Drug Safety 2010: Nissen Meets With FDA Leadership as the Avandia Advisory Committee Meeting Looms

The most important single event for FDA’s drug review in 2010 and possibly beyond is coming this summer: the advisory committee re-review of GlaxoSmithKline’s diabetes drug

Since passage of the landmark FDA Amendments Act of 2007, the drug approval climate at FDA has improved steadily. To view The RPM Report’s analysis on the drug approval climate, click here

It appears one potential conclusion that can be drawn is that FDA’s comfort level with the postmarket control and monitoring tools given to them through FDAAA is adding confidence to approval decisions.

But the Avandia re-review could change all that. Whether FDA chooses to pull Avandia from the market, keep the drug on the market, suspend use temporarily or further restrict its use, the agency must ensure that it does one thing: make a credible decision. Any outcome deemed to be unsatisfactory by FDA stakeholders in Congress, and the experts they listen to, puts the improving drug approval momentum in real jeopardy.

Just to recall briefly: In May 2007, a meta-analysis by Cleveland Clinic cardiologist Steve Nissen published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that Avandia (rosiglitazone) was associated with over a 40% increase in heart attack risk. The House Oversight & Government Reform Committee put together a hearing before FDA could respond to the study. In July 2007, FDA convened the Endocrinologic & Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee and the Drug Safety & Risk Management Advisory Committee to assess Avandia’s future.

The joint committee voted 20-3 that the drug increases cardiac ischemic risk but subsequently voted 22-1 against withdrawal of the TZD. The panel meeting surfaced an “internal disagreement” between the Office of New Drugs and Office of Surveillance & Epidemiology over whether to withdraw rosiglitazone over heart attack risks.

On October 2, 2007, FDA’s Drug Safety Oversight Board voted (8-7) to keep Avandia on the market. The non-public vote was questioned by ranking Senate Finance Committee Republican Charles Grassley (Iowa) due to the lack of transparency. On November 14, 2007, FDA issued a black-box warning for Avandia warning of heart attacks. GSK agreed to conduct a long-term postmarket safety trial of Avandia compared to competitor Takeda’s Actos to confirm a higher CV risk for rosiglitazone; the trial was named TIDE. The TIDE trial is expected to be complete in 2015.

The Senate Finance Committee released a major report on February 22 bringing to light internal emails and memos related to Avandia and heightened CV risks. On February 26, House Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Rosa DeLauro (FDA’s chief appropriator) gave a detailed critique of GSK’s RECORD study, which the company maintains supports Avandia’s safety profile.

Now FDA is scheduled to hold another re-review of Avandia, likely July 13-14.

"Congresswoman DeLauro is looking forward to the advisory committee meeting and its findings,” a spokesperson for DeLauro says. “She believes that the TIDE trial is unethical and should be halted immediately, and has urged the FDA before to remove Avandia from the market until a truly independent, science-based advisory panel can evaluate the safety and effectiveness of the drug.”

DeLauro and her staff met with FDA Principal Deputy Commissioner Joshua Sharfstein and Assistant Commissioner for Legislation, and former staffer to Rep. John Dingell, Jeanne Ireland on May 20. The topic? “Drug safety.”

DeLauro isn’t the only one meeting with FDA leadership. Nissen recently met with FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg and Sharfstein to make the case that the TIDE trial was unethical and that Avandia needed to be withdrawn.

The major threat to the approval environment and the current FDA review structure is that an outcome on Avandia that is viewed as lacking credibility will energize those who want to split the Center for Drug Evaluation & Research into two separate centers or offices. A split would still be a long-shot, but a possibility nonetheless.

“As far as the FDA’s organization, the Congresswoman believes that serious consideration should be given to creating two independent offices within FDA – one that would be responsible for reviewing drug applications, and another for post-market surveillance,” the DeLauro spokesperson says. “It is something she has been concerned with for awhile, and the Avandia case serves as a reminder of just how important it is to address this situation.”

Here are a few points to consider as the Avandia re-review approaches:

1) How many advisory committee members will be assembled? In July 2007, there were 23 panel members convened for the meeting. That is a large number of committee members, many of whom were given temporary voting status. The makeup of the committee will be equally important in terms of the balance between drug safety specialists and E&M committee panelists (to view the 2007 final roster, click here).

