The Pfizer Trovan Case, Still
The New England Journal of Medicine has a piece this week on the problems of informed consent in the increasingly globalized environment of clinical trials (h/t D. Karpf). The article specifically unpacks the ethical rationale for the January 2009 opinion in the case of Abdullahi v Pfizer by the U.S Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit which covers New York, Connecticut and Vermont (and is the current home of Judge Sonia Sotomayor, thought by many at this writing to be on Obama's shortlist for Justice Souter's recently vacated Supreme Court seat). The case is brought by the families of young victims from the now-notorious 1996 Pfizer Trovan trial in Kano, Nigeria.
The facts of the case are these: during an outbreak of meningitis, Pfizer brought non-local physicians to the Kano Infectious Diseases Hospital to conduct a trial of its antibiotic Trovan against a low dose of US-marketed Rocephin. The study participants were 200 sick children, half of whom received Trovan; the oral formulation of Trovan had not been previously tested in a pediatric setting. The dosing portion of the trial lasted two weeks at which point the Pfizer team decamped, leaving no continuing safety monitoring or care. Eleven children died, five randomized to Trovan and six to Rocephin; other children became blind, deaf, paralyzed or brain-damaged, according to case documents. The families allege these results were directly related to the trial. The families specifically allege that Pfizer and the Nigerian government, working together, failed to secure informed consent of either the juvenile participants or their parents and 'failed to disclose or explain the experimental nature of the study or the serious risks involved' and failed to inform them of the availability of effective alternative treatment that was available at the hospital from Medicins sans Frontieres.
Pfizer managed for several years to avoid having the case heard at trial by successfully arguing that there exists no international norm requiring physicians to obtain informed consent, thus eliminating all question as to why the public holds the pharmaceutical industry in such contempt. My GCP students could tell you after the first class meeting, and it turns out the Second Circuit agrees, that there most certainly is an international norm for requiring informed consent, in fact there are several. The Appeals Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the US lawsuit (once the case finally made it to trial following a report by the Nigerian Ministry of Health concluding the study had violated Nigerian law), and sent the case back to trial, citing the following codes: The Nuremberg Code of 1947, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1976, the Declaration of Helsinki (more on this in a minute), and CIOMS' International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects. All of these state, in one way or another, that the investigator must obtain voluntary, freely-given informed consent before subjecting a human to experimental treatment.
The court found these norms not only international, but universal, and specific. It noted that while 'promoting the global use of essential medicines can help reduce the spread of contagious disease,' to conduct clinical trials in 'other countries' without informed consent 'fosters distrust and resistance... to critical public health initiatives in which pharmaceutical companies play a key role'. You don't say. Evidence of this mistrust was found right back in Kano, where the local population boycotted international pharmaceutical companies' efforts to provide polio vaccinations during the 2004 epidemic, dealing a serious blow to worldwide efforts at polio eradication.
Whither the FDA and Helsinki?
I also came across a comment published earlier this year in The Lancet worrying about the abandonment by the FDA late last year of the Declaration of Helsinki as the basis for acceptance of foreign data in US marketing applications. The PDF download is here. The new basis for acceptance is the ICH Good Clinical Practice Guideline. The authors are not impressed with the FDA's rationale for this switch, stating that the ICH GCP guideline lacks 'moral authority' due to the fact that its signatories are fewer and more, well, Western, and that the guideline focuses on regulatory harmonization than on clinical trial conduct.
Anybody who has been paying attention for the past decade knows that the issue here really is the use of placebo controls in clinical trials: Helsinki has steadily moved away from their acceptability, with most emerging nations' health authorities following suit, while the FDA maintains that placebo controls are necessary for scientific rigor and can be made safe for patients if designed correctly and monitored appropriately. I am pretty sure we are not going to settle this question here, but I was struck by the authors' assertion that the GCP guideline lacks moral authority. This comes as a bit of a surprise to all of us who teach GCP around the world and to the many industrialized nations of the world for whom the ICH guideline is the accepted standard for clinical trial conduct and is the model for the GCP regulations of many emerging nations.
Here is Somebody You Don't Want to Be
Getting caught, with good reason, in the never-ending swirl surrounding the use of anti-psychotics in pediatric patients is this University of Texas researcher. She initially attracted the white hot light of US Senator Chuck Grassley's scrutiny by reporting having received $600 from pharma companies, but neglecting to mention the $230,000 paid to her by GSK. The real problem is not about the financial disclosure or lack thereof. The real problem is the fact that this physician was paid these fees apparently for co-authoring the 1998 sponsor-ghostwritten report on the Paxil pediatric study #329 which stated that Paxil was both safe and effective in children when in fact, as it turns out from internal emails, the company already knew at the time the study was negative. Dr Wagner was also paid for speaking appearances on behalf of the drug and the study in a variety of venues, some posh. The Alliance for Human Research Protection has a complete rundown, here, including the internal company memos. Ouch.
Last night my GCP class discussed the idea of rules, of breaking the rules, and the concept of the slippery slope. I feel better about the future on this industry when I know it is going to be in the hands of people who get that concept.
Here is what happens when we don't get it. I recommend reading this on an empty stomach.
No comments:
Post a Comment