User login
Restrictions on pharma reps change docs’ prescribing behavior
New research indicates that limiting how pharmaceutical sales representatives can market their products to physicians changes the physicians’ prescribing behaviors.
Researchers examined the effects of restrictions on pharmaceutical representatives’ visits to doctors’ offices at 19 academic medical centers in 5 US states.
The team found these restrictions were associated with “modest but significant” reductions in prescribing promoted drugs.
“Social science has long demonstrated that professionals, even well-meaning ones, are powerfully influenced by conflicts of interest,” said George Loewenstein, PhD, of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
“A large body of research also shows that simply disclosing conflicts of interests is insufficient to reduce their influence and may even exacerbate it. The results from this study underline the effectiveness of, and need for, centralized rules and regulations.”
Dr Loewenstein and his colleagues reported the results of this study in JAMA.
The researchers noted that pharmaceutical sales representatives’ visits to doctors, which are known as “detailing,” are the most common form of interaction between physicians and industry. However, little was known about how practice-level detailing restrictions affect physician prescribing.
To gain some insight, Dr Loewenstein and his colleagues looked at the prescribing behavior of doctors whose practices did and did not have restrictions on detailing.
The team assessed the prescribing behavior of 2126 doctors at 19 academic medical centers in 5 states (California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New York) before and after the centers introduced policies restricting detailing.
The researchers compared the prescribing behavior of these doctors with the prescribing behavior of a control group of 24,593 physicians practicing in the same geographic regions who were not subject to detailing restrictions.
The data covered 262 drugs in 8 major drug classes—ranging from statins to antidepressants—representing more than $60 billion in aggregate sales in the US.
In all, there were 16,121,483 prescriptions written between January 2006 and June 2012 by both intervention and control physicians.
Overall results
The researchers found the enactment of detailing restrictions was associated with a significant decrease in the prescribing of detailed drugs (1.67 percentage points of market share) and a significant increase in the prescribing of nondetailed drugs (0.84 percentage points, P<0.001 for both).
The mean market share of detailed drugs was 19.3% prior to the enactment of restrictions, so the 1.67 percentage-point reduction represented an 8.7% relative decrease in market share.
The mean market share of nondetailed drugs was 14.2% prior to the enactment of restrictions, so the 0.84 percentage-point increase represented a 5.6% relative increase in market share.
“The study cannot definitively prove a causal link between policies that regulated detailing and changes in physician prescribing, but, absent a randomized control, this evidence is as definitive as possible,” said study author Ian Larkin, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.
“We investigated 19 different policy implementations that happened over a 6-year period, included a control group of highly similar physicians not subject to detailing restrictions, and looked at effects in 8 large drug classes. The results were remarkably robust. After the introduction of policies, about 5% to 10% of physician prescribing behavior changed.”
Results by drug class, medical center
The researchers said detailing restrictions were associated with significant changes in market share for 6 of the 8 drug classes studied (lipid-lowering drugs, gastroesophageal reflux disease drugs, antihypertensive drugs, sleep aids, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drugs, and antidepressants).
Looking at the medical centers individually, the researchers found that detailing restrictions were associated with significant changes in market share for detailed drugs at 9 centers and for nondetailed drugs at 8 centers.
The team noted that detailing restrictions differed among the centers.
Eleven of the centers regulated gifts to physicians, restricted sales representatives’ access to facilities, and had explicit enforcement policies. For 8 of these 11 centers, there was a significant change in prescribing practices.
The remaining 8 centers had less stringent restrictions in that they did not cover all 3 areas of restriction (regulating gifts, restricting access, and having enforcement policies). There was a significant change in prescribing practices for only 1 of these centers.
“No medical center completely barred salesperson visits,” Dr Larkin noted. “Salespeople could and did continue to visit physicians at all medical centers in the study. The most common restriction put in place was a ban on meals and other small gifts.”
“The fact that regulating gifts while still allowing sales calls still led to a switch to cheaper, generic drugs may suggest that gifts such as meals play an important role in influencing physicians. The correlation between meals and prescribing has been well established in the literature, but our study suggests this relationship may be causal in nature.” 
New research indicates that limiting how pharmaceutical sales representatives can market their products to physicians changes the physicians’ prescribing behaviors.
Researchers examined the effects of restrictions on pharmaceutical representatives’ visits to doctors’ offices at 19 academic medical centers in 5 US states.
The team found these restrictions were associated with “modest but significant” reductions in prescribing promoted drugs.
“Social science has long demonstrated that professionals, even well-meaning ones, are powerfully influenced by conflicts of interest,” said George Loewenstein, PhD, of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
“A large body of research also shows that simply disclosing conflicts of interests is insufficient to reduce their influence and may even exacerbate it. The results from this study underline the effectiveness of, and need for, centralized rules and regulations.”
Dr Loewenstein and his colleagues reported the results of this study in JAMA.
The researchers noted that pharmaceutical sales representatives’ visits to doctors, which are known as “detailing,” are the most common form of interaction between physicians and industry. However, little was known about how practice-level detailing restrictions affect physician prescribing.
To gain some insight, Dr Loewenstein and his colleagues looked at the prescribing behavior of doctors whose practices did and did not have restrictions on detailing.
The team assessed the prescribing behavior of 2126 doctors at 19 academic medical centers in 5 states (California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New York) before and after the centers introduced policies restricting detailing.
The researchers compared the prescribing behavior of these doctors with the prescribing behavior of a control group of 24,593 physicians practicing in the same geographic regions who were not subject to detailing restrictions.
The data covered 262 drugs in 8 major drug classes—ranging from statins to antidepressants—representing more than $60 billion in aggregate sales in the US.
In all, there were 16,121,483 prescriptions written between January 2006 and June 2012 by both intervention and control physicians.
Overall results
The researchers found the enactment of detailing restrictions was associated with a significant decrease in the prescribing of detailed drugs (1.67 percentage points of market share) and a significant increase in the prescribing of nondetailed drugs (0.84 percentage points, P<0.001 for both).
The mean market share of detailed drugs was 19.3% prior to the enactment of restrictions, so the 1.67 percentage-point reduction represented an 8.7% relative decrease in market share.
The mean market share of nondetailed drugs was 14.2% prior to the enactment of restrictions, so the 0.84 percentage-point increase represented a 5.6% relative increase in market share.
“The study cannot definitively prove a causal link between policies that regulated detailing and changes in physician prescribing, but, absent a randomized control, this evidence is as definitive as possible,” said study author Ian Larkin, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.
“We investigated 19 different policy implementations that happened over a 6-year period, included a control group of highly similar physicians not subject to detailing restrictions, and looked at effects in 8 large drug classes. The results were remarkably robust. After the introduction of policies, about 5% to 10% of physician prescribing behavior changed.”
Results by drug class, medical center
The researchers said detailing restrictions were associated with significant changes in market share for 6 of the 8 drug classes studied (lipid-lowering drugs, gastroesophageal reflux disease drugs, antihypertensive drugs, sleep aids, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drugs, and antidepressants).
Looking at the medical centers individually, the researchers found that detailing restrictions were associated with significant changes in market share for detailed drugs at 9 centers and for nondetailed drugs at 8 centers.
The team noted that detailing restrictions differed among the centers.
Eleven of the centers regulated gifts to physicians, restricted sales representatives’ access to facilities, and had explicit enforcement policies. For 8 of these 11 centers, there was a significant change in prescribing practices.
The remaining 8 centers had less stringent restrictions in that they did not cover all 3 areas of restriction (regulating gifts, restricting access, and having enforcement policies). There was a significant change in prescribing practices for only 1 of these centers.
“No medical center completely barred salesperson visits,” Dr Larkin noted. “Salespeople could and did continue to visit physicians at all medical centers in the study. The most common restriction put in place was a ban on meals and other small gifts.”
“The fact that regulating gifts while still allowing sales calls still led to a switch to cheaper, generic drugs may suggest that gifts such as meals play an important role in influencing physicians. The correlation between meals and prescribing has been well established in the literature, but our study suggests this relationship may be causal in nature.”
New research indicates that limiting how pharmaceutical sales representatives can market their products to physicians changes the physicians’ prescribing behaviors.
Researchers examined the effects of restrictions on pharmaceutical representatives’ visits to doctors’ offices at 19 academic medical centers in 5 US states.
The team found these restrictions were associated with “modest but significant” reductions in prescribing promoted drugs.
“Social science has long demonstrated that professionals, even well-meaning ones, are powerfully influenced by conflicts of interest,” said George Loewenstein, PhD, of Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
“A large body of research also shows that simply disclosing conflicts of interests is insufficient to reduce their influence and may even exacerbate it. The results from this study underline the effectiveness of, and need for, centralized rules and regulations.”
Dr Loewenstein and his colleagues reported the results of this study in JAMA.
