Trouble Brewing for Pharmaceutical Companies

Bribery and recalls.  Federal agencies are turning up the heat on pharmaceutical companies.  Were you surprised by the eight recalls of Johnson & Johnson products this year?  Maybe you shouldn’t be.  As HealthReformWatch.com reported in We May Need More Than a Spoonful of Sugar to Help Our Medicine Go Down, drug recalls reached a record high 1,742 in 2009 — more than four times the amount in 2008.  Bowman Cox, managing editor of the Gold Sheet (which first broke the story) told CNN Money that in light of the 296 recalls issued in the first six months of 2010, there could be 600 or more recalls this year.

Why So Many Recalls?

Analysts and legislators are examining the recall statistics to find sources and solutions to the pharmaceutical safety issue.

1.   Drug repackaging

Advantage Dose, a now-defunct Shreveport, LA based drug repackager, was responsible for more than 1,000 of the 2009 recalls. Companies like Advantage Dose repackage and relabel drugs into smaller units for resale or distribution to health care facilities. After excluding Advantage Dose from the count, there still remains a 50% jump in recalls from 2008 to 2009.

2.   The generic rush

Gold Sheet’s Cox suggests that generic manufacturers cut drug design costs in their rush to be first to market after a branded-drug’s patent protection expires, decreasing quality.  “The first applicant typically gets the lion’s share of the business for the new drug… So they get the application. They make and market the drug, but they could still have problems down the road if they haven’t really understood the optimum way to make that drug.”  One example of a design failure is Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories’ “tablet thickness” recalls in March 2009.

3.   Manufacturing lapses

Some experts say the biggest culprits include the quality of raw materials and contamination. Approximately one month ago, HealthReformWatch.com reported in Pharmaceutical Outsourcing: Trading Quality for Lower Costs? that India’s largest pharmaceutical manufacturer had been cited several times in recent years for manufacturing violations.  Additional recalls include vaccines produced by Shantha Biotechnics for Sanofi-Aventis and injectible drugs made by Claris Lifesciences for Pfizer.  The FDA stated its intent on May 5, 2010 to “propose stronger regulation for pharmaceutical companies that outsource manufacturing, putting more responsibility on the companies to ensure the purity and safety of the products…”

4.   Increased FDA scrutiny of manufacturing facilities

Which came first, the chicken or the egg?  Increased FDA oversight may or may not have led to the increased number of recalls; however, the recalls will probably lead to increased FDA regulatory power.

As Jennifer Jascoll reported, Senator Michael F. Bennet (D-CO) proposed the Drug Safety and Accountability Act of 2010 on August 3, 2010.  According to Bennet’s press release, “[t]he bill would strengthen manufacturer quality standards, enhance the FDA’s ability to protect Americans through improved tracking of foreign manufacturing sites, and give the FDA much-needed authority to recall potentially dangerous drugs.” Currently, the FDA is empowered to issue warnings and recommend that a manufacturer issue a recall.

Two prior bills would also increase FDA powers to mandate a recall:

• The Protect Consumers Act of 2009 (sponsored by Rep. Betty Sutton, D-OH) would require the Secretary of HHS implement a recall if it is determined to be necessary.
• H.R. 6740 (sponsored by Rep. Edolphus Towns, D-NY) would provide the Secretary of HHS with the ability to mandate a recall “if the Secretary has reason to believe that the use or consumption of, or exposure to, a drug (or an ingredient or component used in any such drug) may cause serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.”

According to CNN Money, the FDA has not identified any alarming pattern.  FDA spokeswoman Elaine Gansz Bobo stated, “[s]ince every recall situation is unique, it would be difficult to assess whether there are any trends or increases in recalls this year… At this time, however, we have not identified any trends.”  Despite the FDA’s lack of concern, other federal agencies are interested in the practices of pharmaceutical companies.

Further Federal Investigations

According to the N.Y.Times, federal prosecutors and securities regulators are investigating pharmaceutical companies for potential violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).   The FCPA is an anti-bribery law which bars companies from offering foreign government officials items of value for profit.  For instance, Pfizer disclosed in April “that it paid $35m over six months to 4,500 doctors in private practice for education and the development and marketing of new drugs.”  Although this practice is legal in the U.S., such payments are illegal in many foreign countries where physicians are employed by the government.

On November 17, 2009, Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer stated that the Department of Justice intended to focus its attention on the pharmaceutical industry:

In some foreign countries and under certain circumstances, nearly every aspect of the approval, manufacture, import, export, pricing, sale and marketing of a drug product may involve a “foreign official” within the meaning of the FCPA. The depth of government involvement in foreign health systems, combined with fierce industry competition and the closed nature of many public formularies, creates, in our view, a significant risk that corrupt payments will infect the process. Our remarkable FCPA unit and our terrific health care fraud unit will be working together to investigate FCPA violations in the pharmaceutical industry in an effort to maximize our ability to effectively enforce the law in this high-risk area.

“Corrupt practices” under the FCPA are not limited to cash in envelopes.  Inappropriate payments for lavish hospitality, consulting, licensing agreements, and even charitable donations may raise red flags for government investigators.

Could bribery be contributing to decreased quality and the sudden rise in recalls?  According to the Financial Times, the DoJ is focusing its efforts elsewhere:

[T]he DoJ is particularly interested in corrupt payments that may have influenced the reliability or integrity of data in clinical trials performed outside the US. A recent report by the Department of Health and Human Services found 80 percent of marketing applications for drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the US had relied on at least one foreign trial.

It appears that the DoJ’s scrutiny of clinical trials is not without merit.  The N.Y.Times reports that “[l]ast month, a federal drug official reported that he found repeated instances in a landmark clinical trial of Avandia, a controversial diabetes medicine, in which patients taking Avandia appeared to suffer serious heart problems that were not counted in the study’s crucial tally of adverse events.”  The clinical trials for Avandia included many foreign trial sites, which were submitted in support of the drugs’ application to enter and remain on the U.S. market.  GlaxoSmithKline, the trial’s sponsor, has not been accused of fraud.

