DOCSLIB.ORG

American Industry and the U.S. Cardiovascular Clinical Research Enterprise

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
American Industry and the U.S. Cardiovascular Clinical Research Enterprise View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Elsevier - Publisher Connector Journal of the American College of Cardiology Vol. 58, No. 7, 2011 © 2011 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation ISSN 0735-1097/$36.00 Published by Elsevier Inc. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.03.048 move research to regions that offer efficiencies and cost EDITORIAL COMMENT savings, or both? When an intervention is evaluated outside the environ- American Industry ment in which it will ultimately be used, the results achieved in practice may differ from those observed in trials. Recent and the U.S. Cardiovascular U.S. Food and Drug Administration data show that when multiregional clinical trials are conducted, the magnitude of Clinical Research Enterprise the treatment effect is often smaller for U.S. volunteers compared with participants randomized abroad (3). The reasons for this are not entirely clear, but genetics, practice An Appropriate Analogy?* patterns (including the use of concomitant medications and procedures), environment, culture (including diet), health Robert M. Califf, MD,†‡ care system structure, and the play of chance all likely Robert A. Harrington, MD‡§ contribute to the phenomenon. Durham, North Carolina We also note that clinical research creates attractive, high-paying jobs. Given the current U.S. economic climate, the realization that through National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding, American tax revenues are supporting the The report by Kim et al. (1) in this issue of the Journal export of good jobs abroad may prove economically and documents the increasingly widespread phenomenon of the politically unattractive. “offshoring” of clinical research—in this case, clinical trials Nevertheless, we strongly believe that the globalization of conducted in foreign countries despite being funded by U.S. clinical research is a powerful social good (4) when it stems taxpayers, administered through grants and contracts from from a universal need for collaborative research that informs the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), each country’s practice and reflects the biology of relevant and intended to inform American practice decisions. This populations. But when research is offshored predominantly report is 1 of a number of recent reports that raise the because the U.S. enterprise has become incapable of con- question of whether American clinical research, like many ducting it efficiently, we must focus our attention on fixing other U.S. industries, has become so expensive and ineffi- our own system. cient that it is no longer a viable competitive enterprise The myriad problems besetting American clinical re- within our borders. search are well documented. The system is slow and often fails to meet recruitment targets. It is more costly than other See page 671 systems and suffers from poor quality, as evidenced by high rates of nonadherence to study protocols and treatments and Clinical research provides the quantitative evidence that trial withdrawal by study participants. Furthermore, there is consumers, patients, health care providers, and payers need no reliable indication that the American system produces to weigh risks and benefits when making decisions about data that are of higher quality or better managed than data medical care. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of high- collected outside of the United States. Unsurprisingly, quality evidence to support such decision making. Even in investigators have become discouraged, and an exodus of cardiovascular medicine, which has one of the most sub- talent has recently ensued (5). stantial evidence bases among specialties, only a relatively When we consider that clinical research offers cardiovas- paltry 15% of guideline recommendations are supported by cular specialists the chance to lose money, make their findings from definitive randomized trials (2). The widening practices less efficient, incur risks from regulatory infrac- gap between our need for high-quality evidence and our tions, and contend with reputational problems arising from capacity to produce it is increasingly manifest. The way to involvement with industry, we should not be surprised at bridge this gap, however, is less obvious: should we attempt these trends. Only the intellectual excitement, challenge, to improve U.S. performance in clinical research conduct, and fun of answering critical questions while participating in advancing knowledge keep the investigator pool at its current level. From our experience leading an academic coordinating center for clinical trials, we note that although *Editorials published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology reflect the there are approximately 5,000 acute care hospitals in the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of JACC or the American College of Cardiology. United States, only about 5% consistently participate in From the †Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Duke University trials, and 1% account for the vast majority of participant School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina; ‡Duke Translational Medicine Institute, Durham, North Carolina; and the §Duke Clinical Research Institute, accrual (L. Berdan, personal communication, February Durham, North Carolina. For full author disclosures, please see the end of this paper. 2011). 