The researchers noted that pharmaceutical sales representatives’ visits to doctors, which are known as “detailing,” are the most common form of interaction between physicians and industry. However, little was known about how practice-level detailing restrictions affect physician prescribing.
To gain some insight, Dr Loewenstein and his colleagues looked at the prescribing behavior of doctors whose practices did and did not have restrictions on detailing.
The team assessed the prescribing behavior of 2126 doctors at 19 academic medical centers in 5 states (California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and New York) before and after the centers introduced policies restricting detailing.
The researchers compared the prescribing behavior of these doctors with the prescribing behavior of a control group of 24,593 physicians practicing in the same geographic regions who were not subject to detailing restrictions.
The data covered 262 drugs in 8 major drug classes—ranging from statins to antidepressants—representing more than $60 billion in aggregate sales in the US.
In all, there were 16,121,483 prescriptions written between January 2006 and June 2012 by both intervention and control physicians.
Overall results
The researchers found the enactment of detailing restrictions was associated with a significant decrease in the prescribing of detailed drugs (1.67 percentage points of market share) and a significant increase in the prescribing of nondetailed drugs (0.84 percentage points, P<0.001 for both).
The mean market share of detailed drugs was 19.3% prior to the enactment of restrictions, so the 1.67 percentage-point reduction represented an 8.7% relative decrease in market share.
The mean market share of nondetailed drugs was 14.2% prior to the enactment of restrictions, so the 0.84 percentage-point increase represented a 5.6% relative increase in market share.
“The study cannot definitively prove a causal link between policies that regulated detailing and changes in physician prescribing, but, absent a randomized control, this evidence is as definitive as possible,” said study author Ian Larkin, PhD, of the University of California, Los Angeles.
“We investigated 19 different policy implementations that happened over a 6-year period, included a control group of highly similar physicians not subject to detailing restrictions, and looked at effects in 8 large drug classes. The results were remarkably robust. After the introduction of policies, about 5% to 10% of physician prescribing behavior changed.”
Results by drug class, medical center
The researchers said detailing restrictions were associated with significant changes in market share for 6 of the 8 drug classes studied (lipid-lowering drugs, gastroesophageal reflux disease drugs, antihypertensive drugs, sleep aids, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder drugs, and antidepressants).
Looking at the medical centers individually, the researchers found that detailing restrictions were associated with significant changes in market share for detailed drugs at 9 centers and for nondetailed drugs at 8 centers.
The team noted that detailing restrictions differed among the centers.
Eleven of the centers regulated gifts to physicians, restricted sales representatives’ access to facilities, and had explicit enforcement policies. For 8 of these 11 centers, there was a significant change in prescribing practices.
The remaining 8 centers had less stringent restrictions in that they did not cover all 3 areas of restriction (regulating gifts, restricting access, and having enforcement policies). There was a significant change in prescribing practices for only 1 of these centers.
“No medical center completely barred salesperson visits,” Dr Larkin noted. “Salespeople could and did continue to visit physicians at all medical centers in the study. The most common restriction put in place was a ban on meals and other small gifts.”
“The fact that regulating gifts while still allowing sales calls still led to a switch to cheaper, generic drugs may suggest that gifts such as meals play an important role in influencing physicians. The correlation between meals and prescribing has been well established in the literature, but our study suggests this relationship may be causal in nature.”
Company withdraws MAA for vosaroxin in AML
Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is withdrawing its European Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) for the anticancer quinolone derivative vosaroxin.
The MAA was for vosaroxin as a treatment for relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in patients age 60 years and older.
Along with the MAA withdrawal, Sunesis has decided to scale back its investment in vosaroxin.
However, the company said it will continue developing the drug.
These decisions were made after Sunesis learned the European Medicine Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) was unlikely to recommend approval for vosaroxin.
“We are disappointed to not achieve approval for vosaroxin’s MAA, given its reported efficacy in a patient population with such poor outcomes,” said Daniel Swisher, president and chief executive officer of Sunesis.
“Although we did not receive a definitive CHMP opinion, we believed that a positive opinion was unlikely. Following our appearances before the committee’s Scientific Advisory Group on Oncology and CHMP, we carefully considered feedback from our rapporteurs and input from retained regulatory experts to make our decision to notify EMA to withdraw vosaroxin’s MAA, as our assessment concluded it was unlikely we could achieve a majority vote of CHMP members at this time or upon an immediate re-examination for our proposed indication based on VALOR data from a subgroup of a single pivotal trial that had missed reaching full statistical significance in its primary analysis.”
“In light of this, we are significantly reducing our investment in the AML program and shifting an increasing portion of resources to our kinase inhibitor pipeline . . . . We expect to continue to advance the development of vosaroxin through a modest investment in investigator-sponsored group trials and will carefully assess business development alternatives to support the conduct of another pivotal trial to achieve future regulatory approval of vosaroxin. We expect that our current cash resources are sufficient to fund the company beyond Q1 2018.”
Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is withdrawing its European Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) for the anticancer quinolone derivative vosaroxin.
The MAA was for vosaroxin as a treatment for relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in patients age 60 years and older.
Along with the MAA withdrawal, Sunesis has decided to scale back its investment in vosaroxin.
However, the company said it will continue developing the drug.
These decisions were made after Sunesis learned the European Medicine Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) was unlikely to recommend approval for vosaroxin.
“We are disappointed to not achieve approval for vosaroxin’s MAA, given its reported efficacy in a patient population with such poor outcomes,” said Daniel Swisher, president and chief executive officer of Sunesis.
“Although we did not receive a definitive CHMP opinion, we believed that a positive opinion was unlikely. Following our appearances before the committee’s Scientific Advisory Group on Oncology and CHMP, we carefully considered feedback from our rapporteurs and input from retained regulatory experts to make our decision to notify EMA to withdraw vosaroxin’s MAA, as our assessment concluded it was unlikely we could achieve a majority vote of CHMP members at this time or upon an immediate re-examination for our proposed indication based on VALOR data from a subgroup of a single pivotal trial that had missed reaching full statistical significance in its primary analysis.”
“In light of this, we are significantly reducing our investment in the AML program and shifting an increasing portion of resources to our kinase inhibitor pipeline . . . . We expect to continue to advance the development of vosaroxin through a modest investment in investigator-sponsored group trials and will carefully assess business development alternatives to support the conduct of another pivotal trial to achieve future regulatory approval of vosaroxin. We expect that our current cash resources are sufficient to fund the company beyond Q1 2018.”
Sunesis Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is withdrawing its European Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) for the anticancer quinolone derivative vosaroxin.
The MAA was for vosaroxin as a treatment for relapsed/refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) in patients age 60 years and older.
Along with the MAA withdrawal, Sunesis has decided to scale back its investment in vosaroxin.
However, the company said it will continue developing the drug.
These decisions were made after Sunesis learned the European Medicine Agency’s (EMA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) was unlikely to recommend approval for vosaroxin.
“We are disappointed to not achieve approval for vosaroxin’s MAA, given its reported efficacy in a patient population with such poor outcomes,” said Daniel Swisher, president and chief executive officer of Sunesis.
“Although we did not receive a definitive CHMP opinion, we believed that a positive opinion was unlikely. Following our appearances before the committee’s Scientific Advisory Group on Oncology and CHMP, we carefully considered feedback from our rapporteurs and input from retained regulatory experts to make our decision to notify EMA to withdraw vosaroxin’s MAA, as our assessment concluded it was unlikely we could achieve a majority vote of CHMP members at this time or upon an immediate re-examination for our proposed indication based on VALOR data from a subgroup of a single pivotal trial that had missed reaching full statistical significance in its primary analysis.”
“In light of this, we are significantly reducing our investment in the AML program and shifting an increasing portion of resources to our kinase inhibitor pipeline . . . . We expect to continue to advance the development of vosaroxin through a modest investment in investigator-sponsored group trials and will carefully assess business development alternatives to support the conduct of another pivotal trial to achieve future regulatory approval of vosaroxin. We expect that our current cash resources are sufficient to fund the company beyond Q1 2018.”
Heavily promoted drugs provide less ‘health value,’ study suggests
Drugs that are promoted most heavily in the US are less likely than the top-selling drugs and the top-prescribed drugs to provide “health value,” according to researchers.
The top-promoted drugs were less likely than either or both of the other drug types to demonstrate safety and effectiveness, be affordable, represent a genuine advance in treating a disease, be included on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) list of essential medicines, or be recommended as a first-line treatment.
Among the top-promoted drugs were 4 anticoagulants—Eliquis (apixaban), Xarelto (rivaroxaban), Brilinta (ticagrelor), and Pradaxa (dabigatran).
Tyler Greenway and Joseph S. Ross, MD, both of Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, conducted this research and reported their findings in The BMJ.
The researchers set out to assess the “health value” of the drugs most aggressively promoted to physicians to better understand the implications of pharmaceutical promotion for patient care.
