BREAKING NEWS –

Glaxo Memo on Avandia Is Questioned
By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: August 19, 2010

Federal drug regulators ordered GlaxoSmithKline to send a letter to crucial doctors describing a hearing in July where an expert advisory panel discussed the risks of Avandia, the company’s controversial diabetes medicine.

But a federal official and some members of the panel now say the company’s letter is misleading and could endanger patients. The dispute is occurring just weeks before the Food and Drug Administration is expected to announce whether Avandia’s label must include new warnings, whether sales of the drug will be restricted or whether Avandia must be withdrawn from the market.

Doctors who received the letter, dated July 28, are investigators in a study called the Tide trial, which was intended to compare the heart risks of Avandia with those of Actos, a similar drug made by Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

Results of the trial, which was requested by the F.D.A., are not expected for years. The ethics of the Tide trial were a point of contention at the advisory committee hearing, and the F.D.A. ordered GlaxoSmithKline to stop recruiting new patients into the trial, although current patients could continue. click here for the full story.

After Avandia: Does the FDA Have a Drug Problem?
By Massimo Calabresi with Alice Park Thursday, Aug. 12, 2010

Five days before a 2007 article in the New England Journal of Medicine showed that the diabetes drug Avandia was linked to a 43% increase in heart attacks compared with other medications or placebos, a group of scientists and executives from the drug's maker, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), gathered in a conference room at the offices of the Food and Drug Administration in White Oak, Md. The GSK goal: to convince regulators that the evidence that the company's $3 billion-a-year blockbuster drug caused heart problems was inconclusive. To do that, the GSK officials focused not on heart-attack data but on a broader, less well defined category of heart problems called myocardial ischemia. The most recent studies of Avandia, the GSK officials told the FDA, had "yielded information that is inconsistent with an increased risk of myocardial ischemic events," according to sealed court proceedings obtained by TIME.

But the mixed-evidence argument GSK presented to the FDA worked. After months of deliberation, the agency decided to keep the drug on the market — a move worth billions of dollars to GSK but that also may have put millions of patients at risk. click here for the full story.

Concerns Over ‘Metal on Metal’ Hip Implants
By BARRY MEIER
Published: March 3, 2010
Some of the nation’s leading orthopedic surgeons have reduced or stopped use of a popular category of artificial hips amid concerns that the devices are causing severe tissue and bone damage in some patients, often requiring replacement surgery within a year or two. In recent years, such devices, known as “metal on metal” implants, have been used in about one-third of the approximately 250,000 hip replacements performed annually in this country. They are used in conventional hip replacements and in a popular alternative procedure known as resurfacing. The devices, whose ball-and-socket joints are made from metals like cobalt and chromium, became widely used in the belief that they would be more durable than previous types of implants. click here for the full story.

Nissen met with drug maker execs, recorded it
By The New York Times
February 22, 2010, 10:59PM
GARDINER HARRIS, New York Times
Three years ago, Cleveland Clinic cardiologist Steven Nissen conducted a landmark study that suggested that the best-selling diabetes drug Avandia raised the risk of heart attacks. The study led to a congressional inquiry, stringent safety warnings, a sharp drop in the drug's sales and a plunge in the share price of GlaxoSmithKline, Avandia's maker. The battle between Nissen and GlaxoSmithKline was waged from afar in news releases and published papers. But on May 10, 2007, 11 days before Nissen's study was published in The New England Journal of Medicine, he and four company executives met face to face in a meeting whose details have not been disclosed until now. Fearing he would face pressure and criticism from executives, Nissen secretly recorded the meeting -- which is legal in Ohio as long as one party to the conversation is aware of the taping. Nissen shared the contents of the recording with the New York Times. click here for the full story.