2) Will the full Actos safety data be presented? Our understanding is that FDA asked both GSK and Takeda for every shred of data related to Actos and have had the data for “months.” Whether or not those data are formally presented at the meeting will go to the heart of the credibility question whatever the committee and FDA decide to do with Avandia. The current buzz in Washington is that not all of the Actos data will be presented, but it is still too early to determine whether that will actually be the case in the end.

3) Will Nissen present? At the July 2007 meeting, Nissen did not make a formal presentation of his meta-analysis—the whole reason for the existence of the panel meeting—to the advisory committee. Instead, he sat in a chair along with the rest of the audience. Something similar happened with Sanjay Kaul, a Cardio-Renal Advisory Committee member who was barred from the advisory committee review of Eli Lilly’s anti-clotting drug prasugrel (to read The RPM Report story, click here).

4) Hamburg and Sharfstein have gone to great lengths to brand the Obama Administration’s FDA as a public health agency. The Avandia re-review represents the first major prescription drug safety, public health issue. How will they react? Hamburg has already gone to IoM for ethical and scientific guidance on postmarket studies (to read our analysis in The RPM Report, click here). Probably the best outcome for the drug industry at large would be a risk evaluation and mitigation strategies (REMS) program that controlled the use of Avandia, monitored patients on the drug, and provided FDA with valuable data on its cardiovascular risk profile. That result would validate the use of FDA’s drug safety authorities under FDAAA, hold together FDA’s current regulatory structure and keep the approval momentum going. But is that enough of a public health message for Hamburg and Sharfstein?

5) There are a number of important FDA officials who will be directly affected by the final decision on Avandia--maybe none more than the ones who will make that decision. Hamburg and Sharfstein will bear the brunt of public scrutiny around the decision. Perhaps no one will be under the microscope more than CDER Director Janet Woodcock, who concluded that Avandia should remain on the market in 2007 with stronger warnings. This is a major issue for FDA. Woodcock is held in high regard as a strong leader, effective manager, and there are few individuals at FDA who understand its operations—and runs them as efficiently—as Woodcock. While the FDA drug safety players are the same—Gerald Dal Pan and David Graham—the drug review management is different compared to 2007. In 2007, CDER Office of Drug Evaluation II Director Robert Meyer gave a public refutation of the conclusions drawn by Graham and Dal Pan that Avandia had to be withdrawn. Meyer is no longer at FDA and Curtis Rosebraugh is the current ODE II Director. However, Mary Parks was and remains the Division Director for Metabolic and Endocrine Drug Products. Both Rosebraugh and Parks will be important officials on the Avandia re-review. Lastly, CDER Deputy Director for Clinical Science Bob Temple will play a role in the Avandia decision but it is unclear exactly what kind and how big a role. Temple has presented publicly about FDA’s tough decision-making when it comes to taking a drug off the market.

There is still a lot of time before the advisory committee: much could change and there are sure to be surprises just as there were in 2007. But it would be an understatement to say there is a lot riding on Avandia.

What's on Steve Nissen's Tape Recorder?

click for larger.

FDA and Drug Safety: It Keeps Getting Worse

How bad is the drug safety climate? Just ask GlaxoSmithKline.

Sure, last Monday was a rough day—nothing like having two FDA officials tell an advisory committee that one of your biggest products ought to be pulled—but we’re not talking about Avandia today.

No, today we are talking about the product formerly known as Trexima, a fixed-dose combination of the GSK’s migraine drug sumatriptan (Imitrex) and the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug naproxen. GSK is developing the combo in partnership with Pozen. On July 31, the Food & Drug Administration issued a second “approvable” letter for Trexima, saying that it is still not convinced the combination is safe enough for marketing. (FDA has already told the companies that it will not approve the Trexima brand name, but the firms are still using it until they settle on a new one.)

In particular, Pozen says, FDA is concerned about a positive genotoxicity test. The agency apparently wants the company to conduct a relatively simple human study to provide reassurance that it is a false signal. This comes after FDA previously declined to approve Trexima because of concerns about the cardiovascular safety profile of the combination.