The team identified the 25 medicinal products associated with the largest total payments to physicians and teaching hospitals from August 2013 to December 2014.
This included all direct and indirect payments, such as speaker fees for education lectures, consulting fees, and honoraria, as well as payments in kind, such as the value of food and gifts. However, research payments, royalties, and licensing fees were excluded, as these are typically not promotional.
The researchers also determined the 25 best-selling medicinal products by 2014 US sales and the 25 most-prescribed drugs in the US during 2013.
One of the 25 top-promoted products was excluded because it was used to test for adrenocortical function. And 1 of the 25 top-selling products was a pneumococcal vaccine, which was also excluded.
Four of the 24 top-promoted drugs (17%) were also among the top-selling drugs—adalimumab, glatiramer, aripiprazole, and budesonide-formoterol. But none of the top-promoted drugs were among the top-prescribed drugs.
Among the top-selling drugs were several used in the field of hematology—Rituxan (rituximab), Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), Neupogen (filgrastim), Revlimid (lenalidomide), and Gleevec (imatinib mesylate).
Results
The researchers estimated the drugs’ value to society using 5 proxy measures:
- Innovation—drugs that were first-in-class or provided a “meaningful advance” over existing treatments
- Effectiveness and safety—assessed using the ratings systems of the French drug industry watchdog Prescrire International
- Generic availability—a measure of affordability
- Clinical value—inclusion on the WHO list of essential medicines in 2015
- First-line status—being recommended as a first-line therapy.
The top-promoted drugs were significantly less likely to be considered innovative than the top-selling drugs (33% vs 72%, relative risk [RR]=0.46, P=0.01). However, the difference was not significant for the top-promoted and top-prescribed drugs (33% vs 52%, RR=0.64, P=0.25).
The top-promoted drugs were significantly less likely to be considered possibly helpful or advantageous according to Prescrire ratings than the top-prescribed drugs (19% vs 76%, RR=0.25, P<0.001). But the difference was not significant for the top-promoted and top-selling drugs (19% vs 44%, RR=0.43, P=0.11).
Generic equivalents were available for 62% of the top-promoted drugs, 32% of the top-selling drugs (RR=1.95, P=0.05), and 100% of the top-prescribed drugs (RR=0.63, P<0.001).
The top-promoted drugs were significantly less likely than either of the other drug types to be on the WHO essential medicines list. One of the top-promoted drugs was on the list, compared to 9 top-selling drugs (RR=0.12, P=0.01) and 14 top-prescribed drugs (RR=0.07, P<0.001).
The top-promoted drugs were significantly less likely to be recommended as first-line treatments than the top-prescribed drugs (33% vs 80%, RR=0.42, P=0.001). But the difference was not significant for the top-selling drugs (33% vs 60%, RR=0.56, P=0.09).
The researchers said these results raise concerns about the purpose of pharmaceutical promotion and its influence on patient care. They believe efforts are needed to better evaluate the value of drugs, ensuring this information is readily available at the point of care so it can inform clinical decision-making and promote the use of higher-value medicines.
The researchers also suggested that clinicians consider taking steps to limit their exposure to industry promotion and consider engaging with non-commercial educational outreach programs that provide evidence-based recommendations about medication choices.
Drugs that are promoted most heavily in the US are less likely than the top-selling drugs and the top-prescribed drugs to provide “health value,” according to researchers.
The top-promoted drugs were less likely than either or both of the other drug types to demonstrate safety and effectiveness, be affordable, represent a genuine advance in treating a disease, be included on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) list of essential medicines, or be recommended as a first-line treatment.
Among the top-promoted drugs were 4 anticoagulants—Eliquis (apixaban), Xarelto (rivaroxaban), Brilinta (ticagrelor), and Pradaxa (dabigatran).
Tyler Greenway and Joseph S. Ross, MD, both of Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, conducted this research and reported their findings in The BMJ.
The researchers set out to assess the “health value” of the drugs most aggressively promoted to physicians to better understand the implications of pharmaceutical promotion for patient care.
The team identified the 25 medicinal products associated with the largest total payments to physicians and teaching hospitals from August 2013 to December 2014.
This included all direct and indirect payments, such as speaker fees for education lectures, consulting fees, and honoraria, as well as payments in kind, such as the value of food and gifts. However, research payments, royalties, and licensing fees were excluded, as these are typically not promotional.
The researchers also determined the 25 best-selling medicinal products by 2014 US sales and the 25 most-prescribed drugs in the US during 2013.
One of the 25 top-promoted products was excluded because it was used to test for adrenocortical function. And 1 of the 25 top-selling products was a pneumococcal vaccine, which was also excluded.
Four of the 24 top-promoted drugs (17%) were also among the top-selling drugs—adalimumab, glatiramer, aripiprazole, and budesonide-formoterol. But none of the top-promoted drugs were among the top-prescribed drugs.
Among the top-selling drugs were several used in the field of hematology—Rituxan (rituximab), Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), Neupogen (filgrastim), Revlimid (lenalidomide), and Gleevec (imatinib mesylate).
Results
The researchers estimated the drugs’ value to society using 5 proxy measures:
- Innovation—drugs that were first-in-class or provided a “meaningful advance” over existing treatments
- Effectiveness and safety—assessed using the ratings systems of the French drug industry watchdog Prescrire International
- Generic availability—a measure of affordability
- Clinical value—inclusion on the WHO list of essential medicines in 2015
- First-line status—being recommended as a first-line therapy.
The top-promoted drugs were significantly less likely to be considered innovative than the top-selling drugs (33% vs 72%, relative risk [RR]=0.46, P=0.01). However, the difference was not significant for the top-promoted and top-prescribed drugs (33% vs 52%, RR=0.64, P=0.25).
The top-promoted drugs were significantly less likely to be considered possibly helpful or advantageous according to Prescrire ratings than the top-prescribed drugs (19% vs 76%, RR=0.25, P<0.001). But the difference was not significant for the top-promoted and top-selling drugs (19% vs 44%, RR=0.43, P=0.11).
Generic equivalents were available for 62% of the top-promoted drugs, 32% of the top-selling drugs (RR=1.95, P=0.05), and 100% of the top-prescribed drugs (RR=0.63, P<0.001).
The top-promoted drugs were significantly less likely than either of the other drug types to be on the WHO essential medicines list. One of the top-promoted drugs was on the list, compared to 9 top-selling drugs (RR=0.12, P=0.01) and 14 top-prescribed drugs (RR=0.07, P<0.001).
The top-promoted drugs were significantly less likely to be recommended as first-line treatments than the top-prescribed drugs (33% vs 80%, RR=0.42, P=0.001). But the difference was not significant for the top-selling drugs (33% vs 60%, RR=0.56, P=0.09).
The researchers said these results raise concerns about the purpose of pharmaceutical promotion and its influence on patient care. They believe efforts are needed to better evaluate the value of drugs, ensuring this information is readily available at the point of care so it can inform clinical decision-making and promote the use of higher-value medicines.
The researchers also suggested that clinicians consider taking steps to limit their exposure to industry promotion and consider engaging with non-commercial educational outreach programs that provide evidence-based recommendations about medication choices.
Drugs that are promoted most heavily in the US are less likely than the top-selling drugs and the top-prescribed drugs to provide “health value,” according to researchers.
The top-promoted drugs were less likely than either or both of the other drug types to demonstrate safety and effectiveness, be affordable, represent a genuine advance in treating a disease, be included on the World Health Organization’s (WHO) list of essential medicines, or be recommended as a first-line treatment.
Among the top-promoted drugs were 4 anticoagulants—Eliquis (apixaban), Xarelto (rivaroxaban), Brilinta (ticagrelor), and Pradaxa (dabigatran).
Tyler Greenway and Joseph S. Ross, MD, both of Yale University School of Medicine in New Haven, Connecticut, conducted this research and reported their findings in The BMJ.
The researchers set out to assess the “health value” of the drugs most aggressively promoted to physicians to better understand the implications of pharmaceutical promotion for patient care.
The team identified the 25 medicinal products associated with the largest total payments to physicians and teaching hospitals from August 2013 to December 2014.
This included all direct and indirect payments, such as speaker fees for education lectures, consulting fees, and honoraria, as well as payments in kind, such as the value of food and gifts. However, research payments, royalties, and licensing fees were excluded, as these are typically not promotional.
The researchers also determined the 25 best-selling medicinal products by 2014 US sales and the 25 most-prescribed drugs in the US during 2013.
One of the 25 top-promoted products was excluded because it was used to test for adrenocortical function. And 1 of the 25 top-selling products was a pneumococcal vaccine, which was also excluded.
Four of the 24 top-promoted drugs (17%) were also among the top-selling drugs—adalimumab, glatiramer, aripiprazole, and budesonide-formoterol. But none of the top-promoted drugs were among the top-prescribed drugs.