678 Califf and Harrington JACC Vol. 58, No. 7, 2011 The Offshoring of U.S. Clinical Research August 9, 2011:677–80 Although the many disincentives for participating in gaps. However, industry understandably funds trials most clinical research are plain, the causes underlying the ineffi- likely to provide a return on investment and thus is likely to ciencies of our most powerful academic medical centers, explore questions that differ from those posed by trials which receive the majority of NIH funding, are more designed to investigate issues relevant to the public health. obscure. While the National Cancer Institute has been Additionally, industry-funded trials, which frequently in- evaluating this problem (6) and the NHLBI has initiated its volve contract research organizations, have largely shifted own effort (Clinical Research United in Successful Enroll- away from academic centers and toward the private setting ment) to address the issue, we believe the current situation to avoid challenges in dealing with the complexities of the is actually a predictable by-product of the evolution of former. modern American medical schools. When the NIH Finally, there is a widely held view among leading emerged as the primary funding engine of global basic academic centers that clinical research should not need biological research in the postwar era, schools of medicine institutional support. Before the modern clinical trials era, focused on building capacity to respond to requirements when clinical research was typically a small-shop enterprise imposed by this funding juggernaut. Concurrently, the or even a hobby for interested clinicians, this view might profitability of industry-funded clinical research gave rise to have been justifiable. However, increasingly sophisticated a common assumption that private industry rather than trial methodologies, along with a regulatory regime requir- government could pay for it. Equally important, the con- ing extensive infrastructure and imposing substantial pen- cepts of unbiased evidence generation and clinical effective- alties for failure to ensure quality in data acquisition, data ness, as well as the daunting need for larger sample sizes to analysis, or protection of research participants, have made reliably detect modest treatment effects, had not yet clinical research a professional activity and no longer a emerged (7). pastime for hobbyists. The result of this history is clear to anyone who makes Recognizing that this problem is endemic across special- rounds in our “best” academic medical centers. Little prior- ties and disease areas, former NIH director Elias Zerhouni ity is afforded to clinical research, and faculty members who wisely created the Clinical and Translational Science do participate in multicenter trials get little academic credit Awards to provide a home for clinical and translational unless they lead those trials. Furthermore, “indirect” fund- researchers within academic health and science systems (8). ing from the NIH is often diverted from infrastructure But despite a commitment of $500 million per year, as well needed for clinical research and allocated to support discov- as considerable effort and significant progress in other areas ery science infrastructure. Consequently, there is a prevail- of translation (9,10), there is as yet no evidence that clinical ing notion among many academic medical centers that research has become more efficient. We hope the decision to participation in multicenter collaborative investigations con- place the Clinical and Translational Science Awards under stitutes second-tier research. the new National Center to Advance Translational Science As with all U.S. health care delivery systems, academic signals an intent to hold academic health and science health and science systems are hard pressed to find systems accountable for prioritizing the conduct of efficient efficiencies, and the clinical enterprise has little tolerance clinical trials that generate the medical evidence American for slowing practice to accommodate prolonged consent providers, patients, and policy makers need to make rational processes or for deferring profitable procedures. Despite health
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mark B. Mcclellan, M.D., Ph.D. Duke University 100 Fuqua Drive Box 90120 Durham N.C
    CURRICULUM VITAE MARK B. MCCLELLAN, M.D., PH.D. DUKE UNIVERSITY 100 FUQUA DRIVE BOX 90120 DURHAM N.C. 27708 EDUCATION: 1993 Ph.D., Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology 1992 M.D., Harvard-MIT Division of Health Science and Technology, cum laude 1991 M.P.A., Regulatory Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University 1985 B.A., English/Biology, University of Texas, Austin, summa cum laude CLINICAL TRAINING: 1996 Diplomate, American Board of Internal Medicine 1993 – 1995 Resident in Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital EMPLOYMENT: CURRENT POSTION 2015 - Present Director of the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy 2015 - Present Robert J. Margolis MD Professor of Business, Medicine and Health Policy 2015 - Present Faculty Member & Sr. Policy Advisor, University of Texas, Austin, Dell Medical School PREVIOUS POSITIONS 2007 – 2015 Senior Fellow in Economic Studies, Brookings Institution 2013 – 2015 Director, Initiatives on Value and Innovation in Health Care, Brookings Institution 2007 – 2013 Director, Engelberg Center for Health Care Reform, Brookings Institution 2006 – 2007 Visiting Senior Fellow, AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies, American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution 2004 – 2006 Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2002 – 2004 Commissioner, U. S. Food and Drug Administration 2001 – 2002 Member, Council of Economic Advisers, and Senior Director for Health Care Policy, White House