Keep in mind that this pill combines two ingredients that have been used together countless times in the 15 years that Imitrex has been on the market. If there really is a safety problem here, FDA probably should be doing more than just sending an “approvable” letter to Pozen.

To be fair, Imitrex has well known cardiovascular risks, and naproxen’s cardiovascular safety profile became an issue in the context of the cox-2 inhibitor safety brouhaha. So you can understand why FDA asked for more data. Now, Pozen says, the agency is satisfied on that front (thanks in part to GSK’s willingness to do a post-marketing study on the blood pressure effects of the combo). But the drug is still on hold.

Welcome to the world of new drug reviews in 2007. Trexima is just the latest indication that this may be the worst time ever to try to get a new drug through FDA.

There should be good news soon. Congress is on the verge of enacting historic drug safety legislation—at least, Congress says it will after August vacation. The bill will put new burdens on manufacturers to be sure, but it will also allow Congress to declare the drug safety problem to be fixed. That may lead to increased confidence in FDA as a regulator—and maybe increased confidence within FDA itself to allow the agency to approve drugs even if they do have a safety signal.

SHAMELESS SELF-PROMOTION ALERT: The RPM Report and Ropes & Gray will host a webinar on Aug. 14 to discuss the impact of the pending FDA bill. Two experts from Ropes & Gray’s legal practice will dissect the key provisions of the legislation, and the editors of The RPM Report will tease out the business implications of the law. Registration information is available here.

FDA Advisory Committee Votes to Keep Avandia on the Market

FDA's joint advisory committee voted (22-1) to keep GlaxoSmithKline's diabetes drug Avandia on the market with a black box warning for patients at higher cardiovascular risk. All the votes came with the caveat for stronger warnings.

But they voted 20-3 that Avandia increases the cardiac ischemic risk in type 2 diabetes. What an odd vote.

We don't think it means very much and that Avandia, for all intents and purposes, is dead. See our previous post below. What do you all think?

The Nail in the Coffin on Avandia

It doesn't matter what the committee votes now.

The final blow to GlaxoSmithKline's diabetes drug Avandia was not delivered by FDA whistleblower and director for science and medicine in the office of surveillance and epidemiology David Graham, although he gave the most persuasive presentation during the morning session of today's advisory committee meeting on the troubled product. It was his boss, drug safety director Gerald Dal Pan.

Graham gave the last presentation before lunch and predictably came to the conclusion that Avandia should be pulled from the market. He went through a detailed, half-hour talk explaining why he came to his conclusion, using a combination of results from long-term, placebo controlled studies, and meta-analyses to show rosiglitazone's benefits did not outweigh its cardiovascular risks.

"There is no evidence, none whatsoever, to support the benefits of rosiglitazone with these outcomes," Graham said refering to a host of cardiovascular adverse events including heart attack. He paralleled the Avandia situation to Warner-Lambert's Rezulin, saying it had cardiovascular risks other drugs (read Takeda's Actos) in the class did not have. Rezulin was pulled for showing fatal liver toxicities other drugs in the class did not have (read our earlier post).

Everyone expected that from Graham. But it was Dal Pan's endorsement of Graham's findings that effectively killed this drug, even if it does stay on the market with a black box warning. If Glaxo's legal team wasn't already in crisis management mode, they certainly will be now.

Dal Pan was noticeably reserved about the meta-analysis finding of a 43% increased risk of heart attack linked to Avandia during an early July Congressional House hearing. He was not ready at that point to make any determination on Avandia. Now, he has reached his conclusion: it should be pulled. The benefit/risk profile of Avandia "is not favorable" Dal Pan concluded.

Best case scenario for Glaxo, Graham says, is that Avandia was responsible for 40,000 excessive cardiovascular events in 6.5 years since 1999. Graham puts the real number at 80,000 excess cases. A real nightmare, if true.

Dal Pan gives credibility to Graham's findings that did not previously exist. The only reason the Office of Drug Safety did not make a formal withdrawal recommendation is that the whole drug safety team had not had a chance to review the analysis as of yet, according to Graham.

