By Gary Pepper, M.D.
A survey by metabolism.com reveals that a vast majority of the public believe doctors in the US are overly influenced in their decisions by the pharmaceutical industry. 500 visitors to the website participated in the survey. 419 (84%) answered yes to the question, “Do you feel that US doctors’ decisions are overly influenced by pharmaceutical industry money?” 56 (11%) were not sure, and only 20 (4%) voted no to this question. Continue reading
diabetes, diabetes drug, Glaxo, Glaxo-SmithKline, gsk, lecturer, pharma, pharmaceutical, physician, physician lecturer, Tanzeum 
Comment
Broken promise
by Dr. S. Brown
Less than a year ago, Glaxo-SmithKline made a public pledge to stop using physicians as paid promoters of their pharmaceutical products. Now, with the release of their new diabetes product, Tanzeum, GSK also released a list of 168 freshly minted physician lecturers, specifically trained to promote the new drug.
As of yet, no other company has joined in the effort to clean up physician marketing of new drug products. Perhaps it became clear to the pharmaceutical giant that using doctors to promote their products was just too successful a tactic to give up, particularly if the competition refused to abide by the new rules.
Coincidentally, in the 2014, September 2 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine (Ann Int Med 2014; 161 (5): 363-363), Jerry Avorn, M.D. of Harvard University, authored an opinion piece Continue reading
Arena Pharmaceuticals, cardiovascular, cholesterol, diabetes, diabetics, drug, drug safety, drugs, FDA, lorcaserin, Lorgess, obese, obesity, pharmaceutical, phentermine, Qnexa, risk, Safety, show, topamax, topiramate, treatment, Vivus, weight, weight loss, weight loss drug, weight loss medication
(8) Comments
As a culture we don’t plan for a sudden halt in scientific advancements. Our tendency is to expect progress to be rapid and continuous. My prediction is that in certain areas of medical science we are likely to see not only a halt in progress but a slipping backward. In particular, the realm of medical weight management is in complete disarray at this time. Two new drugs designed to induce weight loss have been shot down by the FDA in the last few months. The first is Qnexa, developed by Vivus Inc. Interestingly, Qnexa combines two drugs already approved for use in the U.S. One of the drugs is phentermine which is a medication used for decades as an appetite suppressant. The other is a common drug used to treat seizures with the brand name Topamax (topiramate) which also induces weight loss. The drug performed admirably in clinical trials with most participants losing over 10% of body mass. The FDA cited excessive risks of the drug in its statement of rejection. One wonders why the drugs are still being marketed separately if they are so dangerous.
The latest drug to be rejected by the FDA is Lorgess (lorcaserin), developed by Arena Pharmaceuticals. This drug, not as effective as Qnexa, produced 5% body mass loss in about half of participants in clinical trials. Lab animals showed a tendency to develop breast tumors when exposed to the medication, adding to the FDA’s decision to reject the drug application based on safety concerns.
I am a strong advocate of drug safety and regulation. On the other hand we know obesity, and with it Type 2 diabetes, is epidemic in the U.S. I regard weight loss as the “holy grail” when treating type 2 diabetes and yet it is the most difficult goal to achieve. Any drug which could assist in weight loss is highly desirable in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes. Not only does blood sugar improve with weight loss but also blood pressure and cholesterol readings show declines. All three of these parameters are known to be prime contributors to the main cause of death in diabetics, cardiovascular disease.
It has already been 10 years since the last drug was approved specifically for a weight loss indication. The failure of these two latest medications to achieve approval is certain to cause the pharmaceutical industry to severely curtail if not abandon further investment in this type of drug development.
Why is the FDA so reluctant to approve a weight loss pill? This is a complex issue but requires an answer. A new weight loss inducing medication is certain to be highly anticipated and widely prescribed. Therefore, from the very first day of approval the FDA must take responsibility for the well being of millions of people who are likely to take the medication. We are a society which demands our medications deliver miraculous cures with no side-effects. If someone perceives they have been injured by a medication our legal system is primed to unleash brutal retribution on everyone remotely involved in the approval process. Abuse and injury with a medication designed to cause weight loss is almost a certainty. This is a no-win situation for the administration of the FDA.