Among the top-selling drugs were several used in the field of hematology—Rituxan (rituximab), Neulasta (pegfilgrastim), Neupogen (filgrastim), Revlimid (lenalidomide), and Gleevec (imatinib mesylate).
Results
The researchers estimated the drugs’ value to society using 5 proxy measures:
- Innovation—drugs that were first-in-class or provided a “meaningful advance” over existing treatments
- Effectiveness and safety—assessed using the ratings systems of the French drug industry watchdog Prescrire International
- Generic availability—a measure of affordability
- Clinical value—inclusion on the WHO list of essential medicines in 2015
- First-line status—being recommended as a first-line therapy.
The top-promoted drugs were significantly less likely to be considered innovative than the top-selling drugs (33% vs 72%, relative risk [RR]=0.46, P=0.01). However, the difference was not significant for the top-promoted and top-prescribed drugs (33% vs 52%, RR=0.64, P=0.25).
The top-promoted drugs were significantly less likely to be considered possibly helpful or advantageous according to Prescrire ratings than the top-prescribed drugs (19% vs 76%, RR=0.25, P<0.001). But the difference was not significant for the top-promoted and top-selling drugs (19% vs 44%, RR=0.43, P=0.11).
Generic equivalents were available for 62% of the top-promoted drugs, 32% of the top-selling drugs (RR=1.95, P=0.05), and 100% of the top-prescribed drugs (RR=0.63, P<0.001).
The top-promoted drugs were significantly less likely than either of the other drug types to be on the WHO essential medicines list. One of the top-promoted drugs was on the list, compared to 9 top-selling drugs (RR=0.12, P=0.01) and 14 top-prescribed drugs (RR=0.07, P<0.001).
The top-promoted drugs were significantly less likely to be recommended as first-line treatments than the top-prescribed drugs (33% vs 80%, RR=0.42, P=0.001). But the difference was not significant for the top-selling drugs (33% vs 60%, RR=0.56, P=0.09).
The researchers said these results raise concerns about the purpose of pharmaceutical promotion and its influence on patient care. They believe efforts are needed to better evaluate the value of drugs, ensuring this information is readily available at the point of care so it can inform clinical decision-making and promote the use of higher-value medicines.
The researchers also suggested that clinicians consider taking steps to limit their exposure to industry promotion and consider engaging with non-commercial educational outreach programs that provide evidence-based recommendations about medication choices.
FDA approves first ready-to-use oral solution of methotrexate
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a ready-to-use oral solution of methotrexate (Xatmep) for use in certain pediatric patients.
The drug is approved as part of a multi-phase, combination chemotherapy maintenance regimen to treat pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Xatmep is also approved for use in pediatric patients with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis who have had an insufficient response to, or cannot tolerate, an adequate trial of first-line therapy, including full-dose non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents.
Xatmep is the first ready-to-use oral solution of methotrexate to be approved by the FDA.
There was previously no such formulation of the drug approved for use in pediatric patients requiring body surface area dosing (mg/m2), patients who have difficulty swallowing or cannot consume tablets, or those with needle-phobia.
Xatmep (methotrexate) Oral Solution, 2.5 mg/mL, requires no preparation. It eliminates the need for needles, crushing or splitting tablets, or for compounding tablets into a liquid formulation.
Xatmep requires refrigeration but may be stored at room temperature for 60 days after dispensing.
For more on Xatmep, see the prescribing information, which includes a boxed warning detailing the risk of severe toxic reactions, including embryo-fetal toxicity.
Xatmep is available through pharmacies and a qualified mail-order service. For information on how to obtain the drug, call 1-855-379-0382.
Xatmep is a product of Silvergate Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a ready-to-use oral solution of methotrexate (Xatmep) for use in certain pediatric patients.
The drug is approved as part of a multi-phase, combination chemotherapy maintenance regimen to treat pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Xatmep is also approved for use in pediatric patients with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis who have had an insufficient response to, or cannot tolerate, an adequate trial of first-line therapy, including full-dose non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents.
Xatmep is the first ready-to-use oral solution of methotrexate to be approved by the FDA.
There was previously no such formulation of the drug approved for use in pediatric patients requiring body surface area dosing (mg/m2), patients who have difficulty swallowing or cannot consume tablets, or those with needle-phobia.
Xatmep (methotrexate) Oral Solution, 2.5 mg/mL, requires no preparation. It eliminates the need for needles, crushing or splitting tablets, or for compounding tablets into a liquid formulation.
Xatmep requires refrigeration but may be stored at room temperature for 60 days after dispensing.
For more on Xatmep, see the prescribing information, which includes a boxed warning detailing the risk of severe toxic reactions, including embryo-fetal toxicity.
Xatmep is available through pharmacies and a qualified mail-order service. For information on how to obtain the drug, call 1-855-379-0382.
Xatmep is a product of Silvergate Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved a ready-to-use oral solution of methotrexate (Xatmep) for use in certain pediatric patients.
The drug is approved as part of a multi-phase, combination chemotherapy maintenance regimen to treat pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
Xatmep is also approved for use in pediatric patients with active polyarticular juvenile idiopathic arthritis who have had an insufficient response to, or cannot tolerate, an adequate trial of first-line therapy, including full-dose non-steroidal anti-inflammatory agents.
Xatmep is the first ready-to-use oral solution of methotrexate to be approved by the FDA.
There was previously no such formulation of the drug approved for use in pediatric patients requiring body surface area dosing (mg/m2), patients who have difficulty swallowing or cannot consume tablets, or those with needle-phobia.
Xatmep (methotrexate) Oral Solution, 2.5 mg/mL, requires no preparation. It eliminates the need for needles, crushing or splitting tablets, or for compounding tablets into a liquid formulation.
Xatmep requires refrigeration but may be stored at room temperature for 60 days after dispensing.
For more on Xatmep, see the prescribing information, which includes a boxed warning detailing the risk of severe toxic reactions, including embryo-fetal toxicity.
Xatmep is available through pharmacies and a qualified mail-order service. For information on how to obtain the drug, call 1-855-379-0382.
Xatmep is a product of Silvergate Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Drug receives orphan designation for AML
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan drug designation for PTX-200 for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
PTX-200, or triciribine phosphate monohydrate, is a small-molecule Akt inhibitor being developed by Prescient Therapeutics Ltd.
PTX-200 is currently being tested in combination with cytarabine in a phase 1b/2 trial of patients with relapsed or refractory AML.
PTX-200 was previously tested as monotherapy in a phase 1 trial of patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies.
Results from this trial were published in Leukemia Research in November 2013.
The trial included 41 patients who received at least 1 dose of PTX-200. The patients’ median age was 70 (range, of 23–83), and most (77%) were male.
Thirty-six patients (84%) had AML, 3 had myelodysplastic syndromes/chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), 2 had chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and 2 had acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
The patients had received a median of 2 prior therapies (range, 0–11), and they received a median of 1 cycle (range, 0–3) of PTX-200 at varying doses.
The maximum-tolerated dose of PTX-200 was 55 mg/m2. Two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred in 3 patients in the 65 mg/m2 cohort (2 cases of lipase elevation and 1 case of triglyceride elevation).
One dose-limiting toxicity (mucositis) occurred in the 35 mg/m2 cohort. All DLTs resolved after patients stopped taking PTX-200.
Common treatment-emergent grade 3/4 adverse events included infection/febrile neutropenia (24%), bleeding (2%), mucositis (2%), and elevated lipase (5%).
Thirty-two patients were evaluable for response. There were no responses, but 17 patients had stable disease. The remaining 15 patients progressed.
Three patients with stable disease (all with AML) achieved at least a 50% reduction in bone marrow blasts, and a patient with CMML experienced spleen reduction and resolution of leukocytosis.
About orphan designation
The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent rare diseases/disorders affecting fewer than 200,000 people in the US.
Orphan designation provides companies with certain incentives to develop products for rare diseases. This includes a 50% tax break on research and development, a fee waiver, access to federal grants, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan drug designation for PTX-200 for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
PTX-200, or triciribine phosphate monohydrate, is a small-molecule Akt inhibitor being developed by Prescient Therapeutics Ltd.
PTX-200 is currently being tested in combination with cytarabine in a phase 1b/2 trial of patients with relapsed or refractory AML.
PTX-200 was previously tested as monotherapy in a phase 1 trial of patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies.
Results from this trial were published in Leukemia Research in November 2013.
The trial included 41 patients who received at least 1 dose of PTX-200. The patients’ median age was 70 (range, of 23–83), and most (77%) were male.
Thirty-six patients (84%) had AML, 3 had myelodysplastic syndromes/chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), 2 had chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and 2 had acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
The patients had received a median of 2 prior therapies (range, 0–11), and they received a median of 1 cycle (range, 0–3) of PTX-200 at varying doses.
The maximum-tolerated dose of PTX-200 was 55 mg/m2. Two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred in 3 patients in the 65 mg/m2 cohort (2 cases of lipase elevation and 1 case of triglyceride elevation).