There is clearly a line in the sand between the Office of New Drugs and the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology (drug safety) within FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation & Research. OND wants to keep it on the market, OSE wants it off. CDER office of drug evaluation II director Robert Meyer argued eloquently against Graham and Dal Pan's conclusions, adding that he himself had not decided on the appropriate "regulatory action."

But that doesn't mean much anymore. Whether or not it stays on the market, GSK's Avandia is dead.

Avandia and Rezulin: Parallels that Should Make GSK Nervous

History doesn’t repeat itself but it does rhyme. That old Mark Twain saying must be making GlaxoSmithKline sweat as Avandia is starting to look more and more like another Rezulin. By our reading of the tea leaves, Avandia is in much more peril than anyone seems to realize.

GSK is hunkering down for continuing assaults on its number two drug, battered initially by Cleveland Clinic’s Steve Nissen whose meta-analysis showed a 43% increase in heart attack risk for Avandia patients compared to control.

During the company's second quarter conference call, CEO JP Garnier clearly was using the "If you sound like a winner, you are a winner" strategy when it came to discussing Avandia with investors, analysts and media.

"We are still encouraged [about Avandia] because we have seen...a lot of evidence recently," Garnier said of the data GSK has submitted to the agency in advance of a Monday advisory committee fact-gathering meeting. "The evidence is supportive of Avandia's risk/benefit ratio, and of its effect on cardiovascular safety."

GSK is hyping a 400,000-patient epidemiology study of patients on Avandia and Takeda's Actos among other treatments that apparently bodes well for the diabetes drugs.

Glaxo has said that they simply have been unsuccesful in boiling down their message on Avandia to a "7-second soundbyte" which is the reason for the more than 45% decline in new Avandia scripts. " In the US, the media has ... had more of an impact on physician and patient impressions than the data itself," GSK's pharma operations chief David Stout said on the call.

Clearly, the message from GSK is: We stand behind Avandia. Unfortunately for the company, there are some discouraging parallels between their diabetes drug and Warner-Lambert's Rezulin.

Warner-Lambert pioneered the glitazone class, but Rezulin caused liver toxicity that ultimately led to its withdrawal. A recap of the regulatory history suggests some uncomfortable parallels with Avandia and the concerns about cardiovascular safety.

Two months after it got to market in 1997, FDA slapped Rezulin with a stricter warning on its packaging (thanks to 35 post-marketing reports of liver injury). At that point, 500,000 patients were already on the drug. Several "Dear Doctor" letters later, FDA's Endocrine and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee reviewed the liver tox issues, and recommended keeping Rezulin on the market, but only for patients not well-controlled on other diabetes drugs. One year later, the drug was taken off the market when reports kept coming in.

For Avandia, the toxicity is different--cardiovascular rather than liver--but the slow motion, repeated regulatory reactions are similar.

Avandia labeling was rewritten to strengthen cardiovascular safety warnings in 2001, and the company issued a "Dear Doctor" letter on the topic at that time. The concerns were raised more directly in the context of the review of Avandia for an indication for use with insulin; that use was ultimately approved in 2003. The Nissen paper now has put the regulatory machinery into fast forward, and an advisory committee will discuss Avandia's fate on Monday.

All of that is uncomfortable enough, but there is another parallel to the end of Rezulin emerging at the worst time for GSK: a Senate Committee is raising concerns that FDA reassigned a medical officer who wanted to put stronger warnings on Avandia.

If that sounds familiar, it should. In early March 2000, FDA senior medical officer Robert Misbin wrote a letter to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) expressing frustration over FDA's handling of Misbin's attempts during the previous two months to convince the agency's Center for Drug Evaluation & Research that Rezulin had to be withdrawn from the market. Misbin asserted that FDA officials had stopped him from releasing information related to deaths of Rezulin patients.

One other thing: Misbin was the primary reviewer on Avandia and was taken off of the review several years ago. (Apparently, he's not the whistleblower this time around -- for more speculation on who the whistleblower might be, see the next post.)