I predict it will be at least another 10 years before a medication for weight loss is approved by the FDA. Unless there is a change in the climate of litigation in this country it will take longer than that. In the meantime the only new developments in weight loss drugs will be the result of exploiting appetite suppressant effects which are the “side-effect” of medications approved for other purposes.
Gary Pepper, M.D.
Editor-in-Chief, Metabolism.com
New Diabetes Treatment Guidelines Lack Credibility:
Recently the American Academy of Clinical Endocrinologists issued new treatment guidelines for treating Type 2 Diabetes. Complex medical guidelines are often referred to as a treatment algorithm. One of the stated goals of the AACE algorithm is to focus primarily on the theoretical ability of the diabetic medications to control blood sugar while ignoring the cost of the medication. The rationale to this approach is that controlling blood sugar with more expensive drugs will cost less in the long run since patients will be healthier and have less complications due better control of the blood sugar. On the surface this philosophy seems sound but digging beneath the surface reveals dangerous flaws in this thinking.
1. The first assumption, that newer medications for diabetes are better than older drugs is unsubstantiated. In fact there is ample evidence that newer diabetic drugs are no better than the older drugs for controlling blood sugar. The latest study finding no benefit of the newer diabetes medications is the FIELD study conducted outside of the U.S. This study showed that 5 years of treatment with the older diabetic drugs (sulfonylureas, metformin and insulin) resulted in adequate and prolonged control of blood sugar. In 2007 researchers from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health summarized the results of major studies using older and newer anti-diabetic medications and found no significant benefit of the newer medications.
2. The next assumption, that cost is not a key factor in treatment success contradicts most clinicians’ experience in diabetes care. It is clear to me, that patients are far less likely to comply with using expensive drugs than medications they can more easily afford. Looking at the numbers reveals the vast cost differences between the older (generic) versus the newer (brand) medications. Using figures provided by a local pharmacy I found that the retail cost of a typical two drug therapy for diabetes using older drugs is $59 per month. The retail cost of using two of the new drugs for a month ranges from $481 to $570. In more severe diabetes three drugs per day may be needed. The low cost alternative amounts to $185 per month while the high end alternative with new drugs is $610 per month. Looking at the cost of using insulin shows a similar vast cost difference between the older and newer drugs. Older forms of insulin may cost $100 for a month’s supply while a similar course of therapy with the newer insulin preparations will cost almost $250 per month. How many people will be willing and able to afford the new versus the old drugs, particularly knowing that there may be no health benefit to the more expensive drug combination?
The end result of not being able to afford these prices is non-compliance with medications and the result of non-compliance is higher costs passed on to the medical system. The Medco study from 2005 showed that the least compliant patients were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized compared to the most compliant, and that the yearly cost of caring for non-compliant patients is double that of compliant patients.
3. My next point is possibly the most contentious. The AACE guidelines were produced by a committee of physicians chaired by two distinguished endocrinologists, Dr. Paul Jellinger and Dr. Helena Rodbard. Both doctors are highly respected and accomplished. They are also both highly compensated consultants to the pharmaceutical companies which market the newest generation of diabetes medications. In the disclaimer attached to the committee’s recommendations, both Dr. Jellinger and Dr. Rodbard admit to consulting arrangements with virtually every one of the pharmaceutical companies whose interests are effected by their committee’s findings. I too am a consultant to many of these same companies (at least, until now), but I am not responsible for developing national guidelines for diabetes care. In my opinion the close association of both committee chairmen to the pharmaceutical companies detracts heavily from the credibility of their recommendations. The need for credibility is even more important when the AACE committee advises physicians to avoid using sulfonylureas, the only class of drugs not marketed by any of the big pharma companies. and which also happens to be the cheapest drug class, the drugs with the longest history of use, and the class of drugs many regard as the most effective at lowering blood sugar levels. The sulfonylurea class of drugs is so effective at lowering blood sugar, in fact, they are used as the gold standard by which the effectiveness of all new diabetic medications are compared.
4. In contrast with the AACE, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) has issued more conservative guidelines for diabetic therapy, preserving the role of the older generic drugs. My recommendation is that AACE go back to their committee and reconsider the way they have produced their algorithm. Appointing new leadership whose credentials do not lend themselves so readily to skepticism, would be an important first step in that process.
Gary Pepper, M.D.
Editor-in-Chief, Metabolism.com