According to recent regulatory filings, the following companies are under investigation for possible violations of the FCPA:

• Merck is cooperating with a federal investigation of company activities in multiple foreign nations.
• Medtronic is cooperating with investigations of company activities in Greece, Poland, Germany, Turkey, Italy, and Malaysia.
• Eli Lilly is cooperating with the investigations of subsidiaries in several countries, including Poland.
• Federal investigators are looking into improper payments related to the sale of Zimmer products abroad.
• Johnson & Johnson voluntary disclosed the possibility that company subsidiaries abroad had made improper payments to government officials in two countries relating to the sale of medical devices.
• Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb have also disclosed that they are subject to federal investigations. AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, and Baxter SciClone have also received inquiries from federal enforcement agencies.

We May Need More Than A Spoonful Of Sugar To Help Our Medicine Go Down

Today CNNMoney reports that drug recalls quadrupled from 426 in 2008 to a record 1,742 in 2009.  The recalls have been attributed to “manufacturing lapses” in raw material quality, labeling and packaging, and contamination.  Generic and over-the-counter drugs have been affected the most.  CNNMoney notes that the race to put generic products on the market and the pressure to cut costs have caused drug companies to

sometimes fail to spend enough time learning how best to make the drug….  And since generic and over the counter drugs aren’t as lucrative for drugmakers as prescription drugs, companies may not be investing enough resources to make high-quality, safe products.

One such cost-cutting measure involves outsourcing production to foreign manufacturing sites and this measure seems to have received the most attention.  (Check out fellow blogger Jae W. Joo’s post on outsourcing.)

Earlier this month, Senator Michael Bennet (D-Colorado) introduced the Drug and Safety Accountability Act of 2010 which seeks to ensure the safety and efficacy of drugs sold in America, regardless of their manufacturing location.  The bill would require, among other things, that:

• manufacturers have quality management plans which the FDA can inspect;
• manufacturers maintain supply chain documentation;
• the Secretary of Health and Human Services track facilities manufacturing drugs or active ingredients for the American market; and
• the FDA be given more power to ensure drug safety, including the authority to enact mandatory recalls for batches of drugs that pose risks and to assess civil penalties for violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Click here for more details about the bill and here for Sen. Bennet’s own promotion of it.  Sen. Bennet has lamented how:

[f]or too long, the FDA has lacked the proper authority to adequately safeguard our drug supply.  Americans need to be able to trust that the drugs in their medicine cabinets are safe, no matter where they’re made.

A father of three, Sen. Bennet has said that the recent McNeil recall of over-the-counter children’s medicine spurred him into action.

Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Senior Vice President Ken Johnson has issued a statement in response to the bill, saying that:

[t]he lifeline of America’s biopharmaceutical research companies is the safety and integrity of the products they develop.  Brand-name pharmaceutical companies make tremendous investments in quality control systems and take extensive measures to help protect patient safety and to help prevent adulterated ingredients from entering into America’s prescription drug supply.

In addition, drug manufacturing for the U.S. market — regardless of where it occurs — is regulated under Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).  These GMP requirements help to assure the safety, quality and purity of drug ingredients that are used in the U.S. prescription drug supply.

The U.S. regulatory system for prescription drugs is the toughest and safest in the world….

Okay.  But other people here don’t think so.  (Click here to read a good opinion by Dr. Lynn Parry, Chair of the Colorado Prescription Project, on why this bill should pass.)

According to a recent Pew Prescription Project poll, less than 10% of Americans feel confident about medications manufactured in India and China.  89% of Americans support Congressional action to introduce new drug safety measures.  How many of those people realize that approximately 80% of the materials used to make or package drugs sold in America comes from foreign sources?  I didn’t, but then, is such high a percentage really that surprising?

Reading through the CNNMoney report, I was reminded a little of a scene from a seventh season episode of Friends:

Phoebe: It’s amazing! My headache is completely gone! What are those pills called?
Monica: Hexadrin.
Phoebe: Oh, I love you, Hexadrin!  Oh look!  It comes with a story!
Monica: No, Phoebe, those are, like, the side effects and stuff.
Phoebe: Say what?
Monica: You know, the possible side effects.
Phoebe: Oh my God!  Dizziness, nervousness, drowsiness, facial swelling, nausea, headache…  Headache! Vomiting, stomach bleeding, liver damage!  Now, okay, I don’t recall any of this coming up when you gave me these little death capsules! Oh, I’m sorry, extra-strength death capsules!

Admittedly, the scene concerns how potential side effects can be worse than the problem being treated (and that’s a whole other blog post).  Yet it’s also a reminder of how we can forget about the other potential hazards of these potent drugs, delivered in easy-to-swallow capsules/tablets/liquids, if there are quality control or other manufacturing issues.  It’s as easy to forget as it is to pop them, well, like candy.

“The alternate approach to medical marijuana distribution,” an op-ed by Kate Greenwood featured in The Record

[Ed. Note: This op-ed piece was featured in The Record's Sunday Editorial Page and on North Jersey.com. It was written by Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy Research Fellow and regular Health Reform Watch blogger, Kate Greenwood]

WE FEEL there is no question about it: The careful, legal distribution of medicinal marijuana to those in need is a good thing. The New Jersey Legislature agreed and passed legislation permitting distribution last January. Then-Gov. Jon Corzine signed the measure before leaving office.

But Governor Christie has requested a delay in its implementation, and a proposal to modify the system of distribution is cause for concern.

More than a year ago, Seton Hall Law’s Center for Health and Pharmaceutical Law and Policy distributed a position paper to New Jersey lawmakers urging passage of the marijuana measure, called the “New Jersey Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act.” The center did so citing the inclusion of “multiple measures designed to reduce the risk of abuse or diversion” and noting that “the medical literature supports the conclusion that smoked marijuana can provide relief to patients suffering from debilitating medical conditions for whom conventional treatments have failed.”

Implementation delayed

The act was to have taken effect this month, but, in response to a request from Christie, the Legislature pushed back the effective date to October.

As passed, the act provides that medical marijuana be grown and distributed by six not-for-profit “alternative treatment centers.”

