Categories

Tag: Uncategorized

BLOGS AND BLOGGING: THCB technologically reborn

So after suffering through Blogger’s growing pains, seeing it acquired by Google and waiting patiently for it to catch up with the rest of the market in blogging software, I’ve given up.  It’s disappointing that, even with all the money of Google behind them, the Blogger gang seemed to be having increasing problems keeping their site up–there were two days last week when I couldn’t post at all.  I also use the service to record headlines for my FierceHealthcare newsletter, and several times they weren’t accessible when I came to write the letter near deadline,which was a little stressful.  Furthermore, getting even basic features like category posts up on the service continues to elude Blogger, and the work-around that I used for topic listing cost lots of time and money.

So today THCB moves over to SixApart’s Typepad service. So far I and my webmaster John have been pretty impressed by the uptime and the customer service.  And although Blogger is free and the version of Typepad I’m using is $15 a month, it was becoming a case that in the evolution of my service, free wasn’t cheap enough! Typepad isn’t perfect yet, but at least they are working on it!

We were planning to wait until next month to move, but last week’s problems at Blogger were so severe that we advanced it over this weekend (and I want to thank John for putting in hours over the holiday weekend to get this done). So this current site isn’t quite done, and you’ll see some improvements soon I hope. Please let me know if you have any comments or suggestions.

The other thing that is a first for THCB is that comments will now be on. Let’s see how that goes!

Finally if you get TCHB via RSS, please add the new RSS address to your reader: it’s http://matthewholt.typepad.com/the_health_care_blog/index.rdf If you use a different aggregator service see the box in the right hand column to select the relevant link.

PHARMA: Celebrex can remain on the market

Celebrex_2And to add to yesterday’s post (which Blogger prevented from getting up there till most of you had gone home, so it’s really today’s post) the FDA panel this morning ruled that Celebrex can stay on the market, although they concluded that it did have risks. They are due to rule on Bextra and Vioxx later in the day.

UPDATE: The FDA also said that Bextra and Vioxx can stay too, even though Vioxx has already gone.

PHARMA: The FDA, the new safety board and the Cox-2 debacle–an opportunity seemingly being lost

None of this is quite as timely as it would have been 24 hours ago, but it’s worth giving my take on the new developments at FDA, and with the Cox-2s.

Logo3cThe news is that a new board within the FDA will oversee drug safety, and publicize more about its inner workings reviewing drug safety on the Internet. That’s all very well, although it’s not the announcement of an entirely new Federal agency to review post approval marketing and safety that some people might want. And of course it’s a role that will be subject to the FDA overall. The FDA will be led by an insider, Lester Crawford, who has been there all the while that the sky has been falling. THCB contributor Blunter is not alone in describing his appointment as a cop-out.

But it does appear that the FDA ostrich is lifting its head out of the sand. In today’s testimony on the Cox-2s, internal whistleblower David Graham revealed that he was given permission by Crawford to discuss unpublished studies and to give his full opinion. That marks a big change since his last testimony and it suggests that the FDA higher-ups realize that politically they can’t get away with their stonewalling.

It’s also good news that there are now promises to release more information earlier in the process. Part of the issue with the Cox-2s, particularly with Celebrex, is that the FDA (eventually) found out information about trials that it didn’t release to the public. The most pressing example of this is discussed by John Abramson in the excellent Overdosed America. Pfizer had basically hidden results of a 12 month Celebrex study from the FDA and only initially put forward the 6 month interim data. But while FDA got the new results eventually, it required a Freedom of Information Act request so that the public could discover what the FDA knew.

Now that the Cox-2 cat is out of the bag, there’s more and more bad news:

"A new study has linked pain killers Vioxx, Celebrex and Bextra to increased cardiovascular risk, reinforcing findings of other trials that have already sparked concern over the safety of a popular category of drugs."