All in all, Monday's advisory committee meeting doesn’t look good for Avandia. Even if the medical officers keep quiet, FDA will not be presenting a united front to the committee. That's because the agency is once again going to let its most prominent whistleblower, director for science and medicine in OSE David Graham, make a formal presentation. Graham most recently helped ensure that Merck's Arcoxia died a painful public death before an FDA advisory committee. FDA has apparently concluded that they have to let Graham speak at these meetings rather than wait for him to go to Congress to make his presentations. (Here is our coverage of the Arcoxia debacle.)

On Avandia, Graham has already made his position clear in FDA briefing documents. He argues that the current postmarketing studies (in particular the key RECORD study) can't, statistically, demonstrate a heart attack risk related to Avandia: they're underpowered. In other words, the current scientific evidence is all FDA is going to get to make their decision on the future of GSK's drug. Anyone want to venture a guess at where Graham will stand on Avandia?

And its not like FDA won't let the discussion go into whether the drug needs to be pulled. Quite the opposite. Here is one question posed to the committee: "Does the overall risk-benefit profile of Avandia support its continued marketing in the US (VOTE requested)? If yes, please comment on what FDA should do to maximize the risk-benefit considerations (e.g., limit to certain patients, incorporate a boxed warning….)"

That question means FDA is thinking awfully hard about whether this drug should stay on the market. You could argue that they added the question for political cover in order to leave it on the market, but I'm not buying it. I think they really want to know the experts' opinion.
And what will that opinion be? Nissen himself has said Avandia should remain on pharmacy shelves. NIH's Malozowski told us that he didn’t think FDA would pull it. “They will probably add a warning for a subpopulation of patients and a contraindication for its use with insulin."

I also asked Tom Garvey, a former FDA reviewer who runs his own drug development consulting business, what he thought. He concurs with Malozowski. Sort of.

Rezulin could be pulled off the market with less risk, he argued, because there were two other marketed drugs without Rezulin’s liabilities. Moreover, "the absolute risk found by Nissen is small (if, indeed, it exists) and the benefit conferred by Avandia is not inconsequential, especially in certain types of type II diabetics.”

But then he added, surprisingly: “All of this having been said, I too get the sense that the drug is probably doomed."

In short, as with Rezulin, an FDA advisory committee could recommend keeping Avandia on the market, in a limited way—while, in parallel, the political and historical momentum builds to yank it off. On the scientific front, the data isn’t clear. Nissen's meta-analysis has come under intense fire, but his results were confirmed by FDA's own meta-analysis, and they had access to a much larger data set. Meanwhile, GSK's RECORD study has been inconclusive on the heart attack risk question.

But the political front will evolve in its own way. And if history really is rhyming, if not precisely repeating itself, FDA will have a hard time keeping Avandia on the market.

So Who Is the Avandia Whistleblower?

The Senate Finance Committee loves FDA whistleblowers. And it sounds like they have found another one as part of their investigation of the review of GlaxoSmithKline's diabetes drug Avandia.

In a July 24 letter from Senate Finance Committee leadership to FDA, Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) reference a primary reviewer that was taken off the Avandia review for voicing safety concerns about the drug.

Previously it was revealed that the former Deputy Director of the Division of Drug Risk Evaluation in the Office of Surveillance and Epidemiology (OSE) Rosemary Johann-Liang, who recently left the agency, had been verbally reprimanded for recommending that a black box for congestive heart failure be placed on Avandia. Now Baucus and Grassley allege a second reviewer was taken off the review.

"During a recent interview with Finance Committee staff," their letter says, "a senior medical officer in the Office of New Drugs (OND), who at one point was the primary reviewer for Avandia, told staff investigators that s/he was told to stop participation in the review of potential cardiovascular safety problems associated with Avandia. Since 2005, the senior medical officer believed that there was enough evidence to support a black box warning regarding the risk of CHF."

Who's the whistleblower? We first spoke with Robert Misbin, a primary reviewer on Avandia and Bristol-Myers Squibb/Merck's developmental/dead diabetes drug muraglitazar (Pargluva). Misbin was a whistleblower on the first glitazone, Warner-Lambert's withdrawn Rezulin. Is he the reviewer in the letter? "I don't think it's me," he told us. The Senate Finance Committee also says it's not him.