But now, the New Jersey Council of Teaching Hospitals has proposed that the act be amended — before it is even implemented to provide that medical marijuana instead be grown by Rutgers University and distributed by the state’s teaching hospitals.

While hospitals are, as the Council of Teaching Hospitals points out, experienced dispensers of medicine, the act should not be rewritten to require them to dispense medical marijuana.

The passage of the act affects the rights and responsibilities of patients and providers of medical marijuana under New Jersey law; it does not change the fact that distribution and use of marijuana are illegal under federal law.

Although Attorney General Eric Holder has pledged not to prosecute patients and providers who comply with applicable state laws, and hospitals could thus dispense medical marijuana without fear of criminal prosecution, they would still be violating federal law.

Condition of participation

This is a problem because compliance with federal law is a condition of participation in the Medicaid and Medicare programs. Hospitals depend heavily on Medicaid and Medicare funding; the Compassionate Use Act’s alternative treatment centers would not.

Read More

Possible Repeal of Massachusetts Ban: A Gift to Prescribers, Patients or Industry?

Next month marks the second anniversary of the enactment of the Massachusetts Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Manufacturer Code of Conduct, a law requiring pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturing companies to designate a compliance officer and implement a compliance program reflecting the commonwealth’s regulations on meals, CME sponsorship, use of non-patient identified prescriber data, gifts and other payments, etc.  The law, which went into effect on July 1, 2009, builds upon the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America’s revised Code  on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals (”PhRMA Code“) and the Advanced Medical Technology Association’s revised Code of Ethics on Interactions with Healthcare Professionals (”AdvaMed Code“), two voluntary codes intended to eliminate any influence — perceived or otherwise — of the industry over healthcare professionals with respect to gifts, entertainment, recreation, educational programs, professional meetings, scholarships, and the like.

The Massachusetts law is more restrictive, however, than its PhRMA and AdvaMed counterparts.  It prohibits companies from sponsoring continuing medical education programs that do not meet Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education guidelines.  The PhRMA and AdvaMed Codes do not.  It prohibits any company employee from providing meals outside of a hospital or office setting.  The PhRMA Code only restricts sales representatives and their immediate supervisors to a hospital or office setting.  The AdvaMed Code does not impose any restrictions on the location of meals.

Furthermore, starting on July 1, 2010, the law requires companies to annually certify their compliance with commonwealth regulations and, among other things, to disclose any gifts or payments valued over $50 and given to anyone who can prescribe, purchase, or dispense drugs or devices.  Effectively, it’s a ban on all gifts to prescribers (and in so doing goes a step further than the PhRMA and AdvaMed Codes which make an exception for educational gifts).  Companies must also submit $2,000, payable to the commonwealth’s Department of Public Health, with each annual disclosure report.  Violations can result in penalties up to $5,000 per occurrence.  The first round of disclosures were due 16 days ago and covered activities for the July 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009 period.  Next year companies will be expected to report on their activities for the January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010 period.  Or will they?

The Massachusetts House recently passed an economic development bill that repeals the disclosure requirement/gift ban (the bill also establishes a sales tax holiday and consolidates commonwealth economic agencies).  The Senate version of the bill does not include the repeal.  It’s a wait-and-see as to how the two chambers will work out the final bill through their conference committee.

Opponents of the gift ban claim it has adversely affected pharmaceutical clinical research as well as the restaurant and convention industries.  Almost two years ago, PhRMA Senior Vice President Ken Johnson expressed his disappointment over the law, saying:

[it is] very likely damaging for medical partnerships, clinical research and patients in Massachusetts….

Public disclosure of a pharmaceutical company’s arrangements with principal investigators of its clinical trials also could reveal sensitive, proprietary business information to a company’s competitors.  This could erode the independent decision-making of companies trying to bring science from research facilities to patient care setting….

The disclosure requirements subjects all of the physicians, academic institutions and hospitals involved in such trials to publicity in a form that may be difficult to understand and likely will generate unwanted and unnecessary public scrutiny.  This could make Massachusetts an unattractive place for academic scientists to live and work — and for pharmaceutical research companies to do business.  Such a policy clearly is not in the best interest of public health — and it flies in the face of the ongoing efforts to further cultivate the life sciences industry within Massachusetts.

Indeed, the Wall Street Journal and Boston Herald report that some medical groups either have threatened to take their annual meetings elsewhere or have actually done so in protest of the law.

Supporters of the law say otherwise.  Health Care For All, a Massachusetts-based advocacy organization, views banning gifts as a step in the right direction.  According to the organization:

[t]he pharmaceutical industry gives gifts to promote their drugs and make a higher profit.  Under the guise of promoting welfare for all, the industry maximizes their own revenue….

Experts living within the guidelines of the gift ban find that it is not interfering with their work or professional relationships according to Dr. David Coleman, Boston University School of Medicine.

‘The Massachusetts Gift Ban legislation is an important step in the process of reducing both biases in therapeutic decision-making and healthcare costs.  The Ban has not adversely impacted the important relationships of our physician-faculty with the pharmaceutical and device industries….’

Health Care For All also maintains there is no connection between the decrease in restaurant revenues and the law as:

[t]he Massachusetts Prescription Reform Coalition has researched the decrease in restaurant profits, and found sales are down across the country — including in states without a gift ban.   According to the trade paper, Restaurants & Institutions, sales at the nation’s top 100 independent restaurants were down 10% in 2009….

Massachusetts Senators, who recognize the value of the gift ban legislation, also see that these lost profits mirror similar recession-caused losses in the restaurant industry across the country.

Georgia Maheras, Private Market Policy Manager at the Massachusetts Prescription Reform Coalition, considers the current House bill to be a “significant step backward” in the fight to curb medical costs.