    [Show full text]
  • FDA Regulatory and Compliance Monthly Recap
    FDA Regulatory and Compliance Monthly Recap FEBRUARY 2016 KEY FINDINGS FDA publishes guidance on human factors review for devices, combination products FDA publishes guidance on human factors review for devices, The FDA published two draft guidance documents and one final combination products . 1 guidance document to address the incorporation of human factors FDA enforcement statistics for FY 2015 point to more enforcement by studies in the development of medical products and combination CDRH than by CDER . 2 products. The guidance documents add to two existing documents on FDA publishes updated guidance on human factors: one on human device factors in medical device design selective safety data collection for and one on safety considerations to minimize medication errors. late-stage premarket, postapproval clinical studies . 4 The first draft guidance, called List of Highest Priority Devices for Dr. Robert Califf to lead FDA Human Factors Review, addresses what devices require human following confirmation as commissioner . 5 factors data to be included in premarket submissions. The medical devices the FDA says require human factors data are those that it believes have the potential to cause serious harm if used improperly, such as anesthesia machines, duodenoscopes, automated external defibrillators, infusion pumps, robotic surgery devices and ventilators, among others. Premarket submissions for devices listed in the draft guidance should include a human factors test report and data, or a detailed rationale for not including such information. The second draft guidance document addresses the incorporation of human factors studies in the development of combination products, which include any combination of a drug and a device; a device and a biological product; a biological product and a drug; or a drug, a device and a biological product.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A-1 UNITED STATES COURT of APPEALS for the DISTRICT of COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ___Argued Sept. 23, 2020 Decided Dec
    Appendix A-1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ________ Argued Sept. 23, 2020 Decided Dec. 1, 2020 No. 20-5048 MOOSE JOOCE, ET AL., APPELLANTS v. FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION, ET AL., APPELLEES ________ Consolidated with 20-5049, 20-5050 ________ Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 1:18-cv-00203) (No. 1:18-cv-01615) (No. 1:19-cv-00372) ________ Jonathan Wood argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Damien M. Schiff and Oliver Dunford. Lindsey Powell, Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With her on the brief were Mark B. Stern and Joshua Revesz, Attorneys, Robert P. Charrow, General Counsel, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, and Peter G. Dickos, Associate Chief Counsel, Food and Drug Administration. Appendix A-2 Before: ROGERS and PILLARD, Circuit Judges, and SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion of the Court by Circuit Judge ROGERS. ROGERS, Circuit Judge: Less than a year ago, the court rejected three challenges by an e-cigarette manufacturer and distributor, and an e-cigarette industry group to a rule deeming e-cigarettes to be “tobacco products” subject to regulation under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act, Pub. L. No. 111-31, 123 Stat. 1776 (2009) (“the Act”). In Nicopure Labs, LLC v. FDA, 944 F.3d 267, 271 (D.C. Cir. 2019), the court held that it was “entirely rational and nonarbitrary [for the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”)] to apply to e-cigarettes the Act’s baseline requirement that, before any new tobacco product may be marketed, its manufacturer show the FDA that selling it is consistent with the public health.” The court also rejected First Amendment objections to the Act’s barring of claims that e-cigarettes are safer than existing products absent such a demonstration and ban on the distribution of free e-cigarette samples.
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 114 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 114 CONGRESS, SECOND SESSION Vol. 162 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2016 No. 27 House of Representatives The House was not in session today. Its next meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 23, 2016, at 2 p.m. Senate MONDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 2016 The Senate met at 3 p.m. and was READING OF WASHINGTON’S been a uniform sacrifice of inclination called to order by the President pro FAREWELL ADDRESS to the opinion of duty and to a def- tempore (Mr. HATCH). The PRESIDING OFFICER. Pursuant erence for what appeared to be your de- f to the order of the Senate of January sire. I constantly hoped that it would have been much earlier in my power, PRAYER 24, 1901, the Senator from Delaware, Mr. COONS, will now read Washington’s consistently with motives which I was The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- Farewell Address. not at liberty to disregard, to return to fered the following prayer: that retirement from which I had been Let us pray. Mr. COONS, at the rostrum, read the Farewell Address, as follows: reluctantly drawn. The strength of my Our Father in Heaven, Your counsel inclination to do this, previous to the stands firm and sure. Fashion the To the people of the United States last election, had even led to the prepa- hearts of our lawmakers so that they FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS: The ration of an address to declare it to desire to do Your will.