That is a bit of a head scratcher. Misbin sure sounds like the guy, based on the Finance Committee's description of the reviewer as having six years of experience with the class. Misbin supported approval of the drug, but noted his concerns about cardiovascular safety at the time. And he was taken off the Avandia review--but not in 2005. That happened in 2002.

Next, we talked with former Avandia primary reviewer Saul Malozowski, now a senior advisor on endocrine physiology in NIH's National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, who left FDA in 2001. "Nobody under my direct supervision was ever removed from any task in either Avandia or other drugs," he said via email. "I hope you have access to my review of this drug where I underscored the potential pitfalls in the documentation provided and the dangers that patients with cardiac condition could encounter. I also was concerned about the weight gain." So he wasn’t the whistleblower either.

The only other person suggested to us as a possibility is Johanna Zawadzki, who still is a medical officer at the agency in the metabolic and endocrine division and worked on the Avandia review. But even the person who mentioned her as a possibility doesn't think she matches the description in the Finance Committee letter. We were unable to get Zawadzki on the phone.

So who is it? Any guesses??

Dissin' Steve Nissen?

The New York Times ran an interesting profile of the Cleveland Clinic's Steve Nissen on Sunday in light of his "controversial" meta-analysis finding over a 40% increased risk of heart attack for diabetes patients on GlaxoSmithKline's drug Avandia.

I interviewed Dr. Nissen a few months ago. Check out our July issue of The RPM Report called "Inside the Mind of a Serial Drug Killer" to find out what makes him go, what would make him stop and what he thinks is driving some members of Congress to criticize his efforts. Note, the Times may have higher circulation than The RPM Report , but we had the better headline.

But don't take our word for it. Here are a couple of excerpts:

The RPM Report: What would make you stop doing this type of work in the area of drug safety?

Nissen: It is all of our jobs, not just the FDA’s job to do this. Those of us in the physician community owe it to our patients to give equal balance and weight to positive and negative findings about drugs, and so should the FDA. Even if the FDA were doing an outstanding job, it’s still the responsibility of independent scientists to do these sorts of things, so it really isn’t about the FDA.

The RPM Report: So creating two drug centers—one for premarket review and one for postmarket surveillance—would not stop you from doing this kind of research. You feel this is a moral obligation.

Nissen: It is a moral and ethical obligation; it’s just about good science, it’s a scientific obligation. Science is about pursuing the truth and wherever that leads you. If we had very, very good regulatory agencies looking after this, there may be fewer opportunities to turn these things up.

How did we find out about fen-phen? There was an independent group of physicians that began seeing fen-phen patients with valve abnormalities. They said, “Oh my God, this is a potentially serious problem, let’s publish it,” and they did a great thing, they probably saved a lot of lives; they’re heroes.

The RPM Report: Why is there such a visceral reaction to you and the research you are doing? FDA’s meta-analysis of Avandia studies showed similar findings as your meta-analysis.

Nissen: Right. Part of the problem is this is not about me. One of the issues is sometimes when you don’t like the message; it’s easier to attack the messenger. It’s to be expected, but we’ve got to keep everyone focused on the science. I was very restrained in that [Avandia] hearing, I didn’t attack back. I simply said: this is what we did, this why we did it, this is why it’s important, and I’m going to stay on that message because it’s the right thing to do.

The RPM Report: Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) seemed particularly unnerved by your analysis and the process you took to get it published?

Nissen: He was wrong about the statistics, you cannot calculate an effect size if there are no events [studies with no heart attack events were excluded from Nissen’s meta-analysis]. He had been briefed by people giving him campaign contributions and that happens to be GSK. I looked it up. The three people on the attack at the hearing were very heavy recipients of GSK campaign money.

For the rest of the interview, subscribe to The RPM Report. Also, Nissen will be speaking at our annual FDA/CMS Summit in December in Washington, D.C. in case you want to hear him in person.