Massachusetts is not alone in attempting to reform pharmaceutical and medical device marketing practices.  Neighboring Vermont has a similar, and in fact more stringent, law which even allows the Attorney General’s office to track free samples given to physicians (though a reporter for the Times Argus, a Vermont newspaper, worries how a repeal in Massachusetts might have a ripple effect).  California, the District of Columbia, Maine, Minnesota, Nevada, and West Virginia also have some form of a marketing code.  The federal government’s Patient Protection & Affordable Care Act includes the Physician Payment Sunshine Provision (”Provision”) requiring disclosure of payments made to physicians and teaching hospitals by manufacturers of products covered under Medicaid, Medicare, and SCHIP (click here to read a summary).

So who has it right?  It would seem as though PhRMA and AdvaMed opened the door for state and federal government to codify modified versions of these industry codes.  From a compliance perspective, it must be quite inefficient — and headache inducing — to wade through state marketing disclosure laws that lack uniformity.  Starting January 1, 2012, the Provision will preempt state disclosure laws except for where the state requires additional information.  Maybe this will help, maybe it will add to the headache, or maybe this particular episode will no longer matter.   For now, though, from a patient perspective, a repeal of the Massachusetts disclosure requirement/gift ban, or that of any other state, would feel more like a gift to the industry and prescribers than a service to the “best interest of public health.”

The Center for Health & Pharmacy Law & Policy here at Seton Hall Law has issued two white papers addressing these issues: Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Trial Recruitment & Enrollment: A Call for Increased Oversight,” in which the Center proposes legal and policy changes to address conflicts of interest in the relationships between industry and doctors that can create unwarranted risks to trial participants and to the scientific integrity of research; and Drug and Device Promotion: Charting a Course for Policy Reform,” in which the Center proposes legal and policy changes to address conflicts of interest in the relationship of medicine and industry– including the recommendation “that industry funding for continuing medical education should be phased out, and replaced by an educational process driven by physicians.”

The Center has also recommended “the adoption of federal legislation to ban the use of gifts, meals, and other perks to promote drugs and devices. The states have taken the lead to date–Massachusetts, California, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia have passed laws to limit or ban gifts and meals that are now routine in marketing practices. Concluding that industry self-regulation is not sufficient, the Center calls for national legislation to create uniform practices by industry and physicians. As urged by Professor Boozang, ‘the benefits of drugs and devices should drive promotion and physicians’ decision to prescribe, not a marketing model that depends on gifts and meals.’”

Obviously, the adoption of additional federal standards in this regard will lessen the ability of industry to pit one state against another and make compliance easier. The Physician Payment Sunshine Provision is a step in that direction, the Massachusetts development bill is a step back.

Direct to Consumer Genetic Testing — The Need for Early Filtering of Genetic Information

[Ed. Note: We are pleased to welcome Professor Gaia Bernstein to Health Reform Watch. Articles about her recent scholarship, "Over-parenting," may be found at the ABA Journal and The New York Times Magazine.]

Genetic testing for adult onset diseases used to be mainly a medical service. In most cases a person who had a certain genetic disease that was prevalent in her family would go to test to see if she carries the genetic mutation. For example, a woman who had several cases of breast cancer in her family would test for the breast cancer genetic mutation BRCA1/BRCA2 to see if she carries the mutation and has a high probability of getting the disease. But, the proliferation of direct to consumer genetic testing changes the nature of the service to a consumer service. Companies like 23andme and Pathway Genomics (who was planning to start selling its kits in Walgreens) offer consumers the option to buy packages of tests (ranging from 25 to over a 100 conditions). Consumers often buy the tests to satisfy their curiosity or they may even receive them as a gift. People purchasing the testing packages usually do not consult a medical professional when deciding to undergo the tests and receive the results alone by accessing a website.

Yesterday I spoke before the FDA, which is considering regulating direct to consumer genetic testing. My presentation was based on a symposium piece I am working on. I argued for the need for a medical professional to guide people throughout the process and advise them not just on the interpretation of the results but also earlier in the process to determine what genetic information they actually want to have.

Interpreting the results of genetic tests is not easy. Unlike other over the counter tests, like a pregnancy test, which gives a clear positive or negative result, genetic tests are about probabilities. Even a person who tests positive for a certain mutation may still not get sick depending on other non-genetic factors. People have a hard time understanding the results of genetic tests and for that reason there have been many calls to require the guidance of a medical professional for the delivery of the results.

But I believe focusing on the interpretation of the results is only half the issue. It is important to have professional guidance also at the outset to determine what tests to undergo. A medical professional should guide individuals and tailor the panel of tests to the individual who desires to test. Why is that? Well, first of all, some people, if they get a chance to give it some thought, may not want to know all their genetic information. For example, a person may prefer not to know that he is likely to get Alzheimer’s at a young age. Secondly, not all genetic information is made equal. Some genetic tests do not convey that much useful information. For example, a positive result in some tests may only demonstrate a slightly higher likelihood of getting the disease than the probability in the general population. Eliminating such tests at the outset will facilitate the interpretation of the results. It would be possible to focus on the truly important positive results at the end of the process.

To achieve all this it is important for the law to require the guidance of a medical professional who is not a representative of the genetic testing company. A medical professional working for the genetic testing company may have good knowledge of the tests, but could have an interest in having the consumer purchase as many tests as possible. This could place him in a conflict of interest with the consumer who could be best off by purchasing a more limited panel of tests tailored specifically for him.

Cross-Posted at PrawfsBlawg

Bad Ads and Doctor Deputies

Earlier this month, the FDA launched a new initiative — the Bad Ad Program — to “help health care providers recognize misleading prescription drug promotion and provide them with an easy way to report this activity to the agency.”  In an article appearing earlier this week in Advertising Age, advertising executives and others decry the program as a “publicity stunt” with the potential to lead to physician “vigilantism” and to become “unbridled and messy.”  Also quoted in the article is PhRMA Senior Vice President Ken Johnson, who states that PhRMA views the Bad Ad Program as “another step to help educate — and receive feedback from — healthcare providers about prescription drug advertising and promotion.”  The Advertising Age article, correctly I think, characterizes this statement as offering only “tepid support.”

There appear to be two central criticisms of the Bad Ad Program: (1) that it is not as low-cost as it seems because it will take up physicians’ time and create more work for the FDA’s already overburdened Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and Communications (DDMAC) and (2) that it will be an ineffective compliance tool either because doctors cannot tell the difference between compliant and noncompliant advertising or because doctors will “go on personal jihads on ads they don’t like - ads that very well might be in perfect compliance.”