    [Show full text]
  • Activity Outline 2021 FDA Science Forum May 26
    Activity Outline 2021 FDA Science Forum May 26 - 27, 2021 Virtual Activity Coordinator: Rokhsareh Shahidzadeh ([email protected]), Sharron Watson ([email protected]), Description The FDA Science Forum is held biennially to inform the public about the cutting-edge science conducted at the Agency, and to show how scientific research is used in FDA's regulatory decisions to protect and promote public health. Open the public, industry, academia, patient advocates, government agencies, and current and potential collaborators, the two-day event offers an opportunity to hear FDA scientific experts and nationally renowned scientists speak on a range of topics associated with regulatory science. Sessions for the 2021 forum will highlight areas of FDA research such as: 1) improving clinical and post-market evaluation, 2) substance use, misuse, and addiction, 3) tools to effectively use big data, 4) product development and manufacturing, and 5) medical countermeasures (MCM), infectious disease and pathogen reduction technologies. References FDA's Strategic Plan for Regulatory Science. Available: https://www.fda.gov/science-research/science-and-research-special-topics/advancing-regulatory-scienc e Learning Objectives Discuss the potential utility and challenges of new technologies such as microphysiological systems, microbiome, or combination of both, in advancing product development and integrating this knowledge in scientific communications with regulatory and research work. Discuss the application of innovative tools and approaches to support pandemic response, development and evaluation of MCMs and the detection of adventitious agents. Describe several types of regulatory science related to substance use, misuse, and addiction, and how it can be used to inform FDA regulatory activities.
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED STATES SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C
    UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 _____________________ FORM 8-K _____________________ CURRENT REPORT Pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 Date of Report (Date of earliest event Reported): February 12, 2018 Cytokinetics, Incorporated (Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Charter) Delaware 000-50633 94-3291317 (State or Other Jurisdiction of Incorporation) (Commission File Number) (I.R.S. Employer Identification Number) 280 East Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California 94080 (Address of Principal Executive Offices) (Zip Code) (650) 624-3000 (Registrant's telephone number, including area code) Not Applicable (Former name or former address, if changed since last report) Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions: [ ] Written communications pursuant to Rule 425 under the Securities Act (17 CFR 230.425) [ ] Soliciting material pursuant to Rule 14a-12 under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14a-12) [ ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 14d-2(b) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.14d-2(b)) [ ] Pre-commencement communications pursuant to Rule 13e-4(c) under the Exchange Act (17 CFR 240.13e-4(c)) Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an emerging growth company as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act of 1933 (17 CFR §230.405) or Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (17 CFR §240.12b-2). Emerging growth company [ ] If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenges for the FDA: the Future of Drug Safety
    Challenges for the FDA: The Future of Drug Safety, Workshop Summary Leslie Pray and Sally Robinson, Rapporteurs, Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation ISBN: 0-309-10987-6, 126 pages, 6x9, (2007) This free PDF was downloaded from: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11969.html Visit the National Academies Press online, the authoritative source for all books from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council: • Download hundreds of free books in PDF • Read thousands of books online for free • Purchase printed books and PDF files • Explore our innovative research tools – try the Research Dashboard now • Sign up to be notified when new books are published Thank you for downloading this free PDF. If you have comments, questions or want more information about the books published by the National Academies Press, you may contact our customer service department toll-free at 888-624-8373, visit us online, or send an email to [email protected]. This book plus thousands more are available at www.nap.edu. Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Unless otherwise indicated, all materials in this PDF file are copyrighted by the National Academy of Sciences. Distribution or copying is strictly prohibited without permission of the National Academies Press <http://www.nap.edu/permissions/>. Permission is granted for this material to be posted on a secure password-protected Web site. The content may not be posted on a public Web site. Challenges for the FDA: The Future of Drug Safety, Workshop Summary http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11969.html Leslie Pray and Sally Robinson, Rapporteurs Forum on Drug Discovery, Development, and Translation Board on Health Sciences Policy THE NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS Washington, D.C.