One dose-limiting toxicity (mucositis) occurred in the 35 mg/m2 cohort. All DLTs resolved after patients stopped taking PTX-200.
Common treatment-emergent grade 3/4 adverse events included infection/febrile neutropenia (24%), bleeding (2%), mucositis (2%), and elevated lipase (5%).
Thirty-two patients were evaluable for response. There were no responses, but 17 patients had stable disease. The remaining 15 patients progressed.
Three patients with stable disease (all with AML) achieved at least a 50% reduction in bone marrow blasts, and a patient with CMML experienced spleen reduction and resolution of leukocytosis.
About orphan designation
The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent rare diseases/disorders affecting fewer than 200,000 people in the US.
Orphan designation provides companies with certain incentives to develop products for rare diseases. This includes a 50% tax break on research and development, a fee waiver, access to federal grants, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted orphan drug designation for PTX-200 for the treatment of acute myeloid leukemia (AML).
PTX-200, or triciribine phosphate monohydrate, is a small-molecule Akt inhibitor being developed by Prescient Therapeutics Ltd.
PTX-200 is currently being tested in combination with cytarabine in a phase 1b/2 trial of patients with relapsed or refractory AML.
PTX-200 was previously tested as monotherapy in a phase 1 trial of patients with relapsed or refractory hematologic malignancies.
Results from this trial were published in Leukemia Research in November 2013.
The trial included 41 patients who received at least 1 dose of PTX-200. The patients’ median age was 70 (range, of 23–83), and most (77%) were male.
Thirty-six patients (84%) had AML, 3 had myelodysplastic syndromes/chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML), 2 had chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and 2 had acute lymphoblastic leukemia.
The patients had received a median of 2 prior therapies (range, 0–11), and they received a median of 1 cycle (range, 0–3) of PTX-200 at varying doses.
The maximum-tolerated dose of PTX-200 was 55 mg/m2. Two dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) occurred in 3 patients in the 65 mg/m2 cohort (2 cases of lipase elevation and 1 case of triglyceride elevation).
One dose-limiting toxicity (mucositis) occurred in the 35 mg/m2 cohort. All DLTs resolved after patients stopped taking PTX-200.
Common treatment-emergent grade 3/4 adverse events included infection/febrile neutropenia (24%), bleeding (2%), mucositis (2%), and elevated lipase (5%).
Thirty-two patients were evaluable for response. There were no responses, but 17 patients had stable disease. The remaining 15 patients progressed.
Three patients with stable disease (all with AML) achieved at least a 50% reduction in bone marrow blasts, and a patient with CMML experienced spleen reduction and resolution of leukocytosis.
About orphan designation
The FDA grants orphan designation to products intended to treat, diagnose, or prevent rare diseases/disorders affecting fewer than 200,000 people in the US.
Orphan designation provides companies with certain incentives to develop products for rare diseases. This includes a 50% tax break on research and development, a fee waiver, access to federal grants, and 7 years of market exclusivity if the product is approved.
FDA approves midostaurin to treat FLT3+ AML, advanced SM
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted approval for the oral, multi-targeted kinase inhibitor midostaurin (Rydapt).
The drug is now approved for the treatment of adults with advanced systemic mastocytosis (SM), including aggressive SM (ASM), SM with associated hematologic neoplasm (SM-AHN), and mast cell leukemia (MCL).
Midostaurin is also approved for use in combination with standard cytarabine and daunorubicin induction, followed by cytarabine consolidation, in adults with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are FLT3 mutation-positive, as detected by an FDA-approved test.
The FDA approved a companion diagnostic, the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay, for use with midostaurin to test AML patients for the FLT3 mutation.
Midostaurin is a product of Novartis. The companion diagnostic was developed by Novartis and Invivoscribe Technologies, Inc.
Midostaurin in AML
The FDA’s approval of midostaurin in AML is based on results from the phase 3 RATIFY trial, which were presented at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting.
In RATIFY, researchers compared midostaurin plus standard chemotherapy to placebo plus standard chemotherapy in 717 adults younger than age 60 who had FLT3-mutated AML.
Patients in the midostaurin arm experienced a statistically significant improvement in overall survival, with a 23% reduction in risk of death compared to the placebo arm (hazard ratio=0.77, P=0.016).
The median event-free survival was significantly longer in the midostaurin arm than the placebo arm—8.2 months and 3.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio=0.78, P=0.004).
The most frequent adverse events (AEs) in the midostaurin arm (occurring in at least 20% of patients) were febrile neutropenia, nausea, vomiting, mucositis, headache, musculoskeletal pain, petechiae, device-related infection, epistaxis, hyperglycemia, and upper respiratory tract infections.
The most frequent grade 3/4 AEs (occurring in at least 10% of patients) were febrile neutropenia, device-related infection, and mucositis. Nine percent of patients in the midostaurin arm stopped treatment due to AEs, as did 6% in the placebo arm.
Midostaurin in advanced SM
The FDA’s approval of midostaurin in advanced SM was based on results from a pair of phase 2, single-arm studies, hereafter referred to as Study 2 and Study 3.
Data from Study 2 were published in NEJM in June 2016, and data from Study 3 were presented at the 2010 ASH Annual Meeting.
Study 2 included 116 patients, 115 of whom were evaluable for response.
The overall response rate (ORR) was 17% in the entire cohort, 31% among patients with ASM, 11% among patients with SM-AHN, and 19% among patients with MCL. The complete response rates were 2%, 6%, 0%, and 5%, respectively.
Study 3 included 26 patients with advanced SM. In 3 of the patients, the subtype of SM was unconfirmed.
Among the 17 patients with SM-AHN, there were 10 response (ORR=59%), including 1 partial response and 9 major responses. In the 6 patients with MCL, there were 2 responses (ORR=33%), which included 1 partial response and 1 major response.
In both studies combined, there were 142 adults with ASM, SM-AHN, or MCL.
The most frequent AEs (excluding laboratory abnormalities) that occurred in at least 20% of these patients were nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, edema, musculoskeletal pain, abdominal pain, fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, constipation, pyrexia, headache, and dyspnea.
The most frequent grade 3 or higher AEs (excluding laboratory abnormalities) that occurred in at least 5% of patients were fatigue, sepsis, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, pneumonia, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, edema, dyspnea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and renal insufficiency.
Serious AEs occurred in 68% of patients, most commonly infections and gastrointestinal disorders. Twenty-one percent of patients discontinued treatment due to AEs, the most frequent of which were infection, nausea or vomiting, QT prolongation, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted approval for the oral, multi-targeted kinase inhibitor midostaurin (Rydapt).
The drug is now approved for the treatment of adults with advanced systemic mastocytosis (SM), including aggressive SM (ASM), SM with associated hematologic neoplasm (SM-AHN), and mast cell leukemia (MCL).
Midostaurin is also approved for use in combination with standard cytarabine and daunorubicin induction, followed by cytarabine consolidation, in adults with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are FLT3 mutation-positive, as detected by an FDA-approved test.
The FDA approved a companion diagnostic, the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay, for use with midostaurin to test AML patients for the FLT3 mutation.
Midostaurin is a product of Novartis. The companion diagnostic was developed by Novartis and Invivoscribe Technologies, Inc.
Midostaurin in AML
The FDA’s approval of midostaurin in AML is based on results from the phase 3 RATIFY trial, which were presented at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting.
In RATIFY, researchers compared midostaurin plus standard chemotherapy to placebo plus standard chemotherapy in 717 adults younger than age 60 who had FLT3-mutated AML.
Patients in the midostaurin arm experienced a statistically significant improvement in overall survival, with a 23% reduction in risk of death compared to the placebo arm (hazard ratio=0.77, P=0.016).
The median event-free survival was significantly longer in the midostaurin arm than the placebo arm—8.2 months and 3.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio=0.78, P=0.004).
The most frequent adverse events (AEs) in the midostaurin arm (occurring in at least 20% of patients) were febrile neutropenia, nausea, vomiting, mucositis, headache, musculoskeletal pain, petechiae, device-related infection, epistaxis, hyperglycemia, and upper respiratory tract infections.
The most frequent grade 3/4 AEs (occurring in at least 10% of patients) were febrile neutropenia, device-related infection, and mucositis. Nine percent of patients in the midostaurin arm stopped treatment due to AEs, as did 6% in the placebo arm.
Midostaurin in advanced SM
The FDA’s approval of midostaurin in advanced SM was based on results from a pair of phase 2, single-arm studies, hereafter referred to as Study 2 and Study 3.
Data from Study 2 were published in NEJM in June 2016, and data from Study 3 were presented at the 2010 ASH Annual Meeting.
Study 2 included 116 patients, 115 of whom were evaluable for response.