Avandia users have other, safer options, local doctors say
By Brie Zeltner, The Plain Dealer
February 23, 2010, 6:00AM
Avandia users should stop taking the diabetes drug, say many local doctors who believe there are other, safer options for their patients. A government report released Saturday revealed drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline's internal efforts to quell studies that showed risks associated with its diabetes medication. While the report offered no new data on Avandia's safety, it confirmed the concerns brought to light in 2007 by Cleveland Clinic cardiologist Steven Nissen, who warned of the increased potential for heart attack in people taking the drug in a New England Journal of Medicine study. The report, written by Senators Chuck Grassley and Max Baucus of the Finance Committee has renewed concern over the safety of the drug. click here for the full story.

Another Loss for Pfizer in Drug Suits
By DUFF WILSON
Published: November 23, 2009
Pfizer has been ordered to pay a total of $103 million in punitive damages to two women who were found to have breast cancer after they used hormonal drugs, state court officials in Philadelphia said Monday.
A jury reached a $28 million judgment in one of the women’s cases on Monday, while a judge unsealed a month-old $75 million judgment in the other case. The earlier finding of punitive damages had been sealed to avoid prejudicing the second jury in the same courthouse. Pfizer said it would appeal the Philadelphia decisions, as it has in two similar cases it has lost elsewhere in the country. click here for the full story.

Former Drug Executive Convicted of Wire Fraud
By ANDREW POLLACK
Published: September 29, 2009
In a verdict that could strike fear into pharmaceutical industry executive suites, the former head of a drug company was convicted of wire fraud Tuesday for issuing what federal prosecutors called a misleading press release that contributed to off-label sales of his company’s drug.
But the executive, W. Scott Harkonen, the former chief executive of InterMune, was acquitted by the federal jury in San Francisco of a related charge of off-label marketing itself, known as “misbranding,” the Justice Department said. click here for the full story.

High Stakes for Merck in Litigation on Fosamax
By NATASHA SINGER
Published: September 2, 2009
Drug executives, product liability lawyers and Wall Street analysts are closely watching a jury trial in New York over medical problems associated with Fosamax, a drug from Merck that has been taken by millions of women to offset the bone loss associated with menopause.
It is the first of about 900 state and federal cases pending against Merck in which plaintiffs claim that taking Fosamax caused them to develop a rare problem called osteonecrosis of the jaw. Dental surgery is one of the triggers for the condition that can break down jawbone tissue, causing the gums to fall away and expose bone that looks moth-eaten, oral surgeons said. click here for the full story.

Document Details Plan to Promote Costly Drug
By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: September 1, 2009

The pharmaceutical industry has developed thousands of medicines that have saved millions of lives, but it has also used its marketing muscle to successfully peddle expensive pills that are no more effective than older drugs sold at a fraction of the cost.

No drug better demonstrates the industry’s salesmanship than Lexapro, an antidepressant sold by Forest Laboratories. And a document quietly made public recently by the Senate’s Special Committee on Aging demonstrates just how Forest managed to turn a medicinal afterthought into a best seller. The document, “Lexapro Fiscal 2004 Marketing Plan,” is an outline of the many steps Forest used to make Lexapro a success. Because of concerns from Forest, the Senate committee released only 88 pages of the document, which may have originally run longer than 270 pages. “Confidential” is stamped on every page. click here for the full story.

back to top

Weight Loss Supplement Hydroxycut Pulled From Market!!
LIVER FAILURE, KIDNEY FAILURE, and DEATH

We are currently investigating claims against Iovate, the manufacturer of Hydroxycut, for injuries to consumers arising from their use of Hydroxycut. Specifically, the FDA has recalled Hydroxycut due to incidents of liver damage and death associated with the product.  
 
Liver Failure: Liver injury can be documented by Liver Function tests, CT scans, and Liver Biopsy.  Liver Damages is often associated with Jaundice (yellowish skin), abdominal swelling, and fatigue. Sometime Liver Failure can result in the need for a Liver Transplant.  If you've had any of these tests which show damage, and have been diagnosed with Liver Damage you may have a claim.
 
Kidney Failure: Renal failure associated with Hydroxycut can be documented through blood tests revealing elevated Creatinine clearance levels.  If you have been diagniosed with kidney failure, or put on dialysis after taking Hydroxycut, you may have a valuable claim.
 
