Wednesday, March 08, 2006


In the wake of last year's Vioxx panic, it would be easy to imagine that unexpected news about new drugs will be mostly bad. But two stories last week remind us why that's not the case, and that an excess of caution--whether due to regulation, litigation or fear--can itself be harmful to public health.

The first story concerns Erbitux, the ImClone cancer drug that became infamous after its initial rejection by the Food and Drug Administration in December 2001 led to an insider trading scandal that counted Martha Stewart as a victim. We said from the start that the FDA had made a bad call, and Erbitux was eventually approved to treat colon cancer.

Well, it turns out Erbitux works for other cancers too. Last Wednesday the FDA approved the drug for a new indication--head and neck cancer--based on data showing a whopping 20-month survival advantage over traditional chemotherapy alone. In fact, Erbitux represents the first significant advance for head and neck tumors since the 1950s.

That Erbitux worked in head and neck tumors was fairly obvious from early trial results even at the time it was first rejected for colon cancer. Dr. Mark Thornton, one of the FDA medical reviewers who finally helped push Erbitux through in 2004, tells us there was "extremely compelling" data on Erbitux for head and neck cancer as early as 2000. He adds that "it was hard to argue against providing it to patients" at the time it was first rejected.

Another man for whom the latest news on Erbitux is bittersweet is Frank Burroughs, who founded the Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs in honor of his daughter, who died of head and neck cancer while trying to obtain Erbitux and other treatments. "This news serves as yet another reminder that the biggest 'ImClone scandal' of 2001 had nothing to do with Martha Stewart, but instead resulted from the FDA's failure to approve a drug that had been proven safe and effective for thousands of patients," the Alliance said in a statement.

In short, Erbitux is a perfect example of why it's important to get active drugs with reasonable safety profiles out before all the efficacy data is refined to the 10th decimal place, as the FDA always tries to insist. Such data are never going to be complete anyway. Think of all the new benefits that still keep being discovered for humble aspirin.

The second good-news story last week concerns Tysabri, the multiple sclerosis treatment that was voluntarily withdrawn last year (read: lawsuit panic) after three patients on the drug developed a rare neurological infection. This possible side effect wasn't entirely surprising, given that MS is a degenerative neurological disorder caused by immune system dysfunction and Tysabri works by depressing parts of the immune system. But it was also clear, as we editorialized at the time, that the patients in question had been treated with other immuno-suppressive drugs too, and that the risks of untreated or poorly treated MS probably outweighed the risks of taking Tysabri.

Well, now several new studies reported in the New England Journal of Medicine appear to support the point that Tysabri's risks are small and its potential benefits big. Tysabri appears to cut the rate of clinical relapses by 68%, and reduce by a whopping 83% the number of new or expanding brain lesions found in MS patients.

And remember that since MS is a degenerative disease there's no way to undo the damage in patients denied the right to weigh Tysabri's risks and benefits for themselves. This week an FDA panel will meet to consider Tysabri's re-introduction to the market and MS patients are expected to be there in force. "This drug worked for me, and I want to be able to have the choice to make an informed decision," said Cheryl Bloom, who also told Bloomberg news service she will be paying her own travel expenses from Idaho to have her voice heard.

A common theme in the story of these two different drugs is the issue of informed consent. Our philosophy is that patients and doctors dealing with fatal or degenerative diseases ought to have the maximum possible autonomy in treatment decisions. We now know that the FDA could have extended a lot of lives had it followed that principle with Erbitux from the start. And it has an opportunity to extend and improve many more if it decides to help facilitate Tysabri's return to the market.



In yet another GOP contribution to limited government, an advisory committee at the Food and Drug Administration has recommended a ban on Primatene Mist, an over-the-counter asthma spray. This menace to society is propelled by chlorofluorocarbons. CFCs are considered injurious to the ozone layer.

The ozone-friendly FDA suggests that people use CFC-free prescription asthma nebulizers. That’s swell, unless you lack health insurance, pharmaceutical coverage, or the time to see a doctor — or if you need asthma relief right now.

Primatene is perfect for emergencies. I once suffered an asthma attack while visiting friends in lovely but secluded Bucks County, Pennsylvania. That weekend, I happened to forget my prescription inhaler. Rather than visit a pricey hospital emergency room or locate and awaken a doctor to write a prescription at 11:00 P.M., I had my friends drive me to a drug store where I bought some Primatene for about $12. Yes, I did inhale. And I felt much better.

Now, the Bush administration wants to deny asthmatics that freedom, choice, and comfort. If Primatene’s three million customers routinely emptied their atomizers into the air, this restriction might be ecologically sound. However, as Heritage Foundation senior policy analyst Ben Lieberman says: “The amounts of CFCs used in these inhalers is so small, it makes sense to exempt them for several more years until comparable alternatives are available.”

“To put people at risk from asthma, in order to address these inconsequential or even imaginary risks to planetary ozone, takes the precautionary principle to unconscionably absurd new levels,” says Paul Driessen, my Atlas Foundation colleague. “This is a good issue for anyone who favors equal access to affordable health care. This asinine rule would hit poor people hardest, resulting in more frequent, serious, and fatal attacks for them than for upper-crust people, like those who walk the halls of the FDA.”....

On deregulation, the GOP can redeem itself somewhat by revisiting an issue it dropped in 2001. Mandated under the 1992 Energy Policy Act signed by the elder President Bush, 1.6-gallon low-flow toilets have annoyed Americans who prefer the one-flush power of 3.5-gallon traditional toilets. Despite their superior performance, the old toilets are illegal. Amazingly, America now boasts a black market in classic commodes.

Despite ample histrionics during the so-called “Republican Revolution,” Rep. Joe Knollenberg’s (R., Mich.) bill to repeal the low-flow law languished in committee. This election year, roll-call votes to repeal this regulation should tell Americans whether their senators and representatives favor toilet freedom or toilet socialism.

Here’s an idea: Uncle Sam should retreat from asthmatics’ lungs, viewers’ cable boxes, and everyone’s toilets. That should give public servants in Washington more time to track and kill terrorists.

More here


For greatest efficiency, lowest cost and maximum choice, ALL hospitals and health insurance schemes should be privately owned and run -- with government-paid vouchers for the very poor and minimal regulation. Both Australia and Sweden have large private sector health systems with government reimbursement for privately-provided services so can a purely private system with some level of government reimbursement or insurance for the poor be so hard to do?

Comments? Email me here. If there are no recent posts here, the mirror site may be more up to date. My Home Page is here or here.


No comments: