All posts by CPTFeditor

Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund Responds to FDA’s Approval of Gardasil for Males

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund, October 16, 2009

FDA’s approval of Gardasil for males on the basis of such short-term data makes no sense.  The FDA should have required longer-term data.  Will the FDA tell parents how little we know about long-term safety or effectiveness, especially for boys but even for girls?  I am very disappointed in the FDA’s premature decision about Gardasil for boys.  There was no rush because there is no dangerous epidemic of genital warts in the U.S, and these warts often go away without treatment.  If the vaccine is not effective for more than a few years, it would be extremely expensive and of little benefit, adding to our skyrocketing medical costs instead of improving our health care.

In contrast, the approval of Cervarix makes sense because the vaccine seems to work more effectively for girls than Gardasil.  However, for all vaccines, we need better data on the risks compared to a placebo without the adjuvant.  That’s important, because the adjuvant used for vaccines can have serious side effects.

FDA, in First Tobacco Action, Bans Flavors

Susan Heavey, Reuters: September 23, 2009

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The U.S. Food and Drug Administration took its first steps to rein in the tobacco industry on Tuesday, implementing a ban on candy, clove and other flavored cigarettes.

The move, required by a law passed earlier this year giving the FDA greater power over tobacco products, aims to help prevent children and teenagers from smoking.

“Candy and fruit flavored cigarettes are a gateway for many children and young adults to become regular tobacco users,” Dr. Lawrence Deyton, head of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, told reporters in a conference call.

In June, President Barack Obama signed legislation allowing the FDA to oversee the manufacturing and marketing of cigarettes and other tobacco products, including regulating ingredients and limiting advertising. The agency must also approve any new tobacco products.

Still, the bill excludes any immediate action on menthol, or mint, flavored cigarettes that are used by as many as 12 million Americans, including most African-American smokers. Lawmakers instead called on the FDA to study the issue.

It is not immediately clear how effective the ban will be or what impact it will have on smoking habits.

“Although it will take time for it to have a 100 percent effect … it will have a dramatic effect on children and young women who are most likely to smoke these products,” said Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women & Families.

Children who already smoke may switch to regular cigarettes, but many will be reluctant try smoking if products don’t taste good, she said. “I think it does make it harder for companies to try to get away with anything,” she added.

The ban in unlikely to affect U.S. tobacco companies such as Altria Group Inc’s Philip Morris unit and Lorillard Inc’s Lorillard Tobacco Co, which do not make flavored cigarettes.

But some advocates have already expressed concern that smaller companies will simply shift their attention to cigars, snuff and other tobacco products not covered by Tuesday’s ban.

The Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, which supported the FDA’s new oversight, said the nation’s top distributor of clove-flavored cigarettes, California-based Kretek International Inc., now sells clove cigars that look and taste like its clove cigarettes.

Representatives for Kretek, which imports most of its products, could not be immediately reached. Star Scientific and other companies also make dissolvable smokeless tobacco products in various flavors.

FDA’s Deyton said the agency would discuss other flavored products.

The FDA posted information about the ban on its website here

(Editing by Steve Orlofsky)

FDA Advisers Back Glaxo’s Drug for Cervical Cancer

Marie McCullough, Philadelphia Inquirer: September 10, 2009

Government advisers yesterday recommended federal approval of Cervarix, the GlaxoSmithKline cervical cancer vaccine, after reviewing studies showing it is significantly more effective than Gardasil, the rival vaccine made by Merck & Co.

But Merck’s product, which has had a three-year head start in the U.S. market, got another boost yesterday when the committee urged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to expand its approval for prevention of genital warts to a new market: males ages 9 to 26.

Both vaccines prevent infection with two types of human papillomavirus that cause about 80 percent of cervical cancers. Only Gardasil also protects against two types of HPV that cause 90 percent of genital warts.

While the FDA is not required to follow advisers’ recommendations, it usually does.

The latest endorsements will likely sharpen a rivalry with much local resonance. London-based GlaxoSmithKline P.L.C. directed much development of its vaccine at offices in the Philadelphia region, while Gardasil is made in and marketed from West Point, Montgomery County, home to Merck’s vaccine division.

The new studies also come as enthusiasm for HPV vaccination – hailed as a public health breakthrough three years ago – seems to be cooling amid persistent concerns about safety and questions about how long the vaccine protection will last. Gardasil’s sales slid 5 percent last year to $1.4 billion.