It’s not just the FDA and big pharma that comes out of this looking bad. The NEJM which published the original results doesn’t seem to be falling all over itself to eat crow. Abramson called them yesterday a "mouthpiece for the industry". The short comment from Jeff Drazen in the NEJM basically in a most understated way suggests that if just possibly Merck and Pfizer had conducted studies to investigate problems with the Cox-2s rather than new trials to get other indications, we might just have figured out the severity of those problems a little sooner. But nowhere is there a real admission from the NEJM that it either misrepresented the VIGOR results in its peer review process, or allowed itself to get conned by big pharma. In terms of further FDA reform, the slightly more aggressive piece also in NEJM by Psaty and Furberg notes that:

For an approved drug, the FDA currently engages in protracted negotiations with manufacturers rather than mandating manufacturers (1) to change a product label, (2) to conduct patient or physician education, (3) to limit advertising to patients or physicians, (4) to modify approved indications, (5) to restrict use to selected patients, (6) to complete post-marketing studies agreed on at the time of approval, (7) to conduct additional post-marketing studies or trials, and (8) to suspend marketing or immediately withdraw a drug. The FDA has recently claimed to lack adequate authority in these areas. We believe that to protect the health of the public, Congress needs to provide the FDA with the necessary authority and also to create an independent Center for Drug Safety with new authority and funding. Civil penalties should be commensurate with the scale of drug sales. Provisional approval and regular repeated review would provide opportunities to reevaluate risk and benefit. In addition, ongoing congressional oversight of the FDA would afford an important forum for the public discussion of drug safety.

But of course we’re probably not going that far anytime soon with the news out yesterday that the drug safety office will be staying within the FDA, which makes it unlikely to be quite as "independent" as all that.

And we’re never going to get to the rational debate about making more drugs available to more patients with everyone concerned having a real understanding of the potential risks and benefits involved. Which is a big pity because that’s what a grown up responsible FDA and medical system should be doing. I’m not convinced that Vioxx should, in a perfect world, be taken off the market. All drugs have some side effects and while Vioxx and Celebrex clearly shouldn’t be given out like candy, there may be patients where they work well with few side-effects and where they are a big improvement over NSAIDs. Theoretically the clinical trial data should be able to identify those patients, and patients on those products could be monitored for cardio-vascular risk, and taken off them if bad things start to happen.

But because the FDA didn’t do its job in the first place, and because the NEJM looked the other way, and because big pharma’s marketing machine ran roughshod over the minimal checks and balances in the system, we’re now in a mess which will likely see more good drugs not getting to market and the development of an overly-conservative approach to patient safety.

Perhaps integrating the use of drugs fully into the medical care delivery process might be a good place to start, rather than having the use of a prescription as a way for a doctor to get a patient out of their office. But that would require a whole new mind-set.

PHARMA/POLICY: The outsider the FDA needs is the consummate insider, with comment from Blunter

Two days before the latest hearings on Vioxx and Celebrex, with a stand-up Republican Senator all but accusing the FDA management of fraud, Bush names the new head of the FDA. And who gets the gig? None other than the guy who’s been temporarily running it onto the rocks. Crawford, the acting head of the F.D.A. is the new leader. THCB contributor and ex-FDAer Blunter last month suggested that a real outsider was needed to rescue the agency. While he wasn’t expecting Syd Wolfe to get the job (and the NY Times has a big profile on Wolfe today too), you can assume that the appointment of Crawford was not what Blunter was looking for. He writes:

Aaarrggh! The President?s nominee to head the Food and Drug Administration is none other than the current acting head: Lester Crawford. This is a real life Phoenix rising out of the ashes of death, and ashes that he created. With controversy swirling around the FDA and its treatment of and failure to protect whistleblowers, and warnings on Vioxx and other COX-2 inhibitors, and then the Adderall situation, and the surreptitious change in the antidepressant labeling, the odds of such a miserable record were against him retaining his present job, let alone getting a promotion.

Any FDA Commissioner nominee must face a Senate confirmation process. As some of my exile friends from Cuba would say: "We ought to hire a balcony for this one." Look on the FDA Web site and see Crawford’s resume — devoid/scrubbed of any association with regulated industry interests. Those who know Crawford say he was once associated with American Cyanamid and several industry groups and associations. Last time his resume was floated for possible confirmation as FDA Commissioner, the ranking minority member on the committee that handles this nomination, Senator Kennedy (D-MA) telegraphed a "dug in" opposition position, and the nomination did not see the light of day.

What a political donnybrook the President has created for himself. Here will be the person who is presiding over one continuing debacle over drug warnings and safety incidents being put into the spotlight in a public confirmation process. Expect real fireworks here that are likely to doom the nomination and wash over onto the Presidency.

