Patient advocacy groups, most of them drug industry-funded, have asked President-elect Barack Obama to appoint a Food and Drug Administration commissioner who won't cave in to pressure from lawmakers or the news media, according to this morning's Wall Street Journal.
It is news to me that the news media has much say about decisions at FDA. There are reporters who highlight problems, especially safety problems, in the nation's food and drug supply. And there are reporters who highlight every study suggesting the next miracle cure is just around the corner. Large news organizations like the New York Times have both. For every Gardiner Harris, there is a Gina Kolata. The news media are megaphones. They are not, to use someone else's phrase, the decider.
Vioxx and Avandia didn't come to light because of the press or angry legislators on Capitol Hill. What consumers and patients, legislators and the press learned about the lethal side effects of those drugs was due to diligent researchers like Steve Nissen and Eric Topol and courageous whistleblowers inside the FDA like David Graham. Ditto for most of the other safety scandals that have plagued the agency in this decade.
That said, patient advocates who are worried that the agency under a more safety-conscious commissioner will somehow abandon the search for faster cures should know that their views are well represented inside the transition team. Josh Sharfstein, the Baltimore health commissioner, formerly on Rep. Henry Waxman's staff, who took up cause of making pediatric cold medicines safer, may be leading the effort. But his co-conveners include Greg Simon, who heads a group called . . . da da . . . Faster Cures (not industry-funded, according to Simon). The other team leader is attorney Alta Charo from the University of Wisconsin, whose expertise is primarily in bioethics, not drug safety.
I don't think I'm talking out of school by confirming that I was one of a dozen or so consumer advocates who met with the transition team last week. A memo I prepared on behalf of the Center for Science in the Public Interest will be posted on the transition team's website in short order (as per the president-elect's instructions; he wants the process totally transparent). I raised a number of concerns well beyond the narrow topic of drug safety, including several familiar to regular readers of this blog like rejoining the Helsinki Declaration on protecting human subjects in clinical trials, comparative effectiveness and biogeneric legislation.
Our group didn't get special treatment. As we entered for our one-hour session, a group of patient advocates, including representatives from the National Organization on Rare Diseases (NORD) and several cancer advocacy groups, was leaving. As we departed, a phalanx of lawyers and lobbyists for Advamed, the medical device industry trade association, entered.
When President Clinton took office, he left the sitting FDA commissioner -- David Kessler -- in place. He went on to become a fervent advocate of reining in the tobacco industry, even as he allowed the drug division to drift toward closer collaboration with industry. The current commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach, a faithful servant of the Bush administration with close ties to the cancer research establishment, signaled this week he will resign on inauguration day. I suspect the appointment of a new commissioner will come quickly. There's much work to be done in implementing last year's safety amendments.
But the new commissioner will not have the option of being anti-industry. The drug and biotechnology industries recognize they are at a crossroads. Their blockbusters are coming off patent. The era of personalized medicine based on validated biomarkers is at hand. But as we learn more about these drugs (this week's hearing on EGFr inhibitors like Erbitux and Vectibix and how they don't work on colorectal cancer patients who have the K-RAS mutation is a case in point) means new drugs in the pipeline will be useful to ever smaller segments of the patient population.
Getting the science right, so that the right drugs get to the right patients and only the right patients so that they will be affordable to the health care system as a whole, is the challenge that now confronts agency scientists and whoever becomes the next commissioner. That's not faster cures. That's smarter cures, even as the new commissioner insists that they still meet the agency's statutory hurdles for safety and efficacy.
The above article was corrected from an earlier version to accurately report Alta Charo's primary area of expertise (see the comments).
Comments
I stand corrected!
The era of personalized medicine based on validated biomarkers is indeed at hand. As the increasing numbers and types of cancer drugs are developed, oncologists become more and more likely to misuse them in their practice. Developing a good and clinically practical drug selection system is no less important than the discovery of new drugs or how to put them into the body.
Two years ago, three federal agencies, NCI, FDA, and CMS, announced their program to try to identify biological indicators, or biomarkers, which may indicate whether a cancer patient is likely to benefit from a given anti-cancer therapy, or even whether they will suffer from certain side effects. Biomarkers were already a part of drug development, but health officials wanted to routinely incorporate those measurements into clinical trials.
We have the biomarkers for who will respond so we don't give these powerful and expensive medicines to those who won't. Just look at the Iressa/Tarceva story. A total failure of huge clinical trials because the proper patients were not selected. We should be able to detect cancer pathways with biomarkers and choose patients for a trial based on who responds very quickly to a drug. The ordinary trial system will not suffice if we are to encourage new drugs for restricted numbers of patients.
The same goes for Erbitux/Vectibix. All the EGFR mutation or amplification studies tell us is whether or not the cells are potentially susceptible to this mechanims of attack. They don't tell you if one drug is better or worse than some other drug which may target this. The cell is a system, an integrated, interacting network of genes, proteins and other cellular constituents that produce functions. You need to analyze the systems' response to drug treatments, not just one target or pathway.
The methods of cancer medicine during the last thirty some years are coming to haunt the "one-size-fits-all" establishment. But giving instructions on the genetic differences that determine how a person responds to a drug will still have cancer medicine being prescribed on a trial-and-error basis, with adverse drug reactions remaining a major cause of injury and hospitalizations.
Technologies, developed over the last twenty years by private researchers, hold the key to solving some of the problems confronting a healthcare system that is seeking ways to best allocate available resources while accomplishing the critical task of matching individual patients with the treatments most likely to benefit them.
By way of small correction: I am identified as a law professor with expertise in bioethics and AIDS-related research and not in drug safety. As per the biography, to which your article provides a link, my academic research has not been focused on AIDS or AIDS-related research. I did, though, serve on the IOM committee that issued the 2006 report "The Future of Drug Safety."