Both concerns seem overblown.  Doctors do not have to participate if they do not have the time or inclination — it seems likely that most will not — and pharmaceutical companies have been reporting each other’s marketing abuses to DDMAC for years, so the Division has experience sifting through more and less credible information.  Doctors may well have difficulty discerning which ads are compliant and which are not — see, e.g., this study revealing that doctors could not accurately identify the FDA-approval status of a significant percentage of the drugs they prescribe — but this is not an argument against the FDA’s effort to educate them.

The bottom line is that while pharmaceutical companies track what happens in physician offices in multiple ways, including through sales rep call notes and sales message recall studies, they do not, at least not consistently and/or voluntarily, use the information gathered in service of compliance, as opposed to sales, goals.  In the words of Arnie Friede, to the extent that the FDA’s Bad Ad Program creates “an additional incentive for a company to closely monitor and control communications by their sales people” it is “an understandable, perhaps even brilliant move.”

Allergan v. FDA: Where Does Disseminating Safety Information End and Promotion Begin?

In the Fall of 2009, the drugmaker Allergan made waves when it sued the FDA alleging that the ban on off-label promotion was chilling its “First Amendment right to share truthful medical information with physicians about how to safely use Botox off-label [to treat muscle spasticity] to achieve a benefit while minimizing risk of serious adverse events.”  Allergan was back in the news last week when the LA Times reported that trial was set to begin in a case brought against Allergan by the mother of Kristen Spears, a seven-year-old girl with cerebral palsy who died after being injected with Botox to treat muscle spasticity in her legs.

Allergan manufactures two FDA-approved botulinum toxin products, Botox Cosmetic, the well-known anti-wrinkle treatment, and Botox, which is approved to treat, among other conditions, cervical dystonia, “a movement disorder that causes [the muscles of the neck and shoulders] to contract and spasm involuntarily.”  Botox is also frequently used “off-label” for conditions it is not approved to treat, including muscle spasticity.  Per the NIH,  locally-injected Botox “has become a standard treatment for overactive muscles in children with spastic movement disorders such as cerebral palsy.”  The FDA agrees.  An agency physician describes Botox as a “commonly used” and “very effective” treatment for spasticity, which he characterizes as a “significant disability[y.]“  Per the LA Times, Botox can “sometimes help young patients walk without surgery.”

While the NIH’s website states that the undesirable side effects of Botox are “mild and short-lived,” the FDA’s informs physicians that “a Boxed Warning has been added to the prescribing information to highlight that botulinum toxin may spread from the area of injection to produce symptoms consistent with botulism,” “that swallowing and breathing difficulties can be life-threatening and there have been reports of deaths related to the effects of spread of botulinum toxin,” and “that children treated for spasticity are at greatest risk for these symptoms[.]”

In addition to requiring the addition of the black box warning to the Botox label, the FDA has ordered Allergan and other manufacturers of botulinum toxin products to adopt a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) which includes “a Medication Guide [for patients] and Communication Plan, including a Dear Health Care Provider letter, and a timetable for submission of assessments.”

In its complaint against the FDA, Allergan alleges that while “the boxed warning and REMS materials identify the risk of potential distant spread of toxin effect, … they do not give physicians using Botox for spasticity specific guidance about how to further minimize that risk while still obtaining an acceptable therapeutic effect.”  Allergan wants to provide physicians with specific information about treating spasticity including “proper dosing, patient selection, and injection technique.”  Allergan argues, with good reason I believe, that if it were to, say, develop a slide deck about dosing, patient selection, and injection technique in treating spasticity and present it to physicians it would be exposing itself to criminal liability for promoting an off-label use.  In its brief in opposition, the FDA disagrees — sort of — arguing that disseminating safety information about unapproved uses is “not necessarily” promotion and that Allergan has “ample room” “to disseminate truthful, non-promotional information about dangers associated with unapproved uses of Botox.”  (I will have more to say about the parties’ legal arguments in a subsequent post.)

In an interesting twist, the LA Times reports that Kristen Spears’ pediatrician and his nurse practitioner wife testified in depositions that they “learned to use Botox on children with cerebral palsy at Allergan-sponsored seminars in 2000 and 2001″ and that “Allergan’s sales agents discussed the use of Botox for juvenile cerebral palsy patients … repeatedly, visiting the practice about 50 times over several years.”  They also claimed that they were told by sales representatives that other doctors were using “in range of 10 to 15 units” of Botox per kilogram to treat their pediatric patients.  Dr. Mitchell Brin, Allergan’s Chief Scientific Officer for Botox, testified that fifteen units per kilogram, which is the dose given Kristen Spears, is nearly twice the maximum dose that the company considers safe for children.  He also testified that, because of the ban on off-label promotion, Allergan did not disseminate its maximum dosage information to physicians.  If it is true that Allergan’s sales force was providing doctors with dosing information gleaned from anecdotal reports from other doctors they called on while the experts in the company’s medical department kept their dosing knowledge to themselves, it is an example of an all-too-common disconnect between the field and headquarters that in this case may have had tragic consequences.

The FDA Steps In: Regulating Prescription Drug Promotion on the Internet

The FDA has been widely criticized for not providing guidance for drug companies eager to promote their products on the internet.  Earlier this year, the FDA expressed the view that the message was what was important, not the medium, meaning that companies should simply apply the rules governing prescription drug advertising in print media to the internet.  On April 2, 2009 the agency issued Notice of Violation letters to 14 companies who sponsored links on internet search engines advertising their products; the links gave the name of the drug and, in some cases, its indicated use, without including the required “fair balance,” i.e., safety information such as contraindications and potential side effects.  In reliance on the so-called “one-click rule” — which had never actually been adopted by the FDA — the companies had put the required safety information one click away on a separate page.

