally marketed device . . . A legally marketed device . . . is a device that was legally marketed prior to May 28, 1976 (preamendments device), for which a PMA is not required . . . or a device which has been found [substantially equivalent] through the 510(k) process.

The upshot is that as long as the device manufacturer can demonstrate that their device is “substantially equivalent” to a “predicate device” that has presumably passed the more stringent PMA process, they are subject to far less exacting standards. Most notable is the fact that these iterations of devices approved through the 510(k) pathway do not require specific evidence of clinical safety and effectiveness; they can bootstrap off of the predicate.

Zuckerman’s study examined the recalls of medical devices and whether those devices were approved under the PMA or 510(k) process. The authors found that:

There were 113 recalls from 2005 through 2009 that the FDA determined could cause serious health problems or death. Only 21 of the 113 devices had been approved through the PMA process (19%). Eighty were cleared through the 510(k) process (71%), and an additional 8 were exempt from any FDA regulation (7%). Cardiovascular devices comprised the largest recall category, with 35 of the high-risk recalls (31%); two-thirds were cleared by the 510(k) process (66%; n = 23). Fifty-one percent of the high-risk recalls were in 5 other device categories: general hospital, anesthesiology, clinical chemistry,neurology, or ophthalmology.

The authors conclude that:

Most medical devices recalled for life-threatening or very serious hazards were originally cleared for market using the less stringent 510(k) process or were considered so low risk that they were exempt from review (78%). These findings suggest that reform of the regulatory process is needed to ensure the safety of medical devices.

Not surprisingly, the medical device industry doesn’t  agree with Zuckerman’s findings. Stephen J. Ubl, the CEO of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, has pointed to “three recent studies [that] have all found that the 510(k) process has a remarkable safety record with extremely low recall rates–one study reported a rate of less than two-tenths of one percent.”

Aside from the issue of whether 510(k)-approved devices pose a greater risk of recall, health care professionals have underscored a more systemic problem relating to the paucity of evidence-based medicine supporting medical devices.  Orthopedic surgeon Dr. Andrew Pearle told ABC News in a recent report that,  ”[s]ince patients are exposed to new products through direct-to-patient marketing, they assume these products have been time-tested and well-established. But often there is little clinical data to support the marketing claims.”

The FDA believes there is enough of an issue to warrant a reevaluation of the 510(k) process. This past January the FDA announced that it will be revisiting the 510(k) process. A press release describes the key actions to include:

• Streamlining the “de novo” review process for certain innovative, lower-risk medical devices,
• Clarifying when clinical data should be submitted in a premarket submission, guidance that will increase the efficiency and transparency of the review process,
• Establishing a new Center Science Council of senior FDA experts to assure timely and consistent science-based decision making.

Meanwhile, individuals with recalled artificial hips manufactured by DePuy Orthopaedics are determining whether to undergo a new operation to replace the recalled equipment. Somewhat ironically, DePuy just unveiled a new line of artificial hips last month that also received approval through the fast-tracked 510(k) pathway.

Professor Emeritus Margaret Gilhooley: “Drug User Fees, Health Priorities, Politics, the Deficit and Reform Directions”

Professor Emeritus Margaret Gilhooley of Seton Hall Law has posted “Drug User Fees, Health Priorities, Politics, the Deficit and Reform Directions” to SSRN. The paper examines the FDA’s funding mechanism in relationship to industry and raises questions as to the appropriateness of the arrangement as presently configured. The abstract alone is telling:

Abstract:
The Food and Drug Administration now depends on user fees paid by drug companies to support more than half the salaries of the medical reviewers who advise the agency on the appropriateness of approving a drug. The funding creates a substantial risk of “capture” of the agency by the industry. Under the program, which started in 1992, drug companies pay a fee that permits the agency to hire additional reviewers to make more timely reviews on whether a drug can be approved. Under the law, the agency seeks to meet performance goals for the timing of reviews, giving the program the appearance of having a fee-for-service basis.

The legislative authorization for the fees expires every five years, and the agency and the industry negotiate behind closed doors on the renewal and the performance goals for the reviews. The need for renewal creates an opportunity for the passage of laws that might not have been enacted separately. Some believe the Administration may accept measures of debatable merit to avoid having to layoff needed reviewers. Limiting the user fee support to half the Government appropriation for the program, and making the program permanent can alleviate the capture and linkage problems.