Speaking of Avandia, there is a July 30 fact-gathering meeting between FDA and Glaxo (Takeda, which markets Actos, is an invited guest) regarding the cardiovascular profile of the diabetes drug. While something conclusive could come out of that meeting, it's highly doubtful. So we'll just have to wait and see whether Nissen and his meta-analysis are vindicated for finding risks that hadn't been previously uncovered or his findings were rushed, sloppy and wrong. Stay tuned. It could be a while.

While You Were in the Cheap Seats

Go Phils!

IN VIVO Blog took in the Phillies-Giants game at Citizens Bank Park in Philly on Sunday. Hopefully our readers had better weather (though the game was excellent!). A few tidbits from the weekend ...

• It seems like Dr. John Buse's Congressional testimony on Wednesday will sure be interesting. The American Diabetes Association president-elect issued a statement on Friday (perhaps in an attempt to avoid mis-quotes), intended to be his only public communication until the testimony, that addresses the notion that GSK tried to silence his criticism of Avandia's risks in the past. NYT has the story, and Buse's statement.


• ASCO ... ASCO, ASCO. Have you heard, there's an oncology conference in Chicago? Lots of news from Pfizer, GSK, BMS and the rest. Covered well over at the WSJ's Health Blog.


• Wouldn't it be NICE? J&J has made the UK's National Institue for Clinical Excellence an offer it would be tough to refuse: the drugmaker will cover the cost of Velcade for patients who don't respond. The NIH would only pay when patients did well on the drug. Of course the details need to be ironed out. Full story at the FT. Hat tip Pharmalot.


• Insider at Pharmagossip highlights Big Pharma's latest new media problem: Youtube. He also directs us to this recent Simpsons excerpt: "Nappien activates your brain's napping centers, and attacks your body's awakegens."

Nissen goes meta on GSK; markets take back $13 billion

Cleveland Clinic cardiologist and Big Pharma nemesis Steve Nissen has struck again, this time calling out GSK's Avandia in a New England Journal of Medicine analysis of the drug's cardiovascular side effects across a variety of clinical trials. Nissen's meta analysis concludes that Avandia patients are 43% more likely to have a heart attack than patients given a placebo or another drug.

GSK's share price stumbled more than 8% as the markets digested the news, wiping a whopping $13 billion off the company's market cap. The Big Pharma for its part predictably "strongly disagreed" with Nissen and co-author Kathy Wolski, pointing out the intrinsic shortcomings of the kind of meta-analysis done by Nissen and Wolski and holding up data from its ADOPT and DREAM studies, which suggested Avandia risk was comparable to that of commonly used diabetes meds metformin and sulfonylurea and placebo, respectively.

The authors acknowledged the limitations of meta-analysis but suggested GSK needed to make public more data from its Avandia program for further analysis to more accurately determine the drug's cardivascular risks.

"The manufacturer's public disclosure of summary results for rosiglitazone clinical trials is not sufficient to enable a robust assessment of cardiovascular risks," they contend. "Until better precision of the estimates of the risks of this treatment on cardiovascular events can be delineated in patients with diabetes, patients and providers should give careful consideration to the risks and benefits of their overall treatment plans."

The WSJ's Health Blog put together a nice list of Nissen's previous pharma takedowns, which includes Merck's Vioxx and Bristol/Merck's Pargluva. Nissen's prominence as a critic of industry and FDA is something our RPM Report colleagues have examined in depth several times (see their May piece for an FDA reaction to his criticism and this June 2006 look at the emergence of academics like Nissen as a shadow-FDA force to be reckoned with).

FDA's medical policy head Bob Temple told the RPM Report that meta-analyses could become standard practice for drugs on the market (and Avandia isn't the first drug knocked around this year with a retrospective analysis: witness Novartis' Zelnorm). For now the FDA is likely to convene an advisory panel ASAP and won't rule out any regulatory action. That said, the agency wasn't able to react as quickly as Rep. Henry Waxman--who announced earlier today that his Oversight committee will conduct a hearing on the matter June 6th.

Whether or not you think Nissen's brand of activism is necessary, harmful, overdue or half-baked, it's here to stay. Today it was GSK that suffered the smackdown (and diabetes competitors like Merck & Co. who will likely get a boost in the aftermath); tomorrow it'll be someone else.