Weekly Roundup – 5/1/09

J0289047 May has begun and it is time to see if the April showers thing pays off.  And April went out like a lion. Who would have suspected just last Friday that a new pathogen would emerge and achieve pandemic status within a week?  Suddenly the CDC has videos out on use of respirators, there are guidances for treating flu under all sorts of circumstances and with all types of patients.  And if you sit back and take stock of the activity within a week, whether or not you are impressed by the threat of the pandemic, you have to admit that it looks like public health authorities for the most part, if not public officials, really have their act together in informing the public and unrolling their plan and getting out a LOT of information within the span of a short week.  (Remember the communications train wreck around anthrax?)

But many people have grown weary of flu, so here is a little bit of what happened on the more tame side of things:
  • Northfield Labs Gets Complete Response Letter for PolyHeme – The FDA sent Northfield a CRL for its blood substitute investigational product.  The letter cited both safety and efficacy concerns.  With regard to the latter, the primary endpoint was not achieved in the pivotal trial- being another piece of evidence that no matter what the merits of the product – or how close it was to meeting the endpoint, if a primary endpoint is missed, it really narrows the chances of a product approval.  The company is considering next steps.
  • Prostate Cancer Treatment Developments – News came from two companies on the prostate cancer treatment front – one with a lot of drama, the other a bit more quietly. Dendreon  announced this week the much anticipated results from its IMPACT trial which meant to look at the efficacy of its investigational prostate cancer vaccine Provenge, which previously received a CRL from the FDA.  The announcement contained results that Provenge provided a 4.1 month survival benefit to prostate cancer patients over placebo. And Ferring Pharmaceuticals announced that they were beginning a Phase IIIb trial on Degarelix, a new injectible FDA approved gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor antagonist to investigate its use in patients with advanced prostate cancer.    
  • Doctors Just as Or More Comfortable with e-Promotion Compared to Drug Sales Reps - An interesting study was reported by MM&M this week that revealed that 73% of doctors stated that e-promotions by drug companies are equal or superior to interactions with drug reps.  A lot of people will take this news in different ways, but it is nonetheless, very interesting.  

That's it for me this week.  The events on the public health front have had me hopping.  Have a good weekend everyone and be well.   And if you are interested, here is a blow by blow chronology of the events as they unfolded this week related to the flu.  Someone needs to put this in a widget.   

Share this:
Share this page via Email Share this page via Stumble Upon Share this page via Digg this Share this page via Facebook Share this page via Twitter
This entry was posted in Weekly Roundup. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Weekly Roundup – 5/1/09

