Person:

Kesselheim, Aaron

Background: Litigation documents reveal that pharmaceutical companies have paid physicians to promote off-label uses of their products through a number of different avenues. It is unknown whether physicians and scientists who have such conflicts of interest adequately disclose such relationships in the scientific publications they author. Methods and Findings: We collected whistleblower complaints alleging illegal off-label marketing from the US Department of Justice and other publicly available sources (date range: 1996–2010). We identified physicians and scientists described in the complaints as having financial relationships with defendant manufacturers, then searched Medline for articles they authored in the subsequent three years. We assessed disclosures made in articles related to the off-label use in question, determined the frequency of adequate disclosure statements, and analyzed characteristics of the authors (specialty, author position) and articles (type, connection to off-label use, journal impact factor, citation count/year). We identified 39 conflicted individuals in whistleblower complaints. They published 404 articles related to the drugs at issue in the whistleblower complaints, only 62 (15%) of which contained an adequate disclosure statement. Most articles had no disclosure (43%) or did not mention the pharmaceutical company (40%). Adequate disclosure rates varied significantly by article type, with commentaries less likely to have adequate disclosure compared to articles reporting original studies or trials (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.10, 95%CI = 0.02–0.67, p = 0.02). Over half of the authors (22/39, 56%) made no adequate disclosures in their articles. However, four of six authors with ≥25 articles disclosed in about one-third of articles (range: 10/36–8/25 [28%–32%]). Conclusions: One in seven authors identified in whistleblower complaints as involved in off-label marketing activities adequately disclosed their conflict of interest in subsequent journal publications. This is a much lower rate of adequate disclosure than has been identified in previous studies. The non-disclosure patterns suggest shortcomings with authors and the rigor of journal practices.

Background: Policymakers and regulators in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) are weighing reforms to their medical device approval and post-market surveillance systems. Data may be available that identify strengths and weakness of the approaches to medical device regulation in these settings. Methods and Findings: We performed a systematic review to find empirical studies evaluating medical device regulation in the US or EU. We searched Medline using two nested categories that included medical devices and glossary terms attributable to the US Food and Drug Administration and the EU, following PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. We supplemented this search with a review of the US Government Accountability Office online database for reports on US Food and Drug Administration device regulation, consultations with local experts in the field, manual reference mining of selected articles, and Google searches using the same key terms used in the Medline search. We found studies of premarket evaluation and timing (n = 9), studies of device recalls (n = 8), and surveys of device manufacturers (n = 3). These studies provide evidence of quality problems in pre-market submissions in the US, provide conflicting views of device safety based largely on recall data, and relay perceptions of some industry leaders from self-surveys. Conclusions: Few studies have quantitatively assessed medical device regulation in either the US or EU. Existing studies of US and EU device approval and post-market evaluation performance suggest that policy reforms are necessary for both systems, including improving classification of devices in the US and promoting transparency and post-market oversight in the EU. Assessment of regulatory performance in both settings is limited by lack of data on post-approval safety outcomes. Changes to these device approval and post-marketing systems must be accompanied by ongoing research to ensure that there is better assessment of what works in either setting.