Rhabdomyolysis: Rhadbdomyloysis is another injury which has been associated with Hydroxcut, a disease marked by extreme muscle pain, especially in the legs, and can be associated with kidney failure, as well.
 
If you or a loved one ingested Hydroxycut and, while taking Hydroxycut suffered Liver Failure, Liver Transplant, Kidney Failure, jaundice (yellowish skin); abdominal pain and swelling; fatigue; or nausea for which you or your loved one sought medical treatment, you may have a valuable claim.  If so, we would like to discuss this matter with you immediately. Please contact us as soon as you are able.  We look forward to hearing from you soon.
 
Please call us toll free 1-880-556-4769 to discuss your case.

Medical Studies

Doctor’s Pain Studies Were Fabricated, Hospital Says
By GARDINER HARRIS
Published: March 10, 2009

In what may be among the longest-running and widest-ranging cases of academic fraud, one of the most prolific researchers in anesthesiology fabricated much of the data underlying his research, said a spokeswoman for the hospital where he works. The researcher, Dr. Scott S. Reuben, an anesthesiologist in Springfield, Mass., who practiced at Baystate Medical Center, fabricated data in some or all of the 21 journal articles dating from at least 1996, said Jane Albert, a spokeswoman for Baystate Health.

The reliability of dozens more articles he wrote is uncertain, and the common practice — supported by his studies — of giving patients aspirinlike drugs and neuropathic pain medicines after surgery instead of narcotics is now being questioned. Paul Cirel, a lawyer for Dr. Reuben, said that he could not discuss the case because Baystate had investigated it as part of a confidential peer-review process. Baystate officials “were aware of extenuating circumstances,” Mr. Cirel said. click here for the full story.

back to top

Business

Guilty Pleas in Inquiry Into Stryker’s Marketing
By BARRY MEIER
Published: February 19, 2009

A Justice Department inquiry into Stryker’s marketing of human bone growth products has resulted in guilty pleas by former company sales representatives. One former sales official pleaded guilty two weeks ago, and another one did in November, court documents show.

Stryker, a leading maker of medical devices, and the United States attorney’s office in Boston, which is conducting the inquiry, declined to comment. A spokeswoman for the attorney’s office said the investigation was continuing.

The inquiry, which began last year, involves several issues, according to court papers and Stryker filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The questions include whether Stryker abused a federal exemption that authorized it to sell only limited quantities of its bone growth products for “humanitarian” reasons, according to the documents.

Pharmaceutical News

Ban on Painkiller Darvon Is Recommended to F.D.A.
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: January 30, 2009

Government medical advisers recommended a ban on Darvon, a prescription drug that has been used to treat pain for more than 50 years but has been linked to addiction. An advisory panel to the Food and Drug Administration voted 14 to 12 to recommend its withdrawal. The F.D.A. is not required to follow such recommendations, but often does.

Darvon, approved in 1957 and now mainly marketed as Darvocet, is one of the 25 most commonly prescribed medications. Public Citizen had petitioned the F.D.A. to withdraw Darvon, saying the drug offered relatively weak pain relief and posed an overdose risk. Xanodyne Pharmaceuticals and Qualitest/Vintage Pharmaceuticals, which market the drug, say the medication is safe and effective when used as directed.

Court Reinstates Suits Over Pfizer’s Drug Testing
By REUTERS
Published: January 30, 2009

A federal appeals court reinstated lawsuits brought by Nigerian families who say the drug maker Pfizer tested a dangerous antibiotic on their children without their consent. The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan, in a 2-to-1 ruling, overturned a lower court’s finding that the cases, involving the drug Trovan, should be heard in Nigeria, not the United States.