GlaxoSmithKline had submitted Cervarix clinical trial data and sought approval more than two years ago, but the FDA asked for more information. The agency was concerned that the vaccine’s novel “adjuvant” – a chemical that heightens immune response to the vaccine – might be triggering rare autoimmune diseases such as optic neuritis or Guillian-Barre syndrome.

In March 2009, GlaxoSmithKline submitted data from the single largest trial of a cervical cancer vaccine to date, with nearly 30,000 participants receiving Cervarix, some for as long as 6.4 years. The data showed that autoimmune diseases were not more common among vaccinated women than those in a control group.

GlaxoSmithKline also addressed another FDA concern – about spontaneous abortion. Although women were given a pregnancy test and told they should not be vaccinated if they were pregnant, about 7,200 got pregnant around the time of vaccination.

More spontaneous abortions occurred in the Cervarix group than the control group – 13 percent compared with about 9 percent – but this could have been by chance.

“I think we have to remember that both groups had lower spontaneous abortion rates than” normally occur in women in general, noted committee member Kenneth Noller, an obstetrician-gynecologist at Tufts University School of Medicine in Boston.

Like Gardasil, Cervarix is too new for scientists to know whether protection against HPV will last indefinitely. But Cervarix effectiveness data were clearly superior to those of Gardasil.

Like Gardasil, Cervarix was more than 90 percent effective at preventing precancerous lesions caused by the two “high-risk” HPV strains in women who had not been exposed to the virus before immunization. But Cervarix also was 75 percent effective at protecting against three cancer-causing HPV types that are not part of the vaccine, while Gardasil is only about 50 percent effective against one nonvaccine type.

In addition, blood tests showed that the concentration of virus-fighting antibodies was two to three times higher with Cervarix than with Gardasil – and remained high for 6.4 years.

By contrast, antibody levels fell back to natural pre-vaccination concentrations after two to three years in both males and females who had the Gardasil shots.

Merck officials say ongoing studies show that the vaccine remains effective in warding off warts and precancerous lesions despite the fall-off in antibodies. “But I would not tell you we’ll never need to give a booster shot” to Gardasil vaccines, Gregg Sylvester, Merck director of medical affairs for adult and adolescent vaccines, said in an interview after the hearing.

Others, like researcher Diana Zuckerman, say Gardasil is increasingly unappealing, especially considering that women have to continue to get regular Pap smears to screen for cervical cancer. Zuckerman is president of the National Research Center for Women and Families and a fellow at the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Bioethics.

“Our center was excited when Gardasil was first approved, but the more we learned about how limited the data were, the more concerned we became,” she told the committee. “This is a very expensive vaccine – costing more than $400 – and we need to know how long it lasts. That’s true for women, and it’s even more true for men since the benefits are more limited. The boys of America are not facing an epidemic of genital warts.”[…]

 

Read the original article here.

FDA Panel Backs Glaxo’s Cervical Vaccine for Women

Matthew Perrone, Associated Press: September 9, 2009
Printed in the Associated Press, The Houston Chronicle, San Francisco Examiner, and other newspapers across the country

WASHINGTON — Drugmaker Merck likely will face U.S. competition for its vaccine Gardasil, after federal experts recommended rival GlaxoSmithKline’s Cervarix also be approved to prevent the virus that causes most cervical cancers.

The FDA’s panel of vaccine experts voted overwhelmingly Wednesday that Cervarix appears safe and effective for girls and women ages 10 to 25. If the FDA follows the group’s advice as it usually does, Glaxo would begin competing against Merck’s Gardasil, which has controlled the U.S. market since 2006.

But Merck won its own small victory at the meeting, as the same panel recommended Gardasil be expanded to prevent genital warts in boys, a new use for a vaccine that already posts sales of more than $1 billion.

While panelists favored the expanded approval, they questioned how widely the vaccine would be used, since genital warts are not a serious medical condition.

“Genital warts are a nuisance, they’re ugly and can sometimes be stigmatizing,” said Dr. Kenneth Noller, of Tufts University. “But in men and women with healthy immune systems they go away by themselves.”

The human papilloma virus, or HPV, infects about 6 million people in the U.S. each year, and is mainly spread through sexual contact. It usually causes no symptoms and goes away within two years, though rare cases can develop into warts and cancer in both men and women.