In recent months, the FDA has indicated that it is open to providing internet-specific marketing guidance.  Yesterday and today (November 13^th) the agency is holding a hearing on “Promotion of FDA–Regulated Medical Products Using the Internet and Social Media Tools.”  Representatives from advertising agencies, consumer groups, health-related websites, pharmaceutical companies, and search engines are scheduled to testify.

In written testimony released before the hearing, PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry’s trade group, proposed that the FDA approve a standard universal warning: PhRMA suggests “All drugs have risks.  Click here for more information from the manufacturer.” — for use “in places throughout the Web where there is not enough room for complete disclosure of all warnings, indications, and contraindications (e.g., search results and microblog posts.)”  Such a warning would, PhRMA argues, allow companies to take advantage of sponsored links, make full use of Twitter, etcetera, while also providing easy access to safety information.  PhRMA even suggests that the warning incorporate the FDA’s logo, arguing that this could mitigate against “the dangers posed by illegal Internet drug sellers.”

It will be interesting to see whether and how the proposals of the other groups represented at the hearing differ from PhRMA’s, and, of course, whether the FDA in the end decides that its “fair balance” requirements should be modified for the web.  Among the other interesting issues FDA may address is companies’ responsibility for web content they do not control.  Google’s introduction of Sidewiki, which allows anyone visiting a pharmaceutical company’s website to leave a comment, has brought this issue to the fore, raising, for example, the prospect of doctors discussing a product’s off-label uses on the manufacturer’s site.

Anyone who wishes to comment on these or other internet-specific promotion issues may do so through February 28, 2010.

Reform Rodeo

1. The HITECH Act’s Breach Notification rules are now in effect. As is noted in the article, many are questioning some of the limitations in the act– which may reduce the Act’s impact on protecting privacy.

2. Eugene Volokh’s blog discusses the constitutionality of an individual mandate.

3. A persuasive article from Fortune Magazine describing how Baucus’ Finance Committee bill will raise taxes on the middle class, and in dong so violate the core tenets of the Obama administration.

4. A nicely compiled listing of the amendments that have been put forward during the Finance Bill’s mark up.

5. A FiveThirtyEight post questions those who presume that health reform is inevitable, raising some sobering thoughts.

6. Under the Obama administration, The FDA has provided a black box warning for the anti-nausea drug Phenergan, presumably in light of the Supreme Court’s recent rejection of the drug manufacturer’s claim that federal regulations preempt state court’s from suing drug manufacturers for defective warnings.

7. In case you missed it: A post from Health Reform Watch by Professor Timothy S. Jost on Health Care Cooperatives was cited by Jacob S. Hacker in an article over at the New England Journal of Medicine’s web site. Hacker’s article, “Poor Substitutes–Why Cooperatives and Triggers Can’t Achieve the Goals of a Public Option,” is well written and well read.

Drug Study Fails to Mention Risk of Death to Test Subjects

[Ed. Note: Today's Post is by Maansi K. Raswant, a Seton Hall Law student pursuing the Health Law concentration. She is a research assistant to the Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy and an intern at the NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation.]

As reported recently in the Boston Globe, a federal probe found that heart attack survivors enrolled in a clinical trial conducted in over 120 sites nationally had not been adequately informed of the safety risks of the study, including the risk of death.

The process under study, chelation, involves “periodic infusions of a drug– in this case, disodium EDTA.” The infusions are being tested in conjunction with the ingestion of high doses of  vitamins and minerals. However, according to the federal probe, “in 2008 FDA removed disodium EDTA from the FDA’s approved list and withdrew of approval of new drug applications for disodium EDTA.” Test subjects were not informed that disdodium EDTA “is no longer FDA approved for any use and has been removed from the market because of safety concerns.”

Funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, the study has over 1,500 subjects. Though researchers suspended enrollment last August due to the investigation, federal officials allowed the study to continue pending further findings of the probe, a decision that has been highly criticized.

In addition to the deficiencies regarding the  informed consent of study participants, the Boston Globe reported that the investigation found that several co-investigators involved in the study had been disciplined for “substandard practices” or had been involved in insurance fraud. Three were convicted felons. Federal officials explained that they found the substandard practices and convictions of the principal investigators “concerning” but not a reason to “automatically preclude an investigator from participating in research.”

The U.S. Office of Human Research Protections detailed the findings of the investigation and required corrective actions in a letter to the three medical institutions heading the study. In response to the investigation’s findings, the study modified the consent form to recognize death as a “rare complication of the EDTA [chelation] infusions.” The Office of Human Research Protections has also requested further modification of the form to disclose that disodium EDTA had been removed from the market.

Despite the change in consent form, questions remain about the acceptability of the risks posed by the study. As the Globe reports, critics of the study, including the head of bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, Arthur Caplan, have charged that the risks posed by the study are unethical. The complaint against the study filed with the Office of Human Research Protections noted that since “the mid-1970’s court documents and newspapers have reported at least 30 deaths associated with intravenous EDTA.”

The probe is the lastest in a string of major investigations of clinical trials, including the continuing investigation into payments by device maker Medtronic to Dr. Timothy Kulko (who is accused of falsifying author names and  study results), and the Synthes indictment for allegations that its subsidiary, Norian, conspired to conduct unauthorized clinical trials that placed subjects at risk of death without properly informing them of the risks. In the Synthes/Norian matter, three patients are believed to have died as a result of the use of the companies’ bone cement products.

Medical Science Liaisons: Walking the Line between Scientific Exchange and Promotion

[Ed. note: As noted in the post above, we are very pleased to welcome Kate Greenwood, J.D., to the blog today.]

As the Wall Street Journal recently reported, at a time when the ranks of pharmaceutical sales representatives are thinning, the number of medical science liaisons (MSLs) is (or was until very recently) growing.  MSLs are doctors, pharmacists, or scientists employed by drug companies to disseminate scientific information about the companies’ drugs — including information about off-label uses of those drugs — usually to physicians who are key opinion leaders.  MSLs are, at most companies, part of the medical affairs or research and development departments and, unlike sales reps, they are not typically evaluated or compensated based on increases in market share or prescription volume in their regions.  Still, as suggested by this PharmExec article on permissible metrics for measuring the value to companies of both MSLs and the thought leaders they court, it is not always clear how the work MSLs do differs from that of a sales rep.