The overall response rate (ORR) was 17% in the entire cohort, 31% among patients with ASM, 11% among patients with SM-AHN, and 19% among patients with MCL. The complete response rates were 2%, 6%, 0%, and 5%, respectively.
Study 3 included 26 patients with advanced SM. In 3 of the patients, the subtype of SM was unconfirmed.
Among the 17 patients with SM-AHN, there were 10 response (ORR=59%), including 1 partial response and 9 major responses. In the 6 patients with MCL, there were 2 responses (ORR=33%), which included 1 partial response and 1 major response.
In both studies combined, there were 142 adults with ASM, SM-AHN, or MCL.
The most frequent AEs (excluding laboratory abnormalities) that occurred in at least 20% of these patients were nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, edema, musculoskeletal pain, abdominal pain, fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, constipation, pyrexia, headache, and dyspnea.
The most frequent grade 3 or higher AEs (excluding laboratory abnormalities) that occurred in at least 5% of patients were fatigue, sepsis, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, pneumonia, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, edema, dyspnea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and renal insufficiency.
Serious AEs occurred in 68% of patients, most commonly infections and gastrointestinal disorders. Twenty-one percent of patients discontinued treatment due to AEs, the most frequent of which were infection, nausea or vomiting, QT prolongation, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted approval for the oral, multi-targeted kinase inhibitor midostaurin (Rydapt).
The drug is now approved for the treatment of adults with advanced systemic mastocytosis (SM), including aggressive SM (ASM), SM with associated hematologic neoplasm (SM-AHN), and mast cell leukemia (MCL).
Midostaurin is also approved for use in combination with standard cytarabine and daunorubicin induction, followed by cytarabine consolidation, in adults with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are FLT3 mutation-positive, as detected by an FDA-approved test.
The FDA approved a companion diagnostic, the LeukoStrat CDx FLT3 Mutation Assay, for use with midostaurin to test AML patients for the FLT3 mutation.
Midostaurin is a product of Novartis. The companion diagnostic was developed by Novartis and Invivoscribe Technologies, Inc.
Midostaurin in AML
The FDA’s approval of midostaurin in AML is based on results from the phase 3 RATIFY trial, which were presented at the 2015 ASH Annual Meeting.
In RATIFY, researchers compared midostaurin plus standard chemotherapy to placebo plus standard chemotherapy in 717 adults younger than age 60 who had FLT3-mutated AML.
Patients in the midostaurin arm experienced a statistically significant improvement in overall survival, with a 23% reduction in risk of death compared to the placebo arm (hazard ratio=0.77, P=0.016).
The median event-free survival was significantly longer in the midostaurin arm than the placebo arm—8.2 months and 3.0 months, respectively (hazard ratio=0.78, P=0.004).
The most frequent adverse events (AEs) in the midostaurin arm (occurring in at least 20% of patients) were febrile neutropenia, nausea, vomiting, mucositis, headache, musculoskeletal pain, petechiae, device-related infection, epistaxis, hyperglycemia, and upper respiratory tract infections.
The most frequent grade 3/4 AEs (occurring in at least 10% of patients) were febrile neutropenia, device-related infection, and mucositis. Nine percent of patients in the midostaurin arm stopped treatment due to AEs, as did 6% in the placebo arm.
Midostaurin in advanced SM
The FDA’s approval of midostaurin in advanced SM was based on results from a pair of phase 2, single-arm studies, hereafter referred to as Study 2 and Study 3.
Data from Study 2 were published in NEJM in June 2016, and data from Study 3 were presented at the 2010 ASH Annual Meeting.
Study 2 included 116 patients, 115 of whom were evaluable for response.
The overall response rate (ORR) was 17% in the entire cohort, 31% among patients with ASM, 11% among patients with SM-AHN, and 19% among patients with MCL. The complete response rates were 2%, 6%, 0%, and 5%, respectively.
Study 3 included 26 patients with advanced SM. In 3 of the patients, the subtype of SM was unconfirmed.
Among the 17 patients with SM-AHN, there were 10 response (ORR=59%), including 1 partial response and 9 major responses. In the 6 patients with MCL, there were 2 responses (ORR=33%), which included 1 partial response and 1 major response.
In both studies combined, there were 142 adults with ASM, SM-AHN, or MCL.
The most frequent AEs (excluding laboratory abnormalities) that occurred in at least 20% of these patients were nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, edema, musculoskeletal pain, abdominal pain, fatigue, upper respiratory tract infection, constipation, pyrexia, headache, and dyspnea.
The most frequent grade 3 or higher AEs (excluding laboratory abnormalities) that occurred in at least 5% of patients were fatigue, sepsis, gastrointestinal hemorrhage, pneumonia, diarrhea, febrile neutropenia, edema, dyspnea, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and renal insufficiency.
Serious AEs occurred in 68% of patients, most commonly infections and gastrointestinal disorders. Twenty-one percent of patients discontinued treatment due to AEs, the most frequent of which were infection, nausea or vomiting, QT prolongation, and gastrointestinal hemorrhage.
EC expands approval for daratumumab in MM
The European Commission (EC) has expanded the approved use of the anti-CD38 antibody daratumumab (Darzalex®).
Daratumumab is now approved for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib and dexamethasone for the treatment of adults with multiple myeloma (MM) who have received at least 1 prior therapy.
The EC previously granted conditional approval for daratumumab as monotherapy for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory MM whose prior treatment included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who demonstrated disease progression on their last therapy.
Now, the EC has granted daratumumab full approval for this indication. The conditional approval was contingent upon Janssen, the company developing daratumumab, providing additional data from the phase 3 POLLUX and CASTOR trials.
As these data have been provided, the EC said the specific obligations associated with the conditional approval have been fulfilled, allowing the switch from conditional to full approval.
The EC’s decision to grant daratumumab approval in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib and dexamethasone was also based on data from the POLLUX and CASTOR trials.
In the POLLUX trial, researchers compared treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone to treatment with daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory MM.
Patients who received daratumumab in combination had a significantly higher response rate and longer progression-free survival than patients who received the 2-drug combination.
However, treatment with daratumumab was associated with infusion-related reactions and a higher incidence of neutropenia.
Results from this trial were published in NEJM in October 2016.
In the CASTOR trial, researchers compared treatment with bortezomib and dexamethasone to treatment with daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in patients with previously treated MM.
Patients who received the 3-drug combination had a higher response rate, longer progression-free survival, and a higher incidence of grade 3/4 adverse events than those who received the 2-drug combination.
Results from this trial were published in NEJM in August 2016.
The European Commission (EC) has expanded the approved use of the anti-CD38 antibody daratumumab (Darzalex®).
Daratumumab is now approved for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib and dexamethasone for the treatment of adults with multiple myeloma (MM) who have received at least 1 prior therapy.
The EC previously granted conditional approval for daratumumab as monotherapy for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory MM whose prior treatment included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who demonstrated disease progression on their last therapy.
Now, the EC has granted daratumumab full approval for this indication. The conditional approval was contingent upon Janssen, the company developing daratumumab, providing additional data from the phase 3 POLLUX and CASTOR trials.
As these data have been provided, the EC said the specific obligations associated with the conditional approval have been fulfilled, allowing the switch from conditional to full approval.
The EC’s decision to grant daratumumab approval in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib and dexamethasone was also based on data from the POLLUX and CASTOR trials.
In the POLLUX trial, researchers compared treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone to treatment with daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory MM.
Patients who received daratumumab in combination had a significantly higher response rate and longer progression-free survival than patients who received the 2-drug combination.
However, treatment with daratumumab was associated with infusion-related reactions and a higher incidence of neutropenia.
Results from this trial were published in NEJM in October 2016.
In the CASTOR trial, researchers compared treatment with bortezomib and dexamethasone to treatment with daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in patients with previously treated MM.
Patients who received the 3-drug combination had a higher response rate, longer progression-free survival, and a higher incidence of grade 3/4 adverse events than those who received the 2-drug combination.
Results from this trial were published in NEJM in August 2016.
The European Commission (EC) has expanded the approved use of the anti-CD38 antibody daratumumab (Darzalex®).
Daratumumab is now approved for use in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib and dexamethasone for the treatment of adults with multiple myeloma (MM) who have received at least 1 prior therapy.
The EC previously granted conditional approval for daratumumab as monotherapy for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory MM whose prior treatment included a proteasome inhibitor and an immunomodulatory agent and who demonstrated disease progression on their last therapy.
Now, the EC has granted daratumumab full approval for this indication. The conditional approval was contingent upon Janssen, the company developing daratumumab, providing additional data from the phase 3 POLLUX and CASTOR trials.
As these data have been provided, the EC said the specific obligations associated with the conditional approval have been fulfilled, allowing the switch from conditional to full approval.
The EC’s decision to grant daratumumab approval in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone or bortezomib and dexamethasone was also based on data from the POLLUX and CASTOR trials.