Last year nearly 4,000 women died of cervical cancer in the U.S., less than 1 percent of all cancer related deaths.

London-based drugmaker Glaxo already has won approval for Cervarix in Europe, but its U.S. launch was delayed in 2007 when the FDA said it needed more data.

Panelists said newer studies suggest the vaccine is safe, but they recommended follow-up studies to monitor miscarriages and inflammatory-muscular problems reported by a small number of patients.

The group said it was unlikely those problems were related to the vaccine, but said the issues should still appear on product labeling.

“I think this could be marketed with the usual caveat that it’s not to be used during pregnancy,” Noller said.

Even if the FDA grants approval, Glaxo will face an uphill battle against competitor Merck. Besides an established brand in the U.S., Gardasil also boasts an extra degree of protection against sexually transmitted diseases.

Gardasil and Cervarix both defend against HPV strains 16 and 18, which cause about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. But Merck’s vaccine also defends against two other HPV types that cause 90 per cent of genital warts, something Cervarix does not target.

Leerink Swan analyst Seamus Fernandez estimates Cervarix will eventually make up 25-30 percent of the total market for HPV-blocking vaccines. Cervarix global sales were $231 million last year.

In separate votes Wednesday, FDA’s panel ruled that Gardasil successfully prevents genital warts in boys and men ages 9 to 26.

While an approval decision from the FDA could theoretically double the market opportunity for Gardasil, analysts don’t expect much use among males.

“If it’s not preventing something serious like cervical cancer and there are questions about safety, I think a parents’ acceptance of the vaccine in young boys might be less urgent than for their girls,” Fernandez said in an interview last week.

Gardasil became an early success story for Merck after its launch, with sales growing to over $1.4 billion last year.

But momentum has slowed amid questions about the longevity of the vaccine’s effect and its cost effectiveness, considering its price tag of nearly $400.

Merck has tracked HPV immunity out to five years in women, and just three years in boys and men. Public health advocates argued Gardasil should not be approved for boys without evidence of its long-term effectiveness.

“The boys of America are not facing an epidemic of genital warts,” said Diana Zuckerman, of the National Research Center for Women and Families in Washington, during a public comment period. “We have time to wait for better data before approval.”

Dr. Richard Haupt, Whitehouse Station, N.J.-based Merck’s head researcher for Gardasil, said the company plans long term studies to track the vaccine’s effectiveness over time.

“Our long term evaluations will look at immune response, but more importantly they will look at disease prevention over time,” said Haupt.

Glaxo’s Cancer Vaccine Inches Toward Approval

Matthew Perrone, Associated Press: September 4, 2009

WASHINGTON (AP) — Federal regulators said Friday that a GlaxoSmithKline vaccine prevents the leading cause of cervical cancer in women, bringing the company one step closer to competing with Merck’s blockbuster Gardasil, which has controlled the U.S. market for three years.

In documents posted online, the Food and Drug Administration said Cervarix _ Glaxo’s vaccine against human papilloma virus or HPV _ successfully blocked the two leading strains of the virus nearly 93 percent of the time.

But even as the British drugmaker moves closer to competing in the U.S., Merck is poised to begin marketing Gardasil to boys and men. In a separate review, the FDA said that vaccine prevented genital warts in males 90 percent of the time.

The agency will ask a panel of vaccine experts next week to weigh in on both vaccines. The FDA is not required to follow the group’s advice, though it usually does.

While Merck has suggested the approval for boys could double the potential market for Gardasil, Leerink Swann analyst Seamus Fernandez said the benefit likely will be minimal.

Genital warts caused by HPV usually clear up by themselves, and the cancers caused by the virus are extremely rare in men.

“If it’s not preventing something serious like cervical cancer and there are questions about safety, I think parents’ acceptance of the vaccine in young boys might be less urgent than for their girls,” said Fernandez.

Glaxo has won a number of government contracts for Cervarix in Europe, but its U.S. launch was delayed in 2007 when the FDA said it needed more data about the vaccine. Earlier studies of Cervarix showed a higher number of muscular and neurological problems among patients who used the vaccine compared with an alternate treatment.

The FDA said Friday that outside experts have now determined Cervarix did not cause those problems.

“The conclusion in the case of each of these efforts was that the data are not sufficient to establish a link,” the agency said in its review.