Introduction: The Orphan Drug Act encourages drug development for rare conditions. However, some orphan drugs become top sellers for unclear reasons. We sought to evaluate the extent and cost of approved and unapproved uses of orphan drugs with the highest unit sales. Methods We assessed prescription patterns for four top-selling orphan drugs: lidocaine patch (Lidoderm) approved for post-herpetic neuralgia, modafinil (Provigil) approved for narcolepsy, cinacalcet (Sensipar) approved for hypercalcemia of parathyroid carcinoma, and imatinib (Gleevec) approved for chronic myelogenous leukemia and gastrointestinal stromal tumor. We pooled patient-specific diagnosis and prescription data from two large US state pharmaceutical benefit programs for the elderly. We analyzed the number of new and total patients using each drug and patterns of reimbursement for approved and unapproved uses. For lidocaine patch, we subcategorized approved prescriptions into two subtypes of unapproved uses: neuropathic pain, for which some evidence of efficacy exists, and non-neuropathic pain. Results: We found that prescriptions for lidocaine patch, modafinil, and cinacalcet associated with non-orphan diagnoses rose at substantially higher rates (average monthly increases in number of patients of 14.6, 1.45, and 1.58) than prescriptions associated with their orphan diagnoses (3.12, 0.24, and 0.03, respectively (p<0.001 for all)). By contrast, for imatinib, approved uses increased significantly over off-label (0.97 vs. 0.47 patients, p<0.001). Spending on off-label uses was highest for lidocaine patch and modafinil (>75%). Increases in lidocaine patch use for non-neuropathic pain far exceeded neuropathic pain (10.2 vs. 3.6 patients, p<0.001). Discussion In our sample, three of four top-selling orphan drugs were used more commonly for non-orphan indications. These orphan drugs treated common clinical symptoms (pain and fatigue) or laboratory abnormalities. We should continue to monitor orphan drug use after approval to identify products that come to be widely used for non-FDA approved indications, particularly those without adequate evidence of efficacy.

Purpose: Type 2 diabetes mellitus has reached epidemic proportions worldwide. Many patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus will require insulin, and the evidence-based use of insulin is described in the prescription drug label. Product labels in different countries may provide inconsistent information. We evaluated the variability in drug label content for one brand of basal insulin across diverse settings. Methods: We examined the drug label content pertinent to effective and safe use of insulin glargine across 17 countries: Abu Dhabi (United Arab Emirates), Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Spain, Turkey, UK, and the USA. We compared label characteristics in settings where drug labels were governed by a local regulatory authority versus countries where labels were administered by a regional body or adopted from another locale. Results: All 17 labels cautioned that providers should consider age, illness, diet, and exercise when prescribing. Only two (12%) described care of the fasting patient. Caution was urged for patients with renal or hepatic impairment in 16 (94%) labels. Four (24%) did not describe responses to missed doses, and five (29%) failed to recommend patient counseling about the risk of hypoglycemia. Labels emerging from regional or adopted regulatory bodies reported fewer patients in efficacy studies than did labels from settings with their own drug regulatory agencies ((365 \pm 0) patients vs. (3560 \pm 2938, p = 0.04)). Conclusions: There is substantial variation in the content of drug labels for glargine, which may lead to international inconsistency in quality of care for diabetic patients.

Daniel Kramer and colleagues compare strategies for postmarket surveillance of medical devices and discuss ways to improve these systems. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Recent reports have highlighted dramatic price increases for several older generic drugs, including a number of essential products used to treat deadly infectious diseases. Although most of these medicines have been widely available at reasonable prices for decades, some manufacturers have seized on unique features of the pharmaceutical marketplace to seek substantial profits. In this Perspective, we examine limitations in current price regulation among public and private payors and consider several reforms that could address the problem of expensive generic drugs through improved competition.

