corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 13492

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: news

Lawler B.
Glaxo Angers the FDA
The Motley Fool 2008 Apr 10
http://www.fool.com/investing/dividends-income/2008/04/10/glaxo-angers-the-fda.aspx


Full text:

Every large-cap pharma seems to have at least one marketed drug that produces endless streams of woe for them. In GlaxoSmithKline’s (NYSE: GSK) case, the drug in question is its type 2 diabetes compound, Avandia. Yesterday, Glaxo announced that the FDA had sent it a warning letter regarding its failure to meet certain post-marketing requirements for Avandia.

Since last year, when a meta-analysis came out in the “New England Journal of Medicine” that showed Avandia may be associated with an increase in cardiovascular-related adverse events, sales of the drug have taken a nosedive. In its 2007 fourth-quarter financial report, for instance, worldwide sales of Avandia, and Glaxo’s combo drugs with Avandia, were down 43% year over year, to $472 million.

The FDA had expected Glaxo to report periodically on the results and progress of all post-marketing safety studies for Avandia. European Union medical authorities requested safety studies of their own for Avandia, and Glaxo failed to report the status of these studies to the FDA.

Glaxo thought that because these studies were initiated at the behest of the European Medicines Agency, it didn’t have to report them. The FDA argued it didn’t matter who requested the additional studies and, because they were related to the drug’s safety, they fell under the agency’s mandatory post-marketing reporting requirements for Avandia.

Is all this a big deal? Possibly. The FDA did sound annoyed in the warning letter to Glaxo. The agency requested that Glaxo review its post-marketing reporting for every single one of its approved therapies, and until its post-marketing reporting violations are corrected, “any pending [drug marketing applications] submitted by [GlaxoSmithKline] may not be approved.”

That part about potential delays with compounds awaiting approval is why shares of POZEN (Nasdaq: POZN) were down yesterday. It is awaiting an FDA review on its migraine drug that is partnered with Glaxo and has an FDA decision expected in the middle of this month.

One has to wonder what possible effects the FDA’s warning could have on other Glaxo-partnered compounds under review, like Adolor’s (Nasdaq: ADLR) potential post-operative ileus compound, Entereg. Glaxo was responsible for a good chunk of that drug’s development. Neither of these compounds’ marketing applications is in Glaxo’s name, so perhaps any FDA anger at Glaxo will have little collateral damage.

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909