I know Facebook exists, but I am not part of its ever-growing half-a-billion member network. But a pharma company apparently is. Novartis — maker of such patented mainstays as Lotrel and hot seller Diovan — was sent a notice by the FDA in which the government agency accused the drugmaker of violating Facebook terms in relation to their misleading potential consumers over a leukemia drug.

Once the drug info is viewed on the popular social network, users can spread the word about all of its benefits, but about none of its risks. In the ad for the drug, claims were made that it outperforms other anti-leukemia drugs on the market; those claims have not been proven. | PDF LINK

Besides making news on the antidiabetic treatment front recently with Avandia, the FDA has also been tackling the push by some advocacy groups to tighten or restrict the use of some opioid medications — most notably drugs like oxycodone. The FDA voting panel rejected concerns of its various advisory panels on the subject to enforce the restrictions  (it usually follows its advisory recommendations).

Had the agency gone ahead with the recommendation to restrict usage, providers giving the drug would have been subjected to special training based upon the new rules for prescribing. At this time, only registration with the DEA is needed for physicians to give most opioids. Perhaps due to political pressures from providers and systems involved in chronic pain treatment, the FDA did not want to go down that road at a time when reform will probably produce more bureaucratic weight on the agency than what it can normally endure. Here’s to a sound decision on that point. | LINK

The vote is 20-12 against withdrawing GSK’s troubled drug Avandia from the marketplace. Essentially, the FDA says that — in spite of the earlier vote the committee had on positively acknowledging the cardiac risks associated with the drug — those risks were not deemed strong enough to warrant removal. Twelve of the committee’s 33 members voted to pull Avandia off the market altogether, while only three supported leaving it on the market with its current labeling. Seven wanted to add stiffer language to the current label, and 10 wanted both stiffer language and restrictions on its use.

What is known now is that, according to the FDA, unless there is more long-term data on a link between Avandia’s use and cardiovascular death, there is nothing in terms of evidence currently convincing enough to warrant pulling the drug from the market. That’s the official statement by the agency, anyway.

As the debate over Avandia enters its second day, more controversy is sure to erupt. With both sides clinging to inexplicable minutiae as much as they are to the major points defining this hefty FDA review, the outcome will probably say a lot about the process that leads to it. The latest salvos from Day 1?

An FDA scientist, speaking of GSK’s studies of the drug minimizing risk: You can’t trust it, and if we do trust it, we’re engaging in the willing suspension of disbelief.

GSK’s VP of Clinical Development: Our studies provide the most robust and reliable data  to assess Avandia’s safety, and those studies have found no evidence to suggest the drug increases the risk of heart attack or stroke in its users.

Testimony continues today with a decision expected on whether to pull the drug or apply restrictions to its use.

GSK (then known as SmithKline Beecham) knew in a 1999 trial that Avandia, the drug undergoing scrutiny on its fate in the pharma marketplace today, posed a signficant cardiac risk when compared to its major competitor Actos — and it purposefully covered up that information. This, according to a report obtained by the NYT.

The reports … say that if every diabetic now taking Avandia were instead given a similar pill named Actos, about 500 heart attacks and 300 cases of heart failure would be averted every month because Avandia can hurt the heart.

GSK has always stuck to its guns in defending its assertions that statements like that are based upon faulty safety information gleaned from major trials casting the drug in a negative light — like the well-known RECORD trial, which found that the overall risk of cardiovascular death of Avandia was not statistically significant. That meta-analysis was commissioned by GSK at the request of the FDA.

This is just the latest revelation in a very public battle over a Pharma company’s credibility in the healthcare marketplace and the validity of new information from a Senate investigation into that company’s handling of the trial results. Implications on who controls subsequent drug safety and treatment data years after a drug’s initial availability and what it means for the welfare of the public taking the drug versus pharma profits from the sale of the drug should be weighing greatly on the FDA panel making the decision on the drug’s ultimate fate. | LINK

It’s official. The FDA will convene this Tuesday (13) to discuss and come to a decision on the fate of GSK’s Avandia. I guess you could literally call this agent a wonder drug — as its continued availability in the Pharma marketplace in spite of hundreds of class action lawsuits, multiple studies stretching back to at least 2005 documenting a clear association with an increase in heart attack risk, and copious physician calls for its withdrawal — continues to amaze healthcare policy watchers.

For the first time it appears that the handwringing on both sides of this hotly debated drug (Pharma/GSK vs. medical critics) appears to be taking on an overtly political tone, as even within the government agency itself, there is a deep devision over just how this entire case should be handled. The hoopla surrounding the removal of Vioxx and Bextra (anti-inflammatories with similarly documented cardiac risks) was never this contentious. Even U.S. senators have weighed in on the issue.^[1] What will the fate of this drug be? Tighter restrictions on its use, or complete removal from the pharma marketplace? Perhaps the answer says as much about the FDA as it does about GSK. | LINK

1. Sens. Baucus and Grassley published a report questioning the FDA’s rationale for keeping the drug available while GSK knew about the drug’s risks. [↩]

A couple of weeks before the FDA meets to discuss the safety of the antidiabetic medication Avandia come (coincidentally) more reasons this agent should be withdrawn from the pharma marketplace. One study concludes that Avandia increased the risk of death, heart failure, stroke or heart attack by almost 20 percent compared with its main competitor, Actos. Another trial noting heart-attack risks associated with Avandia found that one of every 52 patients using the drug had an almost 33 percent increased risk of getting one.