This paper maintains that reforms and changes in the policy rationale for the program are needed before locking-in a permanent funding commitment at a time of debate about growing budget shortfalls. Instead of a fee-for-service rationale, the program should be based on a health review rationale. A study is needed to identify better priority rankings and goals for drug reviews, rather than the simple categories and negotiations that now exist. To avoid the risk of capture, the revenues from the fees should not exceed the Government funding for the program. Making the fee program permanent would address the linkage problem but providing permanent funding can undercut Congress’ responsibility to determine important budget allocations in a time of concern about deficits. If the program is made permanent, the law should make clear that Congress can reduce the funding level for the fees to deal equitably with funding cutbacks in other programs made in light deficit considerations. Congress should also have to approve any major increases in the fee levels. The significance of the user fee program and the reforms needed, before it is made permanent, warrant wide attention.

Lawsuit Against Guidant for Making False Statements (Again)

As we reported a little while back, the Department of Justice obtained what FDA Commissioner Hamburg declared “the largest criminal penalty ever imposed on a device manufacturer for violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act” against Boston Scientific subsidiary, Guidant LLC.

Following this record breaking performance, the Department of Justice filed suit against Guidant LLC on January 27, 2011.  Yes, that is correct — Guidant is once again subject to a federal claim resulting from false statements made regarding three models of its implantable cardioverter defibrillators that were recalled for short-circuiting failures.  This time, however, it is alleged that “Guidant knowingly caused the submission of false or fraudulent claims for implants of faulty… devices to the Medicare program” in violation of the False Claims Act.

John R. Marti, First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota was quoted in the Department of Justice press release stating:

When companies like Guidant request and receive federal dollars for products they know to be defective, the United States is committed to aggressively seeking the recovery of those payments. That is especially true when the defective products endanger human lives. In today’s environment, it is essential that Medicare and other public health care programs be made whole to ensure their continued vitality for future generations.

Well that makes sense.  But why bring the False Claims Act claim separately from the claims for violations of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (”FDCA”)?  The most obvious reason is as follows: the Department of Justice did not bring the False Claims Act claim against Guidant.  The United States joined a lawsuit filed by qui tam relator James Allen, a patient who allegedly received a defective device.

The complaint alleges that approximately 2,000 false claims were submitted to the Medicare program.  It also includes ten examples of individual false claims ranging from $20,201.14 to $ 46,130.20.  With treble damages and civil penalties of not less than $5,500 and up to $11,000 for each violation, the recovery could range anywhere from $132 million to $298 million.  The record-breaking $296 million in fines and forfeitures for violations of the FDCA standing alone looked formidable; coupled with this latest volley, it is staggering– a potential total minimum of $428 million, maximum  of just shy of $600 million.

According to Fox News, Boston Scientific “is disappointed that the federal government, after reaching a criminal resolution with Guidant LLC, has chosen to seek additional money in a civil lawsuit.  However, the company believes that the ultimate resolution of this matter should not have a significant financial impact.”

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Do I Need 9 Lives Just to Get a Cat Scan?

Tonight’s post will be relatively brief, as I wish only to call attention to another post and a particularly disturbing number contained therein. The post was published over at The Health Care Blog by Robert Wachter, MD, a leading figure in the modern patient safety movement. It is entitled “A Game-Changing Statistic: 1 in 250.” It is. Or at least it should be. You should take a minute or two to read it– it’s provoking, and not in a good way.

The 1 in 250 refers to the odds of getting cancer from a single CT scan.

Wachter writes:

Last month, my colleague Rebecca Smith-Bindman, professor of radiology, epidemiology, and ob/gyn at UCSF and one of the nation’s experts in the risks of radiographs, gave Medical Grand Rounds at UCSF. Her talk was brimming with amazing statistics, but this is the one that took my breath away:

A 20-year old woman who gets an abdominal-pelvic CT scan (i.e., just about any young woman coming to the ED with belly pain) has a 1 in 250 chance of getting cancer from that single scan.

Did that fully register? One CAT scan, which until recently most of us ordered with no more restraint than we exhibit when asking the Starbucks barista for a tall latte, will cause cancer in one out of every 250 patients. Two-hundred fifty: that’s the number of students in my college Bio 101 class. Wow.

Wachter adds fuel to that disturbing fire and reports that his above mentioned colleague found both increased radiation dosage (66% greater than that which is the usually quoted dose) and wide variation in dosage among different scanners in 4 Bay area hospitals.