FDA regulations ban companies from “represent[ing] in a promotional context that an investigational new drug is safe or effective for the purposes for which it is under investigation” but explicitly allow companies to engage in “the full exchange of scientific information.”  Sales reps cannot take advantage of the scientific exchange safe harbor to discuss off-label uses with physicians, but MSLs can, as long as they do so in response to a physician’s unsolicited request.  Jeff Patrick, who holds a doctorate in pharmacy and is Director of Medical Scientists at the biopharmaceutical company Dyax, explained to the Wall Street Journal that, unlike a sales rep, he could respond to a question like “Were there pediatrics in your trial?” even if the drug being evaluated was not approved for pediatric use.

Because MSLs are out in the field engaging doctors in free-ranging and difficult to police discussions, they present evident compliance challenges for companies attempting to follow the rules regarding off-label promotion.  On the other hand, their scientific expertise and established relationships with thought leaders may also present compliance opportunities.  For example, earlier this year, the FDA approved the use of MSLs in the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) for UCB’s Cimzia, a drug used to treat Crohn’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis which carries with it a risk of serious infection.  The Cimzia REMS requires as part of its communication plan that the company’s MSLs make a presentation about the drug’s risks to all of the nation’s approximately 500 gastroenterology key opinion leaders.

Synthes Legal Troubles –Again

[Today's Post is by Maansi K. Raswant, a Seton Hall Law student pursuing the Health Law concentration. She is a research assistant to the Center for Health & Pharmaceutical Law & Policy and an intern at the NYC Health and Hospitals Corporation.]

Recently, the Synthes corporation has been garnering a lot of attention, but for all the wrong reasons. A June 17^th indictment comes a little over a month after the New Jersey Attorney General announced that the medical device maker had entered into a settlement agreement for failing to disclose financial conflicts of interests held by physicians conducting clinical trials for its products (see prior post, “Clinical Research: When the Compensation Begs the Answer“). Filed by the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the recent 52-count indictment alleges that from May 2002 to Fall 2004, the Swiss company Norian, and its parent company Synthes, (both based in West Chester, Pennsylvania) conspired to conduct unauthorized clinical trials of Norian XR and Norian SRS, bone cement products used in surgery to treat vertebral compression fractures of the spine. Not only did the trials lack FDA authorization, but the FDA had specifically warned Synthes against using Norian XR for spinal surgery due to safety concerns.

The indictment explains that preliminary studies using human blood in test tubes found that the bone cement products chemically reacted with the blood to create blood clots. In further studies of the prod in a pig, the clots became wedged in the lungs. Despite this knowledge, Synthes continued to market the Norian products for use in spinal surgery, and did not stop doing so until after three patients had died on the operating table.  According to the indictment, rather than recall the products following the patient deaths, the company engaged in a cover up by lying to FDA officers during an official inspection in May and June 2004.

The two recent legal actions against Synthes break new ground, and represent significant inroads by prosecutors in the arena of clinical research. Among other remedies, the settlement with the State of New Jersey required Synthes to disclose all relevant financial interests of its investigators on a public website, and barred the company from compensating investigators with stock, a practice the Attorney General called widespread in the industry. The latest indictment contains not just the usual charges against the corporations, but also criminal charges against four corporate executives charged with shipment of unauthorized devices. If found guilty, each executive faces up to a year in prison.

Clinical Research: When the Compensation Begs the Answer

The New York Times reports that New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram announced a settlement agreement with medical device maker, Synthes, for failing to disclose the financial conflicts of interest of doctors researching its products. Synthes is the maker of the ProDisc, an artificial spinal disk.

The settlement agreement with Synthes was described in the AG’s press release, which quoted Ms. Milgram, as “the first of its kind because of its disclosure provisions, as well as its ban on compensating clinical researchers with company stock. She said the latter provision runs counter to widespread industry practice — a practice she called unacceptable.” Notably, the state pursued the case as a matter of consumer fraud. The premise being that the failure to fully disclose such conflicts constituted such for both human trial subjects and the purchasing public.

In a letter to the FDA, critical of the FDA and cc’d to key members of Congress, Ms. Milgram described the results of the AG’s investigation into the business and research practices of Synthes. The letter states:

The investigation revealed that a majority of the physicians who participated in these clinical trials had significant investments in the products -investments that would have been worthless had the product failed to obtain regulatory approval from the FDA. And, the investigation revealed that Synthes, which acquired ProDisc while the clinical trials were underway, failed to disclose these financial conflicts of interest to the FDA.

Yet, despite the fact that Synthes’ failure to adequately disclose these interests should have been obvious from even a cursory review of its FDA submissions, the FDA did nothing to regulate these conflicts. A number of the disclosure forms were signed and dated, but were otherwise left blank. Others indicated that the clinical investigator had a significant equity interest in the product, but did not attach the requisite details. But the FDA approved Synthes’ applications for premarket approval without any delay or further inquiry into this issue.

Leaving aside for the moment the criticism of the FDA (the State of New Jersey joins a long list of increasingly vocal complainants, including the Program on Government Oversight (citing “dramatically reduced inspections of ‘good laboratory practices’ at facilities that do the earliest testing of medical devices. Such inspections declined from 33 in 2005, to seven in 2007, to just one last year”),  and FDA scientists from the Center for Devices and  Radiological Health, who have openly proclaimed that the FDA “is fundamentally broken.”), it’s worth a moment to consider that Synthes has agreed to “stop paying doctors who are conducting clinical trials of its products with stock or stock options,” and that AG Milgram described the compensation of research doctors with stock as being “apparently common” and a “widespread industry practice.”

Compensating a  doctor with stock or stock options financially tied to the results of his research may well be the antithesis of an impetus for objective clinical research.