Furthermore, the need for the head of the FDA to be paying attention to business is critical right now, and the need to get a Commissioner in place as quickly as possible is also critical. But in the current controversial context surrounding many FDA decisions, who would think that the situation will get any better with the current FDA head off promoting his nomination on Capitol Hill and elsewhere.

No good can filter through to the FDA or the Bush Administration as a result of this faux pas.

Two things to note here. Without revealing his identity I can tell you that Blunter has strong Republican leanings, and thus you should take his views very seriously. Second he thinks that Crawford won’t make it through the nominating process. I’m not sure I agree. It may surprise you all to know that I am not a Republican, but even with some Republican support for some things that the FDA and the Administration opposes (e.g. reimportation) I’m not sure that the Senate has the guts to turn down any Bush nominee–after all they just confirmed torture-memo man Gonzales for AG.

But this will be an opportunity to drag more FDA laundry out in public — and after all the recent posturing by Leavitt, the appointment is made well before the IOM "reform" (whitewashing?) report that is supposed to fix the FDA’s problems. How this makes the FDA better is beyond me.

QUALITY: Alternative approaches to diabetes, by Pamela E. Mack

Now and again, THCB stands back and takes a look at actual medical care delivery.  Today we have a new contributor, Pamela E. Mack, who explains some of the difficulties she has had being a very involved patient with diabetes, but one who may not be suitable to the "bullying" that I have described as integral to disease management.

I want to tell my own story, to illustrate the limitations of the standard approaches to diabetes pushed by the health care system. I have found a way of managing my diabetes that works wonderfully for me. I don’t think it would work for most people. But what bothers me is that the people who might benefit from this approach will probably never learn about it. I wish that doctors and diabetes educators had a way of offering patients choices to help them find the approach that works best for them. If you want to skip my personal story and go straight to learning about the approach I use, go to What they don’t tell you about Diabetes. Jenny tells it better than I can, and has done some fascinating research on the history of the current system of American Diabetes Association guidelines (those of us who follow the very tight control approach think those guidelines are misleading at best and probably harmful).

I was 48 when I was diagnosed with diabetes, about 60 pounds overweight but somewhat fit (I walked regularly). I didn’t know much about diabetes because there is none in my family, but I had had a 10 lb. baby and one random high blood sugar (I was tested when I went to the local urgent care center with a yeast infection). So I kept insisting to my doctor that I be tested for diabetes every year, though my fasting blood glucose numbers were in the 90s and he would tell me not to worry. Finally I did have a high fasting blood glucose test result and my doctor told me I had diabetes. He told me to lose weight by eating less and suggested I start testing 3 or 4 times a week at different times. He said I would need medication if my numbers kept getting worse.

I was in shock for a few days and then started looking for information on the internet. I quickly learned of Gretchen Becker’s excellent book: The First Year: Type 2 Diabetes, which helped me particularly with my feelings that the diabetes was my fault. I didn’t want to go on a diet because I had struggled for years to get out of a selfpunishing attitude towards food (I have some issues about that left over from childhood abuse).

I decided that rather than trying to lose weight, I would make my first goal to control my blood glucose. I came upon someone on the internet who used the line "My body, my science experiment," and I knew I had found the approach that would work for me. I decided to use a set of goals I found on the Internet. I was convinced by the argument that the best way to avoid complications was to get blood glucose down into the normal range. My goals were A1c under 6, fasting blood glucose under 110, blood glucose one hour after eating under 140, bg two hours after eating under 120. (These recommendations are only for people who are not prone to hypos.)

These are much tighter goals than those recommended by the American Diabetes Association. The justification for such tight goals comes from studies of at what A1c level complication rates begin to rise–actually 5.5 for heart disease. To meet these goals I did not follow any standard diet, but rather tested 7 times a day (first thing in the morning and one and two hours after every meal) and adjusted my food choices according to the results. If my bg was higher than my goals, I didn’t eat that food again or ate it in smaller quantity the next time. I found I had to limit my diet to about 75-100 grams of carbohydrate a day. I try to use carbohydrates with lower glycemic index, but for me glycemic index doesn’t make that much difference, low g.i. carbohydrates still send my blood glucose high if I’m not careful about the total amount of carbohydrate I eat.