  1. Dan says:

    Terminal patients are those who are not expected to live due to usually illness such as advanced cancer. If the patient has 6 months or less to live, those patients are considered terminally ill. Regardless, if a patient is terminal, they are without a cure or a tolerable treatment for their illness. Since such The patients will likely die in a short period of time, treatment options, even if unproven, are often desired by such patients. This is understandable, because at such a severe stage of illness, such as prostate cancer, possible extension of their lives with comfort is worth it to them, regardless of lack of evidence of proof of whatever treatment that may be advantageous to them regarding these issues. The FDA, however, claims authority on the treatment options of such patients, although that administration has proven itself over the years to be rather inadequate with its frequent drug recalls and black box warnings, and they do these things only under pressure from the public, usually. So, the FDA may not be an ideal judge regarding such issues as treatment options for very sick patients.
    Prostate cancer is rather frequent, with between 10 to 20 percent of men predicted to acquire the disease during their lifespan, resulting in about 30,000 deaths a year from this disease. It is the third most common cancer one can acquire, and the United States has the most cases diagnosed n the world, which usually strikes men past the age of fifty. One million do have prostate cancer in the United States, and about thirty thousand will die from the disease each year. Furthermore, there are different stages of prostate cancer, and the more severe the prostate cancer cases are, the higher of what are called Gleason Scores will be, and the severe cases are the most difficult to treat, of course.
    Yet innovation still exists in medicine. A few years ago, a small Biotechnology company called Dendreon was working on a conceptually new treatment for the worst prostate cancer patients, and this treatment therapy created by Dendreon was named Provenge. Provenge is the first immunotherapy biologic treatment for the progressed prostate cancer patients. Usually, these patients are unresponsive to usual treatment methods for prostate cancer, and are left with chemotherapy, specifically a hazardous drug called Taxotere, as their only treatment option at such a traumatic stage of prostate cancer. Understandably, most patients at this stage refuse treatment entirely, largely due to the brutal side effects of such chemotherapy treatments as Taxodere, which include cytotoxic side effects and haematological adverse events. The immunotherapy method developed by Dendreon requires the removal of white blood cells of the diseased patient and, after altered, are re-injected into this patient now designed to attack within the diseased body what is called PAP, which is on prostate cancer cells only. This treatment requires only three such injections in a period of six weeks. This results in life extension twice that of Taxodere, and Provenge is free of the discomfort of the only other treatment of Taxotere. The medical community and survivors of prostate cancer were elated and waited with great anticipation for access to this treatment method.
    Fortunately, as the years passed, Provenge, by 2007, had convinced others of its safety and efficacy in its benefit for severe prostate cancer patients. This caused great joy to such patients and their families. Perhaps greater elation was experienced by the caregivers and specialists of such a disease, such as Urologists and other caregivers who treat such patients. While Provenge was on fast track status at this time at the FDA, as they at the time agreed with the benefits of this new therapy, the FDA panel recommended with clarity the approval of Provenge based on its proven and superior efficacy and safety that was demonstrated in its trials, as they announced in March of 2007. Lifespan extension of severe prostate cancer patients was twice as long with Provenge versus Taxotere, which is the only other treatment indicated for this stage of prostate cancer that had only superficial efficacy, and is free of the toxic effects of this chemotherapy agent.
    Now for the bad news: With great shock and surprise, the FDA agency rejected the approval of this great treatment for very sick patients due to, they said, ‘lack of data’ in May of 2007. This contradicts their favorable opinion of Provenge weeks before delivering this terrible news. Especially when one considers the FDA Commissioner is a prostate cancer survival himself! Many found this ruling completely unbelievable.
    Soon after this judgment was passed by the FDA, conflicts of interest were discovered by others. For example, a member of the FDA agency who was evaluating Provenge, Dr. Scher, was found to have a financial commitment to a future competitor of Provenge that was being produced by a company called Novacea, and this company had signed a co-promotion agreement with Schering to provide support for this similar prostate cancer drug treatment being developed by this company. Dr. Scher never disclosed this conflict during the approval process of Provenge. As it turns out, this anticipated prostate cancer drug made by Novacea was discovered to have serious flaws, and Schering pulled out of the agreement with Novacea. In addition to this incident and before May of 2007, baseless letters were anonymously delivered to the FDA stating negative qualities about Provenge that were without Merit and speculative claims about the treatment were fabricated in these letters, it is believed Oncologists were speculated to lobby and pressure the FDA not to approve Provenge due to anticipated revenue loss. Yet overall, the disapproval by the FDA of Provenge angered and saddened many, and a newly formed advocacy group called Care to Live filed a lawsuit against the FDA for their clear lack of etiology for not approving Provenge, as they should have, according to the data about the therapy last year.
    Terminal patients, I surmise, desire comfort during their progressive disease that has placed them in the last chapter of their lives, and certainly should have a right to choose any treatment that possibly could benefit them. Clearly, because of their lack of desirable and beneficial treatment options, most are willing to assume any risks of unapproved, yet potentially and likely beneficial treatments such as Provenge. Because they have a terminal illness, these benefits provided by Provenge take priority over any possible safety issues of unapproved treatments for them. The controversy could be concluded by a terminal patient signing a waiver of some sort, perhaps, stating that they are responsible for the consequences of an unapproved treatment regimen such as Provenge. Yet the FDA, with reckless disregard and with deliberate intent, denied what likely was a great treatment therapy for these very ill patients. Several have concluded that the FDA ultimately harmed others more by not approving Provenge, or offering any valid explanations explaining their action. Thier action was irrational, as one considers the agreement of the FDA and others regarding the need of the benefits provided by Provenge for the sickest of the sick with advanced prostate cancer.
    The FDA does in fact presently have the ability to grant what is called conditional approval for such treatment methods as Provenge at this time, and why they have not remains completely unknown. What is known is that they are accelerating and worsening the illness, an illness the FDA pledged to protect so long ago. So now the FDA appears to be a bought, corrupt, and incompetent administration without loyalty and dedication to the public and its health, but with what appears to be overt collusion with venture capitalists and corporations. This needs to be corrected in any way possible for the lives of others- regardless of their own present health state today. Because of the FDA’s flaws in the past regarding drugs taken off the market along with increasing black box warnings of other drugs, which happens often with both, the individual should be the deciding factor in such matters of deciding thier treatment course presently, along with their health care provider, due to this unreliable administration called the FDA.
    “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.” — Aldous Huxley
    Dan Abshear