The basic proposition is this: you, doctor, are charged with investigating whether or not this medical device is safe and fit and shows efficacy for human use. For doing so, we will give you a portion of the company (stock or stock options) which owns the medical device. If the medical device is efficacious and fit for human use, the company will stand to profit. As a holder of stock and/or stock options in the company, you will be paid a portion of that profit and/or the value of your holdings in the company will increase correspondent to your determination of safety for human use and efficacy. If you determine that the device is not safe for human use and/or not efficacious, your holdings in the company will be worth much less, if not worthless. “Is the device safe for human use and efficacious?” Does an answer of “Yes” surprise anyone?

It is also not an answer to say that the doctors may have merely been compensated in cash and then later converted that cash into stock or stock options independently. My guess is that in constructing these compensation packages, as with most securities matters, timing and knowledge is important. That the stock or stock options must be issued or at least contracted for by the researcher simultaneous with the hiring so as to avoid SEC difficulty regarding the particulars of the researchers’ “inside” and “confidential” knowledge regarding the device and the research itself. Researchers who have purchased interested stock (or who have had stock purchased by others) before news of their research has been made public have often paid a price.

And obviously, once the doctor’s research has been made public, any positive results will have been already reflected in the market price of the stock, all but foreclosing the research doctor from reaping profits tied directly to his research determinations.

As part of A.G. Milgram’s “Assurance of Voluntary Compliance agreement (the Synthes case was handled by Deputy Attorney General Megan Lewis, Chief of the Division of Law’s Affirmative Litigation Section, and Deputy Attorney General Michelle T. Weiner) Synthes must disclose any future payments made by the company to physicians conducting clinical trials on its devices, as well as any investments held by such physicians in the devices they test. A $3 billion global company, Synthes has also agreed to stop paying clinical trial physicians with company stock or stock options.”

Attorney General Milgram said that “the Synthes agreement should serve as a template for the entire industry,” and in her letter to the FDA remarked that she was “hopeful the Synthes terms will become “best practices” for disclosure among medical device makers.”

In addition to signifying her hope, Ms. Milgram announced that her office issued subpoenas “to five major medical device manufacturing companies seeking information about their business practices.”

The FDA to Evaluate 25 Medical Devices Marketed Before 1976 Without Premarket Approval

The FDA announced last week that they are requiring the makers of 25 medical devices marketed before 1976 to submit safety and effectiveness information regarding their devices.   These devices were allowed onto the market without undergoing the current FDA testing and classification because they were first manufactured before the Medical Device Amendments to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1976, and include many of the riskiest devices — defibrillators, pacemakers accessories, and heart valves.

The FDA classifies medical devices into three categories, with class III being the riskiest devices– as such, they require premarket approval.  Currently, the 25 pre-amendment devices in question are class III, but based on the 1976 law these devices were not required to undergo premarket approval at the time.

The FDA will use the submitted safety and effectiveness data to review the devices and classify them into what they deem to be the appropriate risk category.  According to the FDA, if a device is found to be a class III device, the manufacturer will need to submit a premarket approval application.  If the device is moved to class I or II, it will not require premarket approval.

The FDA’s announcement comes after the Government Accountability Office reported in January that the FDA was not doing enough to thoroughly evaluate the safety and effectiveness of many medical devices marketed before 1976.  They urged the FDA to review the devices and said that “it is imperative that FDA take immediate steps” to fix this review and approval process for devices.

Daniel G. Schultz, M.D., director of the FDA’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said regarding the FDA’s new requirement:

We are taking the necessary steps to complete this very complex process while continuing to protect public health by thoroughly reviewing and evaluating all medical device submissions presented to the agency.  New premarket notification submissions for devices of these 25 types will continue to receive an appropriate level of scrutiny to ensure safety and effectiveness.

This decision to evaluate these devices and further public safety comes after recent criticism of the agency, such as the opinion expressed publicly by a number of  FDA scientists that the “FDA is fundamentally broken.”  We have blogged about the much maligned agency on numerous occasions, with specific emphasis upon the Center for Devices and Radiological Health and a decline in medical device lab inspections.

U.S. District Court Says FDA Decision on Plan B Was Influenced by Political Pressure

A U.S. District Court ordered yesterday that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allow for the sale of the Plan B morning-after pill to females 17 years old and older without a prescription.  Since 2006, based on a FDA decision during the Bush administration, Plan B has been available over the counter only to women over the age of 18.  The FDA must comply with the order within 30 days.  Plan B is a back-up birth control pill that can reduce the chance of pregnancy when taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex or contraceptive failure.  It is manufactured by Duramed, a subsidiary of Barr Pharmaceuticals.

Judge Edward Korman of the Eastern District of New York wrote in his decision that the FDA was influenced by political pressure and their conclusion was not based on the scientific evidence available concerning the drug.  Judge Korman wrote that:

These political considerations, delays, and implausible justifications for decision-making are not the only evidence of a lack of good faith and reasoned decision-making.  Indeed, the record is clear that the FDA’s course of conduct regarding Plan B departed in significant ways from the agency’s normal procedures regarding similar applications to switch a drug product from prescription to non-prescription use.

Judge Korman’s statements echo similar sentiments expressed as of late that the “FDA is fundamentally broken.” We have blogged about the subject, and the alleged political influences on FDA, in a number of posts most recently.

The WSJ Health Blog wrote today that the ruling specifically blasts past and current FDA officials such as acting Surgeon General and acting Secretary for Health and Human Services, Dr. Steven Galson, and then-FDA Commissioner Lester Crawford.

The FDA is reviewing the decision and the WSJ reports that “If the Obama White House doesn’t appeal the ruling, it would mark the fourth significant departure from Bush administration positions on controversial health-care issues since President Barack Obama took office.”

Susan Woods was a top FDA official who resigned in 2005 due to the delays surrounding a FDA decision on the pill.  The Associated Press quoted her as saying:

What happened with Plan B demonstrated that the agency was off track, and was not being allowed to do its job properly.  This is telling the FDA to move forward with a focus on good science.

The President and CEO of the Reproductive Health Technologies Project, Kristen Moore, said “This ruling validates what we have known all along - politicians trumped the scientists when it came to the FDA’s handling of Plan B.”

Naturally, many conservative groups are angered over the ruling.

Next Page »