I didn’t count calories or restrict how much I ate, although obviously my choices were much restricted. If I was hungry I ate a snack, usually of nuts or cheese. What was amazing was how much less hungry I was. My blood glucose must have been going high after meals for years, and when it came back down a couple of hours later I felt very hungry. Controlling my blood glucose but not restricting how much I ate, I lost five pounds a month for six months. Despite the doctors who say "just lose weight," losing weight didn’t make my diabetes easier to control—I had to eat just as carefully to keep my bg under control.

I knew I would be doing this for the rest of my life, so I looked for ways not feel deprived. For example, as an occasional treat I can eat cheesecake for dessert, and it won’t send my bg high. I try to be careful about saturated fat but I have always had excellent cholesterol numbers (HDL higher than triglycerides in U.S. numbers), so I don’t worry too much. I’m clearly an atypical diabetic but all I get from the medical establishment is the assumption that all type 2 diabetics are the same.

One thing I discovered is that if I craved something that I thought would spike my bg, I could prevent the spike by going for a long walk. I began to think of exercise as a way of burning up the glucose my body was having trouble handling, and upped the intensity by walking more steep hills in my neighborhood. Then six months after diagnosis I tried running. I loved it, much to my surprise, but I started to have hip problems, so I switched to bicycling. Knowing that to help my bg it was important to exercise regularly, I bought a good bicycle and set myself a training goal—to ride a 60 mile organized ride four months later. I studied carefully how to fuel myself—at one point I took a 7 hour bike ride testing my bg every 30 minutes. I found I needed to eat more carbohydrates during but not after a long ride (that is unusual–most people do need to eat more after).

I did the 60 mile bike ride without pushing myself, so I got more ambitious. I rode a 100 mile organized ride two months after that, and then decided my next goal would be a sprint (short) triathlon about a year after I started biking. I’m currently (February) biking for at least an hour at least three times a week, swimming for over an hour in a masters workout twice a week, and running one and a half miles three times a week (building up very slowly to avoid joint problems). In seven months of more intense exercise I have lost another 25 pounds. Five pounds more and I won’t be overweight any more. My latest A1c was 5.4.

Diabetics like to quote the line that the best way to a long and healthy life is to be diagnosed with a chronic disease and take good care of it. I am healthier than I have been in years, more selfconfident, and having a lot of fun turning myself into an athlete. At the center of that for me are two things. One is the sense of control I get from treating my body as a science experiment and testing my bg to see the impact of what I eat (now usually just fasting and once after each meal). The other is the idea that it is possible to control my diabetes so well that I can postpone complications, hopefully indefinitely.

The medical establishment has been unsupportive of my approach. I’ve talked to diabetes educators at two different local hospitals. One told me that she had to teach the American Diabetes Association recommendations in order to get insurance reimbursement. The other claimed to be supportive of my approach, but kept insisting to me that complications were inevitable. (Nobody had done studies of complication rates in diabetics who kept their A1c under 6.) My new doctor was reluctant to prescribe me so many test strips, saying that sounded awfully compulsive. Her nurse kept asking weren’t my fingers sore (no). My doctor has become more supportive–she can’t argue with the results.

On Feb. 2, The Health Care Blog included a mention of the importance of: "making sure that diabetics and other chronically ill patients actually get the routine care and routine bullying that they require to stay healthier." The point is correct—many doctors don’t push regular monitoring and care of diabetics. I get an A1c every 3 months because I buy a home test—my doctor is happy with annual testing. But even at their best, doctors can only respond to routine changes on an every three month basis. I can do a lot more by adjusting my behavior according to my blood glucose several times a day. I realize that a lot of patients aren’t interested in being so proactive. But some, at least, are going to respond better to being offered control of their own health instead of bullying.

I’ve seen people who already have complications who respond to the very tight control approach, for example one person on the internet who says she has neuropathy pain whenever her bg goes about 140. But I think it is particularly valuable for people like me who got diagnosed before they had complications. Whether or not we succeed in putting off complications until we are 95 years old, we surely are putting them off for years and reducing our future health care costs. Yet many health plans refuse to pay for so many test strips. Doctors necessarily focus on sicker people, but it is discouraging not to get support. I haven’t been told yet that I don’t really have diabetes, but I’m expecting it. I do–it takes steady hard work in managing food and exercise to keep my bg in the normal range.