Background: Professional societies use metrics to evaluate medical schools' policies regarding interactions of students and faculty with the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. We compared these metrics and determined which US medical schools' industry interaction policies were associated with student behaviors. Methods and Findings: Using survey responses from a national sample of 1,610 US medical students, we compared their reported industry interactions with their schools' American Medical Student Association (AMSA) PharmFree Scorecard and average Institute on Medicine as a Profession (IMAP) Conflicts of Interest Policy Database score. We used hierarchical logistic regression models to determine the association between policies and students' gift acceptance, interactions with marketing representatives, and perceived adequacy of faculty–industry separation. We adjusted for year in training, medical school size, and level of US National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. We used LASSO regression models to identify specific policies associated with the outcomes. We found that IMAP and AMSA scores had similar median values (1.75 [interquartile range 1.50–2.00] versus 1.77 [1.50–2.18], adjusted to compare scores on the same scale). Scores on AMSA and IMAP shared policy dimensions were not closely correlated (gift policies, r = 0.28, 95% CI 0.11–0.44; marketing representative access policies, r = 0.51, 95% CI 0.36–0.63). Students from schools with the most stringent industry interaction policies were less likely to report receiving gifts (AMSA score, odds ratio [OR]: 0.37, 95% CI 0.19–0.72; IMAP score, OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.19–1.04) and less likely to interact with marketing representatives (AMSA score, OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15–0.69; IMAP score, OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14–0.95) than students from schools with the lowest ranked policy scores. The association became nonsignificant when fully adjusted for NIH funding level, whereas adjusting for year of education, size of school, and publicly versus privately funded school did not alter the association. Policies limiting gifts, meals, and speaking bureaus were associated with students reporting having not received gifts and having not interacted with marketing representatives. Policy dimensions reflecting the regulation of industry involvement in educational activities (e.g., continuing medical education, travel compensation, and scholarships) were associated with perceived separation between faculty and industry. The study is limited by potential for recall bias and the cross-sectional nature of the survey, as school curricula and industry interaction policies may have changed since the time of the survey administration and study analysis. Conclusions: As medical schools review policies regulating medical students' industry interactions, limitations on receipt of gifts and meals and participation of faculty in speaking bureaus should be emphasized, and policy makers should pay greater attention to less research-intensive institutions. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Objective: To examine methods for generating evidence on health outcomes in patients with rare diseases. Design: Methodological review of existing literature. Setting: PubMed, Embase, and Academic Search Premier searched for articles describing innovative approaches to randomized trial design and analysis methods and methods for conducting observational research in patients with rare diseases. Main outcome measures We assessed information related to the proposed methods, the specific rare disease being studied, and outcomes from the application of the methods. We summarize methods with respect to their advantages in studying health outcomes in rare diseases and provide examples of their application. Results: We identified 46 articles that proposed or described methods for studying patient health outcomes in rare diseases. Articles covered a wide range of rare diseases and most (72%) were published in 2008 or later. We identified 16 research strategies for studying rare disease. Innovative clinical trial methods minimize sample size requirements (n=4) and maximize the proportion of patients who receive active treatment (n=2), strategies crucial to studying small populations of patients with limited treatment choices. No studies describing unique methods for conducting observational studies in patients with rare diseases were identified. Conclusions: Though numerous studies apply unique clinical trial designs and considerations to assess patient health outcomes in rare diseases, less attention has been paid to innovative methods for studying rare diseases using observational data.

Background: Statins are effective in preventing cardiovascular events, but patients do not fully adhere to them. Objective: To determine whether patients are more adherent to generic statins versus brand-name statins (lovastatin, pravastatin, or simvastatin) and whether greater adherence improves health outcomes. Design: Observational, propensity score–matched, new-user cohort study. Setting: Linked electronic data from medical and pharmacy claims. Participants: Medicare beneficiaries aged 65 years or older with prescription drug coverage between 2006 and 2008. Intervention: Initiation of a generic or brand-name statin. Measurements: Adherence to statin therapy (measured as the proportion of days covered [PDC] up to 1 year) and a composite outcome comprising hospitalization for an acute coronary syndrome or stroke and all-cause mortality. Hazard ratios (HRs) and absolute rate differences were estimated. Results: A total of 90 111 patients who initiated a statin during the study was identified; 83 731 (93%) initiated a generic drug, and 6380 (7%) initiated a brand-name drug. The mean age of patients was 75.6 years, and most (61%) were female. The average PDC was 77% for patients in the generic group and 71% for those in the brand-name group (P < 0.001). An 8% reduction in the rate of the clinical outcome was observed among patients in the generic group versus those in the brand-name group (HR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.86 to 0.99]). The absolute difference was −1.53 events per 100 person-years (CI, −2.69 to −0.19 events per 100 person-years). Limitation: Results may not be generalizable to other populations with different incomes or drug benefit structures. Conclusion: Compared with those initiating brand-name statins, patients initiating generic statins were more likely to adhere and had a lower rate of a composite clinical outcome. Primary Funding Source: Teva Pharmaceuticals.