FDA reviewers also noted a slightly higher rate of miscarriages in women taking Cervarix, but said “the data do not establish a causal relationship.”

Glaxo wants its vaccine approved for girls and women ages 10 to 25. The FDA is expected to make a decision on the vaccine later this year, but analysts say London-based Glaxo may still have trouble making inroads into the U.S. market.

Gardasil and Cervarix both defend against HPV strains 16 and 18, which cause about 70 percent of cervical cancer cases. But Merck’s vaccine also defends against two other HPV types that cause 90 percent of genital warts, something Cervarix does not target.

The most common side effects with both vaccines were pain and swelling at the injection site.

Gardasil became an early success story for Merck after its 2006 launch, achieving sales that are rare for a vaccine. The company has sold about 50 million doses worldwide, with more than $1.4 billion in revenue last year.

But sales have been slowing amid questions about the longevity of the vaccine’s effect and its price tag of nearly $400. In the most recent quarter, Gardasil sales fell to $268 million, down 18 percent from the prior year period.

A government-funded study last year found that the HPV vaccine is cost-effective for young teens, but not for women in their 20s. And labeling for the vaccine notes that the “duration of protection of Gardasil has not been established.” Company trials have only tracked immunity out to five years after receiving the three-injection regimen.

Whitehouse, N.J.-based Merck will make the case on Sept. 9 for approving the vaccine for boys and men ages 9 to 26.

But the company is expected to face push-back next week from public health activists who already question the vaccine’s benefit for its main target market: women.

Some argue that $375 is too much to pay to protect against genital warts and diseases like penile cancer, which affect less than 1 percent of American men.

“It’s a lot of money for a little bit of extra protection from diseases that are not a big problem in this country,” said Dr. Diana Zuckerman of the National Research Center for Women and Families in Washington. Zuckerman, who is scheduled to speak at next week’s meeting, says the additional use will do more to boost Merck’s sales than control HPV-related diseases.

“This is great for the company. The more people use this vaccine, the more money the company makes,” Zuckerman said.

Cancer of the penis and anus are extremely rare, with less than 2,000 cases reported annually. But Merck argues the cost of treating those cases is often underestimated.[…]

Brain tumor treatment

National Cancer Institute, 2009

There are different types of treatment for patients with adult brain tumors.

Different types of treatment are available for patients with adult brain tumors. Some treatments are standard (the currently used treatment), and some are being tested in clinical trials. The purpose of clinical trials are to see if the treatment being tested is better, worse, or equally safe and effective compared to other treatments.* Some clinical trials are open only to patients who have not started treatment.

Three types of standard treatment are used:

Surgery

Surgery is used to diagnose and treat adult brain tumors, as described in the General Information section of this summary.

Even if the doctor removes all the cancer that can be seen at the time of the surgery, some patients may be given chemotherapy or radiation therapy after surgery to kill any cancer cells that are left. Treatment given after the surgery, to lower the risk that the cancer will come back, is called adjuvant therapy.

Radiation Therapy

Radiation therapy is a cancer treatment that uses high-energy x-rays or other types of radiation to kill cancer cells or keep them from growing. There are two types of radiation therapy. External radiation therapy uses a machine outside the body to send radiation toward the cancer. One type of external radiation therapy is hyperfractionated radiation therapy, in which the total dose of radiation is divided into small doses given more than once a day. Internal radiation therapy uses a radioactive substance sealed in needles, seeds, wires, or catheters that are placed directly into or near the cancer. The way the radiation therapy is given depends on the type of tumor and where it is in the brain.

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy is a cancer treatment that uses drugs to stop the growth of cancer cells, either by killing the cells or by stopping them from dividing. When chemotherapy is taken by mouth or injected into a vein or muscle, the drugs enter the bloodstream and can reach cancer cells throughout the body (systemic chemotherapy). When chemotherapy is placed directly into the spinal column, an organ, or a body cavity such as the abdomen, the drugs mainly affect cancer cells in those areas (regional chemotherapy). Combination chemotherapy is treatment using more than one anticancer drug. To treat brain tumors, a dissolving wafer may be used to deliver an anticancer drug directly to the brain tumor site after the tumor has been removed by surgery. The way the chemotherapy is given depends on the type of tumor and where it is in the brain.


Clinical Trials

New types of treatment are being tested in clinical trials.

