The photo this week is a detail from some ruins in the Qutub Minar complex in Delhi, taken one fine Sunday afternoon on an outing with colleagues during my only visit to that city (so far) last December.
Slate magazine had a rare non-negative piece on clinical research last week, here. The author explains the concept of surrogate endpoints used in research - the idea that a lab value or other short term markers are predictive of long term health outcomes - by drawing comparison to reality TV shows like The Apprentice, The Bachelor, or American Idol (which at this writing had its season finale last night. I wouldn't know, I didn't see it, but my Facebook friends can't seem to stop talking about it. Apparently the outcome was unexpected). The stated premise of these shows is that the person who is last to be fired by Donald Trump, or gets picked by the bachelor after a series of improbably lavish - and frankly smoking hot - dates, or wins the most TV audience SMS votes after the singing competition, is reasonably predicted to be Fortune 500-successful in business, or live happily ever after with the handsome prince, or jumpstart a recording career.
The parallel to the use of surrogate markers in clinical trials is an apt one. CD4+ T cell counts are "highly prognostic for progression to AIDS", and so it was reasoned that by developing treatments that raise CD4 counts, you could by extension delay the progression of HIV to full-blown AIDS. AZT was approved based on CD4 count data. In postmenopausal osteoporosis drug development, we ran 3 year long vertebral fracture intervention trials correlating bone mineral density data to fracture rates, so that in subsequent trials we could use BMD only as the marker for fracture reduction, resulting in shorter, safer (because vertebral fracture was no longer the endpoint) and less expensive trials.
However, the author of the Slate article points out that just as winning the highest number of text votes is not necessarily a guarantee that those same people and all their friends will buy your new record, medical surrogate markers as endpoints in clinical trials are not always predictive of long term benefit. He points out the widespread belief amongst physicians and parents in the effectiveness of stimulant medications in kids with ADHD based on the federally funded Multimodal Treatment Study run by the National Institute for Mental Health in the 90's - and resultant blockbuster sales of drugs like Ritalin. Long term follow up of the subjects from that study shows that ultimately the drug-treated kids fared no better than the controls, due perhaps to the 'real world' effect after the idealized environment of the clinical trial, lack of compliance with the regimen after the close monitoring is over, or simply a weak - or even nonexistent - relationship of the surrogate marker to the actual desired health outcome. Does this mean that surrogate markers are not to be used? Of course not, if we waited for final outcomes in the big diseases of interest to an aging population, like heart disease and diabetes, it would prohibitively delay medical progress and make it far too costly. The takeaway message of the author and I agree is for patients and prescribers to have their awareness goggles strapped on tightly when writing or filling any prescription, to stop believing that a pill fixes all and that a government approval for sale also confers some kind of divine or mystical exemption from any further thought about the matter.
Meanwhile, Jim Edwards at BNET Pharma has an interesting item yesterday about Big Pharma blogging and twittering. Apparently twittering wins out over blogging - AstraZenaca's twitter stream was highly active as of a few hours ago ("AZ just had a peanut-butter-banana sandwich for lunch and is stuffed!"), but GSK's new blog is only the 4th ever for a big pharma company, and two of those four are already dead from inactivity. It's not hard to imagine why. Blogging and big pharma don't seem well-suited to one another (check out GSK's little item explaining how patents actually benefit patients because without adequate patent protection there would be less innovation. The argument is true yet it still comes off vaguely smarmy and self-serving in the context of a big pharma blog.) And from a legal standpoint, it is simply easier to stay out of trouble in 140 characters than in the free form, boundary-less world of blogging*.
*Disclaimer: The views of 2Decades-and-counting are her own and not necessarily representative of her employer, family, friends, or dog.
This just in: A colleague just sent me a copy of an FDA warning letter to General Mills food company for labeling problems, false claims and promotion, and misbranding of - wait for it - Cheerios breakfast cereal. I was sure it was a joke until I found the letter on FDA's website. It's all here. General Mills' response is here.
No comments:
Post a Comment