In 1996, Pfizer conducted clinical trials of the drug in Nigeria during a meningitis epidemic. Families of some of the children who participated say the tests caused deaths and injuries. In its ruling, the appeals court sent the United States cases back to a federal trial court for further consideration. Pfizer said the ruling was “procedural” and did not address the merits of the cases. It said the study had been done with the approval of the Nigerian government, which is also suing Pfizer, and had the consent of participants’ parents or guardians.

back to top

Legal News

HARTFORD (AP) — A former executive of the insurance giant American International Group was sentenced to four years in prison Tuesday in a fraud case that authorities say cost shareholders more than $500 million. The executive, Christian Milton of Wynnewood, Pa., was sentenced by Judge Christopher F. Droney of Federal District Court in Hartford. He was also fined $200,000.

Mr. Milton declined to speak during the hearing but his lawyers said they were preparing an appeal. He was ordered to report to the federal Bureau of Prisons on March 25. Mr. Milton, 61, A.I.G.’s vice president for reinsurance from 1982 to 2005, was convicted last year of conspiracy, securities fraud, mail fraud and making false statements to the Securities and Exchange Commission. The investigation also led to the convictions of four executives of General Re last year for their roles in manipulating A.I.G.’s financial statements.

back to top

Nine dissident scientists at the Food and Drug Administration who say they were forced to approve high-risk medical devices sent a letter to President Obama on Monday stating that agency officials might have made them the targets of a criminal investigation into their complaints.

“It has been brought to our attention that F.D.A. management may have just recently ordered the F.D.A. Office of Criminal Investigations (O.C.I.) to investigate us rather than the managers who have engaged in wrongdoing!” states the letter, which was provided to The New York Times. “It is an outrage that our own agency would step up the retaliation to such a level because we have reported their wrongdoing to the United States Congress.”

Heidi Rebello, an F.D.A. spokeswoman, said she could neither confirm nor deny the existence of a criminal investigation.

The letter is the latest escalation in a highly unusual internal battle that has been simmering for nearly a year within the agency’s device division. The nine scientists have banded together and charged that agency officials have acted illegally and that patients are routinely put at risk from high-risk medical devices that are approved for sale even though manufacturers have never proved that the products are either safe or effective.

The scientists complained in May to Dr. Andrew C. von Eschenbach, who was then the F.D.A. commissioner, and the agency began an internal review that continues. Dissatisfied with the pace and results of that review, the scientists wrote a letter to Congress in October pleading for an investigation, and the House Committee on Energy and Commerce announced in November that it would begin one, which also continues.

Three weeks ago, the scientists wrote a similar letter to the president-elect’s transition team. And on Monday, the scientists wrote another letter to President Obama.

Confidential agency documents, which include both e-mail messages and medical reviews detailing the internal dispute were provided to The Times.

It can be a crime for agency employees to reveal documents or information considered confidential by companies seeking agency approval for medical products.

Some of the scientists’ claims about the agency’s device approval process were echoed in a report released two weeks ago by the Government Accountability Office that was also critical of the agency’s device center.

Created in 1976, the F.D.A.’s process for approving devices divides the products into three classes and three levels of scrutiny. Tongue depressors, reading glasses, forceps and similar products are called Class I devices and are largely exempt from agency reviews. Mercury thermometers are among Class II devices, and most get quick reviews. Class III devices include pacemakers and replacement heart valves, and Congress mandated that manufacturers of Class III devices must prove through extensive testing that their products are safe and effective.

But the accountability investigators found that the agency still allowed manufacturers of most Class III devices to gain approval without conducting extensive testing. Part of the reason may be that some Class III devices should be reclassified as Class II devices, while other such devices simply should be tested more.

The agency has promised for years to fix its device approval process but cannot say when the fix will be completed.

Critics have long bemoaned the agency’s device approval process, which allows most devices to be approved with minimal testing. Manufacturers say the agency is already overly restrictive.

With internal, Congressional and perhaps now criminal investigations swirling about the agency’s device division, the controversy regarding device approvals appears only to be worsening. In Monday’s letter to Mr. Obama, the nine scientists provided a detailed list of laws that they claim agency officials have violated.

“We are asking for your immediate intervention,” the letter to Mr. Obama stated.