    [Show full text]
  • FDA Nominee Received Industry Fees Government Says Robert Califf Donated Consulting Payments to Nonprofit Groups
    FDA Nominee Received Industry Fees Government says Robert Califf donated consulting payments to nonprofit groups Robert Califf, nominated to lead the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Photo: Jared Lazarus/Duke University/Associated Press The Wall Street Journal By Joseph Walker Sept. 18, 2015 President Barack Obama’s nominee to lead the U.S. Food and Drug Administration received more than $200,000 in consulting fees from pharmaceutical companies between 2009 and early 2015, according to corporate data. The fees were donated to nonprofit groups, a government spokesman said. Robert Califf, previously a cardiologist and clinical trial researcher at Duke University, joined the FDA in February as the agency’s deputy commissioner for medical products and tobacco. On Tuesday, the White House said it planned to nominate Dr. Califf as commissioner of the whole agency. From 2009 through early 2015, Dr. Califf received consulting fees of roughly $205,000 from companies including Johnson & Johnson, Merck & Co., GlaxoSmithKline PLC and one medical- device maker, records show. The payments are documented by the federal Open Payments database, and PharmaShine, a database of pharmaceutical disclosures operated by Obsidian Healthcare Disclosure Services LLC. Drug makers spent an additional $21,000 on travel, meals and other expenses for Dr. Califf, data show. Dr. Califf didn’t respond to requests for comment. Kevin Griffis, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said Dr. Califf had ceased all work with drug makers once he was hired by the FDA and that he has gone through a rigorous screening process for potential conflicts of interest.
    [Show full text]
  • Expanding the Use of Real- World Evidence in Regulatory and Value-Based Payment Decision-Making for Drugs and Biologics August 2019 LEADERSHIP William H
    Expanding the Use of Real- World Evidence in Regulatory and Value-Based Payment Decision-Making for Drugs and Biologics August 2019 LEADERSHIP William H. Frist, M.D. Mark McClellan, M.D., Ph.D. Former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Robert J. Margolis Professor of Business, Medicine, Senior Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center and Policy, Duke University Founding Director, Duke-Margolis Center for Robert Califf, M.D., Ph.D. Health Policy Professor of Medicine, Donald F. Fortin, M.D., Former Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Professor of Cardiology, Duke School of Medicine Medicaid Services Member, Duke Clinical Research Institute Former Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration Former Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration Andrew von Eschenbach, M.D. President, Samaritan Health Initiatives Former Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration Former Director, National Cancer Institute Senior Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center STAFF G. William Hoagland Janet M. Marchibroda Senior Vice President Fellow, Bipartisan Policy Center CONSULTANTS Gregory Daniel, Ph.D., R.Ph. Morgan Romine Deputy Director, Duke Margolis Center for Research Director, Duke Margolis Center for Health Policy Health Policy Clinical Professor, Fuqua School of Business, Mark Segal, Ph.D., FHIMSS Duke University Principal, Digital Health Policy Advisors ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The Bipartisan Policy Center would like to thank the Jayne Koskinas Ted Giovanis Foundation for Health and Policy for their generous support for this project. BPC would like to thank the leadership of this effort, including Senator Bill Frist, Dr. Rob Califf, Dr. Mark McClellan, and Dr. Andrew von Eschenbach, for their guidance, as well as Morgan Romine, Gregory Daniel, Mark Segal, and Ann Gordon who contributed to the development of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Reforming the FDA
    Dec 2008 Vol. 7, No. 10 • Published by VirSci Corp. www.pharmamarketingnews.com www.virsci.com SurveySurvey ResultsResults Reforming the FDA: It All Starts with a New Commissioner! Author: John Mack PMN710-04 Find resources cited this article online at: http://tinyurl.com/5hgxra This article is part of the December 2008 issue of Pharma Marketing News. For other articles in this issue, see: http://www.news.pharma-mkting.com/PMNissueDec08archive.htm Published by: VirSci Corporation PO Box 760 Newtown, PA 18940 [email protected] Pharma Marketing News Vol. 7, No. 10 p. 2 he Committee on Energy and Commerce in “Pharma Prefers Woodcock As Next FDA Com- the US House and Representatives “has mish” proclaimed Ed Silverman, Newark Star- T found that FDA not only failed in its basic Ledger blogger at Pharmalot on November 7, 2008 mission, but refused to admit its failures and (see http://tinyurl.com/63myt6). Silverman cited an take steps to protect Americans from unsafe food article on Bloomberg.com, which in turn cited un- and drugs," said Rep. John D. Dingell (D-MI), named sources for its conclusion that Woodcock is former chairman of that committee. "In the 111th the top choice of drugmakers who are lobbying for Congress, the committee will swiftly move FDA her to be named the agency's chief (see “Wood- reform legislation that is needed to ensure FDA cock Gains Support From Drugmakers for U.S. does its job." Now that Henry Waxman is the new FDA's Top Job”: http://tinyurl.com/5oh7cu). chairman, "swift" may be inadequate to describe Two months later, Silverman, citing an article in the the changes ahead for the FDA.