Not to be outdone, the pharma manufacturer of Avandia — Glaxo Smith Kline — is standing by the troubled drug, releasing a statement saying that randomized trials show it is, indeed, safe; the American Diabetes Association agrees, saying there is no increase in overall mortality from the drug — independent of its effect on one’s risk of cardiovascular complications. Physicians have gone on record as being, at the very least, circumspect on the safety data trumpeted by GSK — noting flaws^[1] every step of the way. | LINK

1. Physician-critics have said the overall rate of cardiovascular problems among patients in the trial was suspiciously low. Many Avandia patients took statins — 10 percent more than the non-Avandia users — and those cholesterol-fighters are known to cut heart attack risk. Also, they say, a relatively high level of patients dropped out of the trial entirely, which could have compromised the results. [↩]

Unlocking Medicaid fraud can be as tortuous and labyrinthine a process as making sense of the legislation itself. Often, grandiosity characterizes elaborate institutional methods involving private entities bilking the government out of untold billions that essentially are absorbed by the government even after prosecution of the offenders — only adding to the cost outlay of the entitlement program.

Alternatively, fraud indirectly involving Pharma is fast becoming an issue because, for certain populations, Medicaid has been responsible for much of the cost of care delivery via drugs — many of which are branded. Where the legislation should draw the line, however, is in the unauthorized use of many of those medications explicitly granted a warning by the FDA as prohibited. Drugs used to treat mental illness — particularly as unauthorized in children, and reimbursible under Medicaid — fall squarely within this class of rules.

Nowhere is this occurring as rapidly as in the child foster care system, in which these children — often burdened with multiple placements, obvious parental neglect, and the influence of illicit drugs and criminal environments — are exposed to rather abusive prescribing practices by providers using psychotropics to treat what amounts to a troubled lifestyle … instead of frank mental illness. | LINK

What is known about the H1N1 epidemic that plagued the world in 2009 was its influence in global approach to this infection — for good or bad — and the costs to nations which chose to meet its threat head on. What wasn’t known at the time (but may be increasingly apparent if many European countries have their say) is that the trajectory of the influenza strain’s influence as a major media event may have been manufactured, by, of all entities, Pharma and its association with the World Health Organization. The concerns are outlined in an 18-page report criticizing costs deemed by many nations as unnecessary, as were “amplified” fears at the hands of the organization in galvanizing support for guidelines influenced by Pharma makers of the H1N1 vaccine.

Calling the WHO and its response to the H1N1 epidemic “exaggerated” and “lacking credibility”, many European nations are quite vexed that, among other things, guidelines issued by the WHO in response to what it termed as an epidemic came from consultants who received much in the way of fees from two leading Pharma manufacturers of the vaccine that would prevent the virus’s spread: Roche and GSK. The WHO has opened up its own international investigations into the matter — one of which involves the Institute Of Medicine on these shores.

The WHO asserts no potential for conflict of interest within its ranks, as this appears to be the central question in this entire matter. | LINK

One look at the infographic below, and you’ll see that alrazolam (Xanax) was the most prescribed psychotropic in the U.S. last year. Interesting, but not surprising. Via GOOD. | LINK

Prescription Psychotropic Infographic via GOOD

Add yet another blow to GSK’s once-blockbuster diabetes drug, Avandia (rosiglitazone). The ongoing soap opera that is this drug’s manufacture and continued presence begins another chapter in its struggle to retain some semblance of competition in the pharma marketplace. Avandia’s troubles and brushes with near-market revocation are greater amidst news of the FDA considering axing its inclusion in a safety study involving itself and its much safer congener, Actos (pioglitazone).

The concerns over Avandia’s possible involvement in increasing death due to cardiovascular problems are legion and stretch back at least nine years, with its most recent actions coming this past February — as Senators Max Baucus (D-MT) and Charles Grassley (R- IA) released a report on the drug in February as well as a 2008 memorandum from two FDA drug safety reviewers who recommended pulling the drug from the U.S. market. | LINK

The FDA’s role in combating the Drug War, at least the one which pertains to prescription narcotic medications, took a step forward yesterday as it approved an extended release form of the heavily abused drug OxyContin — sometimes called “hillbilly heroin”. The drug’s pharma manufacturer has attempted to prevent any sort of adulteration to the drug as it cannot be destroyed in any way in order to release the compound for abuse.

The verdict is out on how such a plan will curb misuse — when all junkies have to do is simply increase the quantity taken to obtain the same effect — but the step toward efforts to decrease the drug’s diversion is still a step in the right direction. As a condition of approval, the pharma manufacturer is also required to conduct a postmarketing study to evaluate the potential benefits of the new formulation with respect to abuse and misuse of OxyContin.

A major focus of President Obama’s healthcare reform initiatives included over $1B in funding for comparative effectiveness research — a discipline designed to study the most efficacious, efficient, and low-cost methods for healthcare delivery. Perhaps the most basic scenario is defined by the study of two different pharmacological therapies for the same problem. A trial published in this week’s JAMA states, however, that relatively few studies were devoted to this research modality, a cornerstone of Obama’s pledge to research better ways to deliver healthcare more cheaply. Only a third of 328 studies published in six top medical journals from June 2008 through September 2009 met the definition of comparative effectiveness, according to the investigators.

Naturally pharma companies aren’t invested in such matters, with the majority of funding for CE trials paid for by public sources. Typical pharma-financed trials are usually designed to show positive results. Although the need for unbiased, pure research is high given Obama’s admirable concern for such resource deployments, the road to drug research using such models is a long one filled with roadblocks — as long as Pharma has a stake. Perhaps a better way to ensure greater adoption of this initiative is not only to earmark a steady stream of federal funds targeted at comparative effectiveness research, but also to compare newer treatments with longstanding existing modes of treatments (pharma or otherwise) whenever possible.

RELATED: House bill concerning CE [PDF] | Senate bill [PDF]