There aren’t any one-size fits all solutions for diabetes, even at a given stage. Any formal program has to push the recommendations of the American Diabetes Association, which are harmfully out of date in their goals and their blanket opposition to low carbohydrate diets. Research is mostly on medication. So the system ends up discouraging those people who might be able to take control of their diabetes and get healthy.

POLICY: Individual insurance market . . . . . still sucks

There’s a new CMWF study on the individual insurance market. I won’t belabor the point as I’ve done many times before. Less than 7% of Americans are in it, and just because I’m one of them is no real reason to point out that it’s a market that doesn’t work for anyone who needs it, and is somewhere between 30-50% more expensive than the group market.

The study makes those points and more.

The individual market currently is quite small, covering approximately 17 million nonelderly Americans, or about 6.7 percent of the population. This market historically has not worked well for many people seeking coverage, in particular for those who need coverage the most. Policies frequently have been unavailable to people with existing health conditions; premiums have been expensive and usually have risen faster than group insurance rates; and benefits have generally been far more limited than those in group policies.

And yet the current national policy is to drive everyone into it.

PHARMA/POLICY: Deja vu all over again at FDA. But so blatant and so soon! by Blunter

Blunter is back with more concerns about whether the FDA Is whitewashing away its problems. Chuck Grassley this morning probably agrees with him, considering that he yesterday accused the FDA of interfering with Canada Health’s decision over withdrawing Adderall for political purposes. Here’s Blunter with a review of some of the details of the Leavitt confirmation that didn’t make it into the mainstream press:

In an earlier post on your site I characterized the Institute of Medicine study of drug safety issues as just a familiar CYA tactic, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing. You will recall the IOM study was quickly arranged by the FDA Topside in response to its whistleblowers, and widespread disgust just about everywhere. To quote a passage from that post:

FDA seeks an analysis and report by the National Academy of Science or other prestigious group as a "CYA" tactic. There are lots of similar reports lying around comatose from past misadventures. However, the tactic permits FDA and other Administration folks to say it is inappropriate to discuss specifics of the latest debacle(s) before receipt of the blue ribbon report. Hence, we have FDA on autopilot until the dust and fervor clears and a new executive crew gets in that can say that "it wasn’t on our watch."

Less than a month has passed. Lo and behold,the newly-minted HHS Sec Leavitt must have read the blog. In a written response to a Senate Finance Committee question about moving on FDA safety reform now–and I am not making this up–Leavitt "stressed his desire to wait until the Institute of Medicine completes a review of drug safety regulation in the U.S. before proposing any major overhaul". Trade press reports say that Leavitt "repeatedly cited his desire to wait for the outcome of IoM review" in response to as series of questions from [Senator] Grassley [Chmn of the Senate Finance Cmte] about alternative models for drug regulation. (Ed’s note–I have the confirming transcript but it’s not easily available on the web).

Is it any wonder that the White House is reported to be continuing its search for a new FDA Commissioner? Let’s hope that look is outside the confines of physicians and scientists and considers seasoned managers, perhaps with an MBA or a record of success in other large, technical enterprises. The new head needs to delve into management as well as legal reforms to rectify the incompetence of the present "team" and not merely deflect the heat from the current topsiders and their shortcomings.

POLITICS: Do you remember Social Security on the campaign trail?

No you probably don’t.  And this is why.

While Social Security reform/privitization/dismantlement has become the biggest policy issue of the 2nd term, now that the word is out and people understand what the Administration’s goal is, the impact is hitting the President’s poll numbers hard.:

"Adults were evenly divided on Bush’s job performance in January, but now 54 percent disapprove and 45 percent approve. The number who think the country is headed down the wrong track increased from 51 percent to 58 percent in the past month."

Of course the real conspiracy theorists amongst us might have felt that they knew messing with social security was always going to be very tough, but that raising the issue, particularly with the vast shortfall it would leave in the budget, would allow or even force Congress to be more active in cutting other areas.

Or it might be just that there are enough honest conservatives left who cannot countenace a Medicare bill that busts the budget so badly. It’s a pity that there don’t seem to be enough as perturbed about the huge and unmentioned scandal of war profiteering, even as Bush asks for another $80bn a year for Iraq’s reconstruction–an amount that could eliminate uninsurance here at home.

assetto corsa mods