Choosing between baldfaced political lies and Pharma's half-truths
As the presidential election now moves into high gear, the public receives daily blasts of deception from the campaigns. Is that appreciably worse than half-truths and misdirecting statements that pharma's cheerleaders now communicate regularly?
Choosing between baldfaced political lies and Pharma's half-truths
Daniel R. Hoffman, Ph.D.
by Daniel R. Hoffman, Ph.D.
Last week Pfizer and Johnson & Johnson halted development of their late-stage drug for Alzheimer's, bapineuzumab, because it could not stop progression of the disease. Few people in pharma or the investment community were surprised at bapineuzumab's failure, as most odds makers put its chances for success at approximately 25 percent.
Four years ago, mid-stage trials of the drug showed similar results as well as a potentially dangerous incidence of brain swelling. Those findings, in fact, led many scientists to deride the entire "hypothesis" by which bapineuzumab's proponents justified its use as an Alzheimer's treatment.
In the days following bapineuzumab's failure, some commenters even wondered why Pfizer and J&J decided to risk almost half a billion dollars by advancing such an inauspicious compound to Phase 3 trials. Typically 75 percent of all costs for developing a new drug occur in Phase 3, so one might think pharmas would advance only their most promising compounds to this level.
Twenty-five years ago, that was more or less the case. Industry lore at the time held that when a Merck or a Squibb put a drug into Phase 3 testing, someone could bank on the fact that it would receive regulatory approval.
The fact that pharmas currently will risk big money on developing long shot compounds immediately reveals a couple of indisputable facts. First of all, the science just isn't there for developing drugs that substantially advance the standards of therapy beyond what's already available. The eventual payoffs and the resources going into curative therapies mean the breakthroughs will eventually come, but that day is not yet here.
Secondly, auspicious candidates for development aren't just rolling down the pipeline, so it's not as if pharma researchers can pass on the dim prospects with the knowledge that better ones will soon arrive to replace them.
But why do pharmas advance poor prospects to expensive, Phase 3 testing and throw half a billion dollars of shareholder money out the window in the process?
The former head of Pfizer's R&D, John LaMattina, believes he has an answer. He recently published an article in Forbes where he attempted to justify the decision Pfizer/J&J made to put bapineuzumab into Phase 3.
LaMattina described the frequently acrimonious discussions that take place inside pharmas over making go/no-go decisions after iffy Phase 2 results. His article, however, didn't place even a smidgeon of responsibility at the feet of fiduciary officers and senior R&D people who receive bonuses based upon the number of compounds they advance to Phase 3. Nor did he state that C-suite people uniformly believe they look better to shareholders by throwing a Hail Mary pass against a stacked secondary, rather than limiting their losses by punting the ball.
Also absent were any references by LaMattina to the internal pressure from hundreds of clinical and commercial people at pharmas who would prefer burning shareholder money rather than putting their usefulness in question when the company discontinues work on their drug.
While LaMattina mentioned that high-powered, independent researchers from outside the company typically participate in these go/no-go discussions, he neglected to state that they have a vested interest in the outcome because continuing the clinical testing will bring them opportunities for lucrative research contracts.
So where does LaMattina lay responsibility for this sort of corporate boondoggle? In effect, he writes that patient advocacy groups made the companies do it. Those unrealistic, bleeding-heart, shrieking hysterics threatened to make the two pharmas look bad if they didn't go ahead. The patient groups enlisted support from some of those independent researchers who would otherwise be disgruntled if the companies halted the work, and together, they forced the two multibillion dollar corporations to wade deeper in the big muddy.
Well patient advocacy groups can exert some effect, but basically they stand several rungs down the influence ladder from the greed, ego and similar motives of senior executives. The area where patient advocacy groups scream the loudest concerns the exorbitant pricing of drugs for their respective therapeutic areas. Yet pharmas seldom let these plaintive cries influence their inexorable price increases. Certainly the patient groups didn't deter pharma's industry-wide strategy of pricing as many new products as possible at the vastly higher level of biologicals and, for some, even into the orphan drug stratosphere.
So as the presidential election now moves into high gear, the public receives daily blasts of deception from the campaigns. Is that appreciably worse than half-truths and misdirecting statements that pharma's cheerleaders now communicate regularly?
To check out more Check Up items go to www.philly.com/checkup
I don't think the influence of senior R&D execs and outside academic "thought leaders" can be overemphasized in the decision to plunge ahead with bapineuzumab's late-phase development. There seemed to be this absolute certainty--and perhaps it was a culture of "ignorant certainty"--that the amyloid hypothesis must be the correct explanation for Alzheimer disease. And perhaps it still is, and perhaps the failure of anti-amyloid compounds in late-phase trials is because they're being applied too late in the illness. But academics' certainty about (or love for) a hypothesis can override sage interpretations of bald-face negative clinical data. And what can executive management do, but listen to and act on the highly educated, but wrong, advice?— bmartinmd- First of all I have two family members in the pharmaceutical industry and what they tell me is that it is all about the money and profit margin. Nothing altruistic about helping humanity at all, just peddling their poison for the most money. Kickbacks to doctors prescribing their medications to pushing them to prescribe their medications for "off label" use. The whole industry is disgusting. 100,000 Americans die every year due to properly and improperly prescribed/administered legal drugs. What some 3,000 Americans died in the 9/11 event and we spent trillions since after never ending media coverage. And yet we hide this much greater tragedy in the closet never exposing this cancer to the light.— starlight
- Abington Memorial Hospital
- Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
- American Medical Association
- Aria Health
- Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
- Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
- Consumer Medication Safety site from ISMP
- Cooper University Hospital
- Crozer-Keystone Health System
- ECRI Institute
- Inquirer Health & Science
- Institute for Safe Medication Practices
- Jefferson Health System
- Kaiser Health News
- Kennedy Health System
- Lourdes Health System
- Medical Society of New Jersey
- Mercy Health System
- New Jersey Department of Health and Senior Services
- New Jersey Hospital Association
- NPR.org Shots
- NYTimes.com: Well
- Penn Medicine
- Pennsylvania Department of Health
- Pennsylvania Health Care Cost Containment Council
- Pennsylvania Medical Society
- Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority
- St. Mary Medical Center
- Temple University Health System
- Tenet Healthcare
- The ACP Advocate Blog by Bob Doherty
- The Chester County Hospital
- The Hospital & Healthsystem Association of Pennsylvania
- U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
- U.S. Food and Drug Administration
- Virtua
- WSJ.com Health