In the POLLUX trial, researchers compared treatment with lenalidomide and dexamethasone to treatment with daratumumab, lenalidomide, and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed or refractory MM.
Patients who received daratumumab in combination had a significantly higher response rate and longer progression-free survival than patients who received the 2-drug combination.
However, treatment with daratumumab was associated with infusion-related reactions and a higher incidence of neutropenia.
Results from this trial were published in NEJM in October 2016.
In the CASTOR trial, researchers compared treatment with bortezomib and dexamethasone to treatment with daratumumab, bortezomib, and dexamethasone in patients with previously treated MM.
Patients who received the 3-drug combination had a higher response rate, longer progression-free survival, and a higher incidence of grade 3/4 adverse events than those who received the 2-drug combination.
Results from this trial were published in NEJM in August 2016.
England did not benefit from CDF, analysis suggests
The National Health Service’s (NHS) Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) has not benefitted the people of England and may have been detrimental for English cancer patients, according to researchers.
The group analyzed 29 drugs that were approved for use through the CDF and found the fund did not “deliver meaningful value for patients or society” and may have resulted in patients suffering unnecessarily from adverse effects.
The CDF is money the English government sets aside to pay for cancer drugs that haven’t been approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the health technology assessment body in the UK, and aren’t available within the NHS, the publicly funded national healthcare system for England.
The original CDF was closed in March 2016, but a new CDF was opened at the end of July 2016.
In a study published in Annals of Oncology, researchers looked at 29 drugs that had been approved for use through the CDF for 47 specific indications and were available in January 2015.
The team said only 18 of the indications (38%) were based on clinical trials that reported a statistically significant benefit in terms of patients’ overall survival. The median overall survival benefit was 3.2 months, ranging from 1.4 months to 15.7 months.
The researchers also considered other factors, such as quality of life and adverse effects, to measure the drugs’ value to patients. And the team found that most of the drugs failed to show any evidence of meaningful clinical benefit.
In fact, the researchers said the benefit to patients in real-world situations was probably less than the benefit observed in the clinical trials, since trial participants are carefully selected, have fewer comorbidities, and tend to be younger than patients not included in trials.
“From 2010 when it started to 2016 when it closed, the Cancer Drugs Fund cost the UK taxpayer a total of £1.27 billion, the equivalent of 1 year’s total spending on all cancer drugs in the NHS,” said study author Ajay Aggarwal, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in England.
“The majority of cancer medicines funded through the CDF were found wanting with respect to what patients, clinicians, and NICE would count as clinically meaningful benefit. In addition, no data on the outcome of patients who used drugs accessed through the fund were collected.”
The researchers said basic information on patients who accessed the fund—including date of treatment cessation, side effects, deaths after 30 days of treatment, and date of death or relapse—was supposed to have been collected by April 2012.
However, even after it became mandatory to collect these data in 2014, 93% of outcome data were incomplete for 2014-2015.
“We also lost a major opportunity to understand how these medicines work in the real world,” said study author Richard Sullivan, MD, PhD, of King’s College London in England.
The original CDF was closed in March 2016 because it had become financially unsustainable, but a new CDF was opened at the end of July 2016.
The new CDF provides managed access to new cancer drugs for a limited period in circumstances where the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the drug is deemed uncertain by NICE. The new CDF works in close collaboration with NICE, to which all newly licensed drugs will be referred for appraisal first.
“This addresses some of the problems with the old CDF; namely, the fund would no longer support the provision of drugs that have been appraised but not recommended by NICE,” Dr Sullivan said.
“It still provides funding for new drugs awaiting NICE appraisal that have potential benefit. However, the issue here is one of fairness: why should cancer medicines be treated in this way and not all medicines and, indeed, all technologies?”
The National Health Service’s (NHS) Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) has not benefitted the people of England and may have been detrimental for English cancer patients, according to researchers.
The group analyzed 29 drugs that were approved for use through the CDF and found the fund did not “deliver meaningful value for patients or society” and may have resulted in patients suffering unnecessarily from adverse effects.
The CDF is money the English government sets aside to pay for cancer drugs that haven’t been approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the health technology assessment body in the UK, and aren’t available within the NHS, the publicly funded national healthcare system for England.
The original CDF was closed in March 2016, but a new CDF was opened at the end of July 2016.
In a study published in Annals of Oncology, researchers looked at 29 drugs that had been approved for use through the CDF for 47 specific indications and were available in January 2015.
The team said only 18 of the indications (38%) were based on clinical trials that reported a statistically significant benefit in terms of patients’ overall survival. The median overall survival benefit was 3.2 months, ranging from 1.4 months to 15.7 months.
The researchers also considered other factors, such as quality of life and adverse effects, to measure the drugs’ value to patients. And the team found that most of the drugs failed to show any evidence of meaningful clinical benefit.
In fact, the researchers said the benefit to patients in real-world situations was probably less than the benefit observed in the clinical trials, since trial participants are carefully selected, have fewer comorbidities, and tend to be younger than patients not included in trials.
“From 2010 when it started to 2016 when it closed, the Cancer Drugs Fund cost the UK taxpayer a total of £1.27 billion, the equivalent of 1 year’s total spending on all cancer drugs in the NHS,” said study author Ajay Aggarwal, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in England.
“The majority of cancer medicines funded through the CDF were found wanting with respect to what patients, clinicians, and NICE would count as clinically meaningful benefit. In addition, no data on the outcome of patients who used drugs accessed through the fund were collected.”
The researchers said basic information on patients who accessed the fund—including date of treatment cessation, side effects, deaths after 30 days of treatment, and date of death or relapse—was supposed to have been collected by April 2012.
However, even after it became mandatory to collect these data in 2014, 93% of outcome data were incomplete for 2014-2015.
“We also lost a major opportunity to understand how these medicines work in the real world,” said study author Richard Sullivan, MD, PhD, of King’s College London in England.
The original CDF was closed in March 2016 because it had become financially unsustainable, but a new CDF was opened at the end of July 2016.
The new CDF provides managed access to new cancer drugs for a limited period in circumstances where the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the drug is deemed uncertain by NICE. The new CDF works in close collaboration with NICE, to which all newly licensed drugs will be referred for appraisal first.
“This addresses some of the problems with the old CDF; namely, the fund would no longer support the provision of drugs that have been appraised but not recommended by NICE,” Dr Sullivan said.
“It still provides funding for new drugs awaiting NICE appraisal that have potential benefit. However, the issue here is one of fairness: why should cancer medicines be treated in this way and not all medicines and, indeed, all technologies?”
The National Health Service’s (NHS) Cancer Drugs Fund (CDF) has not benefitted the people of England and may have been detrimental for English cancer patients, according to researchers.
The group analyzed 29 drugs that were approved for use through the CDF and found the fund did not “deliver meaningful value for patients or society” and may have resulted in patients suffering unnecessarily from adverse effects.
The CDF is money the English government sets aside to pay for cancer drugs that haven’t been approved by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), the health technology assessment body in the UK, and aren’t available within the NHS, the publicly funded national healthcare system for England.
The original CDF was closed in March 2016, but a new CDF was opened at the end of July 2016.
In a study published in Annals of Oncology, researchers looked at 29 drugs that had been approved for use through the CDF for 47 specific indications and were available in January 2015.
The team said only 18 of the indications (38%) were based on clinical trials that reported a statistically significant benefit in terms of patients’ overall survival. The median overall survival benefit was 3.2 months, ranging from 1.4 months to 15.7 months.
The researchers also considered other factors, such as quality of life and adverse effects, to measure the drugs’ value to patients. And the team found that most of the drugs failed to show any evidence of meaningful clinical benefit.
In fact, the researchers said the benefit to patients in real-world situations was probably less than the benefit observed in the clinical trials, since trial participants are carefully selected, have fewer comorbidities, and tend to be younger than patients not included in trials.
“From 2010 when it started to 2016 when it closed, the Cancer Drugs Fund cost the UK taxpayer a total of £1.27 billion, the equivalent of 1 year’s total spending on all cancer drugs in the NHS,” said study author Ajay Aggarwal, of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine in England.
“The majority of cancer medicines funded through the CDF were found wanting with respect to what patients, clinicians, and NICE would count as clinically meaningful benefit. In addition, no data on the outcome of patients who used drugs accessed through the fund were collected.”
The researchers said basic information on patients who accessed the fund—including date of treatment cessation, side effects, deaths after 30 days of treatment, and date of death or relapse—was supposed to have been collected by April 2012.
However, even after it became mandatory to collect these data in 2014, 93% of outcome data were incomplete for 2014-2015.
“We also lost a major opportunity to understand how these medicines work in the real world,” said study author Richard Sullivan, MD, PhD, of King’s College London in England.
The original CDF was closed in March 2016 because it had become financially unsustainable, but a new CDF was opened at the end of July 2016.