If the variation and increased dosage isn’t scary enough, perhaps this nugget from Wachter regarding the usual dose is:

• A multiphase abdominal/pelvic CT scan has the same radiation wallop as 500 transcontinental flights, 450 chest radiographs, and 74 mammograms.

The effects? Well, there’s the 1 in 250 number, but Wachter is kind enough to give us an aggregate estimate:

• The best estimates are that radiation from CT scans causes 29,000 excess cancers each year in the U.S., mostly in women.
• Researchers estimate that 15,000 people will die from the direct effects of the 72 million CT scans performed in 2007 alone.

And if that weren’t enough, it seems the death and danger are accompanied by widespread ignorance–

• A 2004 study found that less than 50 percent of radiologists, and 9 percent of ER docs, were aware that CT scans could increase the subsequent risk of cancer.

Unfortunately, quite a few CT scans are done each year. And the number has risen dramatically over the last few decades–a more cynical man (or perhaps just a man who has read Atul Gawande and Adam Smith) might think the increase in usage might bear some relationship to the high cost of purchase for a CT scan machine-Buy it and they will come. Wachter tells us that

• One in five Americans will receive a CT scan in any given year; some experts suggest that at least one-third of those scans are unnecessary.

Even if only one-fifth were unnecessary, with a 1 in 250 chance of getting cancer from a single scan, the odds are ugly– and at least in some cases, amount to a dire risk without any merit whatsoever. In other cases, we risk greatly for minimal gain–and, perhaps, most disturbingly, that risk is often called for by doctors and radiologists who are sans knowledge of the risk. Yes,  a 1 in 250 chance of getting cancer from a single scan–when you perform 72 million of them per year–should be a game changer.

A “Sputnik Moment”? Hopes for Renewed Drug Development With A Little Help From Our NIH Friends

In his State of the Union Address, President Obama tried to spark the “creativity and imagination” of the American people when he proclaimed

[t]his is our generation’s Sputnik moment.  Two years ago, I said that we needed to reach a level of research and development we haven’t seen since the height of the Space Race.  And in a few weeks, I will be sending a budget to Congress that helps us meet that goal.  We’ll invest in biomedical research, information technology, and especially clean energy technology… an investment that will strengthen our security, protect our planet, and create countless new jobs for our people.

Now I don’t know what came first — the chicken or the egg — but President Obama’s speech about investing in biomedical research and technological innovation follows National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director Francis Collins’ proposal to create a National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS) to encourage drug discoveries and facilitate translational research in compounds overlooked by or abandoned by pharmaceutical manufacturers.  So does Dr. Collins’ proposal qualify as a “Sputnik moment”?

You might not have realized it, given those never-ending TV and magazine advertisements for prescription products (whose side effects sometimes sound worse than their benefits, but that’s another blog post), but pharmaceutical manufacturers have reduced their investment in researching and developing drugs.  According to the New York Times, pharmaceutical manufacturers spend over $1 billion developing a drug, with some “typically spend[ing] twice as much on marketing as on research” though that’s “a business model that is increasingly suspect.”  (For a brief overview of the research and development process, click here.)  The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) estimates that its members spent $45.8 billion in 2009 in research alone.

Even so, the number of drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has dropped over the last 15 years and that’s not due to a lack of scientific information or higher FDA standards.  In November 2010, Forbes health blogger Matthew Herper reported on  the annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics at which Dr. Collins

implored his colleagues in genetics to work to develop new treatments for rare diseases. His point was that the NIH and the Food and Drug Administration are increasingly able to handle preclinical and early clinical drug development, and that with these first steps taken medicines are more likely to be brought to market by large pharmaceutical companies.

Mr. Herper also noted that a few organizations, such as the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and the Multiple Myeloma Research Foundation, have taken a similar route in pushing along research  until a pharmaceutical manufacturer picks up the slack.  Then a month later, Arthur H. Rubenstein, dean of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine and chair of the NIH Translational Medicine and Therapeutics Working Group, told the Wall Street Journal Health Blog, “[b]asic science has exploded but it has not translated into benefit for the public.  The question was what to do about it.”

In stepped NIH to ease, in the words of the WSJ Health Blog, the “mounting frustration that a wealth of new information about the molecular basis of diseases hasn’t produced more new therapies.”  On December 7, 2010, NIH’s Scientific Management Review Board (SMRB) voted 12-1 in favor of adding NCATS to NIH.  Dr. Collins notified Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius of the decision.  Then on January 14, 2011, Secretary Sebelius sent a letter to Congress.  However, the decision to add NCATS  meant dismantling one of the 27 NIH centers and institutes, per the requirements of a 2006 law (”27″ is the “magic number”).  The lone SMRB dissenter, Jeremy Berg, director of the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, said he was “concerned that the implications for the rest of NIH hadn’t been adequately discussed.”