    [Show full text]
  • National Health Council 1730 M Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036-4561 ■ 202-785-3910 ■ ■ [email protected]
    National Health Council 1730 M Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20036-4561 ■ 202-785-3910 ■ www.nationalhealthcouncil.org ■ [email protected] November 4, 2015 BOARD OF DIRECTORS Chairperson Randy Beranek The Honorable Lamar Alexander National Psoriasis Foundation Chairman Chairperson-Elect Tracy Smith Hart Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Osteogenesis Imperfecta Foundation United States Senate Vice Chairperson Cynthia Zagieboylo 455 Dirsken Office Building National Multiple Sclerosis Society Washington, DC 20510 Secretary James C. Greenwood Biotechnology Industry Organization The Honorable Patty Murray Treasurer Ranking Member Elizabeth J. Fowler, PhD, JD Johnson & Johnson Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Immediate Past Chairperson United States Senate Nancy Brown American Heart Association 154 Russell Office Building Margaret Anderson Washington, DC 20510 FasterCures – A Center of the Milken Institute Dear Senators Alexander and Murray: Marcia Boyle Immune Deficiency Foundation John Castellani The National Health Council (NHC) supports President Obama’s nomination PhRMA of Robert Califf, MD, as Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration Barbara Collura RESOLVE: The National (FDA) and urges you to confirm him without delay. Infertility Association Robert Gebbia American Foundation for The NHC is the only organization that brings together all segments of the Suicide Prevention health community to provide a united voice for the more than 133 million Eric Hargis people with chronic diseases and disabilities and their family caregivers. Made Colon Cancer Alliance up of more than 100 national health-related organizations and businesses, its Dan Leonard National Pharmaceutical Council core membership includes the nation’s leading patient advocacy groups, which Barbara Newhouse control its governance.
    [Show full text]
  • The Hidden Lesson of the Vioxx Fiasco: Reviving a Hollow FDA by Rena Steinzor and Margaret Clune
    The Hidden Lesson of the Vioxx Fiasco: Reviving a Hollow FDA by Rena Steinzor and Margaret Clune A Center for Progressive Reform Publication October 2005 Executive Summary too closely aligned with the interests of the pharmaceutical industry the agency is charged with On September 30, 2004, Merck & Co. Inc. announced regulating. Other critics charge that FDA is rushing new that it was voluntarily withdrawing its blockbuster pain drugs onto the market too soon. medication, Vioxx. By then, 20 million people had taken the drug, resulting in annual sales of $2.5 billion. Merck’s Rarely mentioned is the possibility that FDA has become decision came after interim results of a clinical trial it another “hollow” government agency, so short of had commissioned showed that long-term use of Vioxx funding that it cannot do what Congress – and the public was associated with a nearly doubled risk of heart attack – rely on it to do. Shortfalls in funding, combined with or stroke. Later, testifying before the Senate Finance failures in political will and companies left free to take Committee, Dr. David Graham, Associate Director for excessive risks to beat their competitors onto the market, Science and Medicine in the Food and Drug have produced a “defenseless” agency, to use the term Administration’s (FDA) Office of Drug Safety estimated applied by one of its senior officials, Dr. David Graham, that between 88,000 and 139,000 Americans suffered a in congressional testimony delivered soon after the Vioxx heart attack or stroke as the result of taking Vioxx. He scandal broke. This report focuses on the reasons behind warned, “FDA, as currently configured is incapable of the imbalance between funding of FDA’s pre-market and protecting Americans against another Vioxx.
    [Show full text]