The new CDF provides managed access to new cancer drugs for a limited period in circumstances where the clinical and cost-effectiveness of the drug is deemed uncertain by NICE. The new CDF works in close collaboration with NICE, to which all newly licensed drugs will be referred for appraisal first.
“This addresses some of the problems with the old CDF; namely, the fund would no longer support the provision of drugs that have been appraised but not recommended by NICE,” Dr Sullivan said.
“It still provides funding for new drugs awaiting NICE appraisal that have potential benefit. However, the issue here is one of fairness: why should cancer medicines be treated in this way and not all medicines and, indeed, all technologies?”
Program allows select Europeans access to belinostat
A managed access program is making the histone deacetylase inhibitor belinostat (Beleodaq®) available to patients in Europe who have relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).
The program allows physicians to request belinostat for individual PTCL patients who have no alternative treatment options.
This enables patients to use belinostat ahead of a potential European approval. There are currently no approved treatments for PTCL in Europe.
The program will provide access to belinostat for patients in the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Austria.
The managed access program was made possible via an agreement between Onxeo, the company developing belinostat, and Clinigen Group plc., a company focused on providing access to medicines.
Healthcare professionals can obtain details about the belinostat managed access program by calling a Clinigen representative at +44 (0) 1283 44 347 or emailing customer.services@clinigengroup.com.
A managed access program is making the histone deacetylase inhibitor belinostat (Beleodaq®) available to patients in Europe who have relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).
The program allows physicians to request belinostat for individual PTCL patients who have no alternative treatment options.
This enables patients to use belinostat ahead of a potential European approval. There are currently no approved treatments for PTCL in Europe.
The program will provide access to belinostat for patients in the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Austria.
The managed access program was made possible via an agreement between Onxeo, the company developing belinostat, and Clinigen Group plc., a company focused on providing access to medicines.
Healthcare professionals can obtain details about the belinostat managed access program by calling a Clinigen representative at +44 (0) 1283 44 347 or emailing customer.services@clinigengroup.com.
A managed access program is making the histone deacetylase inhibitor belinostat (Beleodaq®) available to patients in Europe who have relapsed or refractory peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL).
The program allows physicians to request belinostat for individual PTCL patients who have no alternative treatment options.
This enables patients to use belinostat ahead of a potential European approval. There are currently no approved treatments for PTCL in Europe.
The program will provide access to belinostat for patients in the UK, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Austria.
The managed access program was made possible via an agreement between Onxeo, the company developing belinostat, and Clinigen Group plc., a company focused on providing access to medicines.
Healthcare professionals can obtain details about the belinostat managed access program by calling a Clinigen representative at +44 (0) 1283 44 347 or emailing customer.services@clinigengroup.com.
FDA issues warnings about illegal ‘anticancer’ products
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has posted warning letters addressed to 14 US-based companies illegally selling more than 65 products.
The companies are fraudulently claiming that these products prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure cancer.
The products are being marketed and sold without FDA approval, most commonly on websites and social media platforms.
“Consumers should not use these or similar unproven products because they may be unsafe and could prevent a person from seeking an appropriate and potentially life-saving cancer diagnosis or treatment,” said Douglas W. Stearn, director of the Office of Enforcement and Import Operations in the FDA’s Office of Regulatory Affairs.
“We encourage people to remain vigilant whether online or in a store, and avoid purchasing products marketed to treat cancer without any proof they will work. Patients should consult a healthcare professional about proper prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer.”
It is a violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to market and sell products that claim to prevent, diagnose, treat, mitigate, or cure diseases without first demonstrating to the FDA that they are safe and effective for their labeled uses.
The illegally sold products cited in the FDA’s warning letters include a variety of product types, such as pills, topical creams, ointments, oils, drops, syrups, teas, and diagnostics (such as thermography devices).
They include products marketed for use by humans or pets that make illegal, unproven claims regarding preventing, reversing, or curing cancer; killing/inhibiting cancer cells or tumors; or other similar anticancer claims.
The FDA has requested responses from the 14 companies stating how the violations will be corrected. Failure to correct the violations promptly may result in legal action, including product seizure, injunction, and/or criminal prosecution.
As part of the FDA’s effort to protect consumers from cancer health fraud, the FDA has issued more than 90 warning letters in the past 10 years to companies marketing hundreds of fraudulent cancer-related products on websites, social media, and in stores.
Although many of these companies have stopped selling the products or making fraudulent claims, numerous unsafe and unapproved products continue to be sold directly to consumers due, in part, to the ease with which companies can move their marketing operations to new websites.
The FDA continues to monitor and take action against companies promoting and selling unproven treatments in an effort to minimize the potential dangers to consumers and to educate consumers about the risks.
The FDA encourages healthcare professionals and consumers to report adverse reactions associated with these or similar products to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has posted warning letters addressed to 14 US-based companies illegally selling more than 65 products.
The companies are fraudulently claiming that these products prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure cancer.
The products are being marketed and sold without FDA approval, most commonly on websites and social media platforms.
“Consumers should not use these or similar unproven products because they may be unsafe and could prevent a person from seeking an appropriate and potentially life-saving cancer diagnosis or treatment,” said Douglas W. Stearn, director of the Office of Enforcement and Import Operations in the FDA’s Office of Regulatory Affairs.
“We encourage people to remain vigilant whether online or in a store, and avoid purchasing products marketed to treat cancer without any proof they will work. Patients should consult a healthcare professional about proper prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer.”
It is a violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to market and sell products that claim to prevent, diagnose, treat, mitigate, or cure diseases without first demonstrating to the FDA that they are safe and effective for their labeled uses.
The illegally sold products cited in the FDA’s warning letters include a variety of product types, such as pills, topical creams, ointments, oils, drops, syrups, teas, and diagnostics (such as thermography devices).
They include products marketed for use by humans or pets that make illegal, unproven claims regarding preventing, reversing, or curing cancer; killing/inhibiting cancer cells or tumors; or other similar anticancer claims.
The FDA has requested responses from the 14 companies stating how the violations will be corrected. Failure to correct the violations promptly may result in legal action, including product seizure, injunction, and/or criminal prosecution.
As part of the FDA’s effort to protect consumers from cancer health fraud, the FDA has issued more than 90 warning letters in the past 10 years to companies marketing hundreds of fraudulent cancer-related products on websites, social media, and in stores.
Although many of these companies have stopped selling the products or making fraudulent claims, numerous unsafe and unapproved products continue to be sold directly to consumers due, in part, to the ease with which companies can move their marketing operations to new websites.
The FDA continues to monitor and take action against companies promoting and selling unproven treatments in an effort to minimize the potential dangers to consumers and to educate consumers about the risks.
The FDA encourages healthcare professionals and consumers to report adverse reactions associated with these or similar products to the FDA’s MedWatch program.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has posted warning letters addressed to 14 US-based companies illegally selling more than 65 products.
The companies are fraudulently claiming that these products prevent, diagnose, treat, or cure cancer.
The products are being marketed and sold without FDA approval, most commonly on websites and social media platforms.
“Consumers should not use these or similar unproven products because they may be unsafe and could prevent a person from seeking an appropriate and potentially life-saving cancer diagnosis or treatment,” said Douglas W. Stearn, director of the Office of Enforcement and Import Operations in the FDA’s Office of Regulatory Affairs.
“We encourage people to remain vigilant whether online or in a store, and avoid purchasing products marketed to treat cancer without any proof they will work. Patients should consult a healthcare professional about proper prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of cancer.”
It is a violation of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to market and sell products that claim to prevent, diagnose, treat, mitigate, or cure diseases without first demonstrating to the FDA that they are safe and effective for their labeled uses.
The illegally sold products cited in the FDA’s warning letters include a variety of product types, such as pills, topical creams, ointments, oils, drops, syrups, teas, and diagnostics (such as thermography devices).
They include products marketed for use by humans or pets that make illegal, unproven claims regarding preventing, reversing, or curing cancer; killing/inhibiting cancer cells or tumors; or other similar anticancer claims.
The FDA has requested responses from the 14 companies stating how the violations will be corrected. Failure to correct the violations promptly may result in legal action, including product seizure, injunction, and/or criminal prosecution.
As part of the FDA’s effort to protect consumers from cancer health fraud, the FDA has issued more than 90 warning letters in the past 10 years to companies marketing hundreds of fraudulent cancer-related products on websites, social media, and in stores.
Although many of these companies have stopped selling the products or making fraudulent claims, numerous unsafe and unapproved products continue to be sold directly to consumers due, in part, to the ease with which companies can move their marketing operations to new websites.
The FDA continues to monitor and take action against companies promoting and selling unproven treatments in an effort to minimize the potential dangers to consumers and to educate consumers about the risks.
The FDA encourages healthcare professionals and consumers to report adverse reactions associated with these or similar products to the FDA’s MedWatch program.