And therein lies some of the controversy.  NIH envisions NCATS as a link between basic discovery research and therapeutics care by:

• providing a visible, central locus for access to resources, tools, and expertise related to translational medicine;
• streamlining and improving the process of therapeutics development;
• serving as a catalyst, resource, and convener for collaborative interactions by supporting novel and innovative partnerships between multiple key stakeholders, including academia, government, industry, venture capitalists, and non-profit organizations;
• expanding the pre-competitive space by, among other things, enabling and providing incentives for greater sharing of scientific information and publication of negative results;
• supporting and strengthening translational medicine and therapeutics research, including providing access to services and resources for high-throughput screening, assay development, medicinal chemistry, and preclinical modeling;
• training translational research investigators; and
• enhancing communication among all stakeholders.

PhRMA Senior Vice President David E. Wheadon supports NCATS because

[c]ollaboration — including industry, NIH and academia — is one element driving innovation in drug development, particularly early stage — and ‘bold and ambitious’ proposals, such as Dr. Collins’, will be key to how we collectively progress in discovering novel compounds for addressing patients’ unmet medical needs….

The fact remains that biopharmaceutical research companies today and in the future will play a pivotal role: Our companies create the vast majority of new medicines from start to finish and, for the remainder, in close collaboration with academia and NIH, fulfill the critical final phase that transforms promising molecules into actual medicines for patients.

The WSJ Health Blog notes that NCATS isn’t NIH’s first foray into developing drugs.  In 2009, NIH created the Therapeutics for Rare and Neglected Diseases (TRND) program for basic research on rare diseases.  This early stage of drug development, WSJ Health Blog notes, is “expensive, time-consuming… prone to failure” and often not worth the effort for pharmaceutical manufacturers since the related market is small.

However, this time NIH must restructure several programs to accommodate NCATS, including the Molecular Libraries screening program, TRND, and the National Center for Research Resource’s (NCRR) Clinical and Translational Science Awards.  NCATS would house all three programs, along with the in-the-works Cures Acceleration Network (a drug-development program created by the Patient Protected and Affordable Care Act).

Staff members and researchers connected with the NIH community aren’t too thrilled over the restructuring, particularly with respect to NCRR.  If you visit Feedback NIH, the online forum for public commentary on NIH initiatives, you can read through the 1,100+ lengthy NCATS-related comments.  You’ll also see the “Separating Fact & Fiction” post by Dr. Francis Collins, which begins:

[b]y now, many of you have read the recent New York Times article or related news coverage, about NIH’s plan to establish the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (NCATS).

While we are pleased that the news media have recognized NIH’s efforts as a significant development for translational research, the Times article contains some misleading statements that we would like to clarify. Those statements suggest that a much larger shakeup of NIH is underway than is actually contemplated.

So, to set the record straight, we want to share with you what we know at this point in time…

(internal links removed).  The “we” includes Members of the Institute and Center Directors NCATS Working Group.  The post attempts to clear up concerns about budget cuts (House Republicans have already promised to cut the discretionary spending that supports NIH), the security of existing programs, and the misconception that NCATS will be a drug company.

Despite the negative responses, Dr. Collins remains optimistic.  In an interview with ScienceInsider, he emphasized that

the NIH director is called upon to look for scientific opportunities that aren’t being met and to figure out how to make them happen, and that sometimes requires moving things forward at a rapid pace, and that affects a lot of people.

And of course change is always distressing, especially if people aren’t quite sure where it’s going. So I understand the anxiety that currently exists.

But let’s wait a year and see when this has all taken shape how people feel at that point. Will they say at that point that projects or programs at NCRR got dealt a bad deal? I bet they won’t. Will they say they’re excited about the translational science opportunities that are taking shape in the form of this new center? I bet they will.

Perhaps if purse strings weren’t so tight and the healthcare reform debate was settled — or if NIH wasn’t limited to 27 centers and institutes — the creation of NCATS might not upset so many people.  Yet has Dr. Collins displayed a little of that “Sputnik moment” spirit by accelerating the development of drugs for diseases and other areas overlooked by pharmaceutical manufacturers?  Sure.  Just don’t expect him to take us to the moon.

Next Page »