This summary section refers to specific treatments under study in clinical trials, but it may not mention every new treatment being studied. Information about clinical trials is available from the NCI Web site.

Other types of radiation therapy

  • Radiosensitizers: Drugs that make tumor cells more sensitive to radiation therapy. Combining radiation therapy with radiosensitizers may kill more tumor cells.
  • Hyperfractionated radiation therapy: Hyperfractionated radiation therapy is radiation treatment in which the total dose of radiation is divided into small doses and the treatments are given more than once a day. Hyperfractionated radiation therapy is used as a standard treatment for a brain stem glioma.
  • Accelerated-fraction radiation therapy: Radiation treatment in which the total dose of radiation is divided into small doses and the treatments are given more than once a day. The total dose of radiation is also given over a shorter period of time (fewer days) compared to standard radiation therapy.
  • Intraoperative radiation therapy: A cancer treatment that uses high-energy x-rays to kill cancer cells during cancer surgery.
  • Stereotactic radiosurgery: A type of radiation therapy that uses a rigid head frame attached to the skull to aim high-dose radiation beams directly at the tumors. This causes less damage to nearby healthy tissue. This is also called stereotaxic radiosurgery and radiation surgery. This procedure does not involve surgery.

Hyperthermia therapy

Hyperthermia therapy is a treatment in which body tissue is heated above normal temperature to damage and kill cancer cells or to make cancer cells more sensitive to the effects of radiation and certain anticancer drugs.

Biologic therapy

Biologic therapy is a treatment that uses the patient’s immune system to fight cancer. Substances made by the body or made in a laboratory are used to boost, direct, or restore the body’s natural defenses against cancer. This type of cancer treatment is also called biotherapy or immunotherapy.

Patients may want to think about taking part in a clinical trial.

For some patients, taking part in a clinical trial may be the best treatment choice. Clinical trials are part of the cancer research process. Clinical trials are done to find out if new cancer treatments are safe and effective or better than the standard treatment.

Many of today’s standard treatments for cancer are based on earlier clinical trials. Patients who take part in a clinical trial may receive the standard treatment or be among the first to receive a new treatment.

Patients who take part in clinical trials also help improve the way cancer will be treated in the future. Even when clinical trials do not lead to effective new treatments, they often answer important questions and help move research forward.

Patients can enter clinical trials before, during, or after starting their cancer treatment.

Some clinical trials only include patients who have not yet received treatment. Other trials test treatments for patients whose cancer has not gotten better. There are also clinical trials that test new ways to stop cancer from recurring (coming back) or reduce the side effects of cancer treatment.

Clinical trials are taking place in many parts of the country. See the Treatment Options section that follows for links to current treatment clinical trials. These have been retrieved from NCI’s clinical trials database.

Follow-up tests may be needed.

Some of the tests that were done to diagnose the cancer or to find out the stage of the cancer may be repeated. Some tests will be repeated in order to see how well the treatment is working. Decisions about whether to continue, change, or stop treatment may be based on the results of these tests. This is sometimes called re-staging.

Some of the tests will continue to be done from time to time after treatment has ended. The results of these tests can show if your condition has changed or if the cancer has recurred (come back). These tests are sometimes called follow-up tests or check-ups.

Read the original article here.

*Addition by Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund

House Moves to Ban Lead from Toys and Kids’ Goods

Jim Abrams, Associated Press: July 30, 2008

WASHINGTON (AP) – Dismayed by reports of millions of tainted toys, the House neared a vote Wednesday to ban lead and other dangerous chemicals from toys and other products that could wind up in kids’ mouths.

The legislation also would toughen rules for testing children’s products and take steps to give more muscle to the Consumer Product Safety Commission, which was criticized last year for its feeble handling of a flood of goods from China deemed hazardous to children.

“Congress is about to sign off on the most comprehensive product safety legislation in decades,” said Dr. Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Research Center for Women & Families.

The bill, a product of House-Senate negotiations, would ban lead in products for children 12 or younger, and would ban – either permanently or pending further study – six types of phthalates, which are chemicals that are found in plastics and suspected of posing health risks.

House passage would send the measure to the Senate, which could approve it before Congress leaves for its August recess at the end of this week. The White House has voiced opposition to parts of the legislation but has not threatened a veto.

The bill would require third-party testing for many children’s products, a key change in monitoring practices following a year in which 45 million toys and children’s products – 30 million from China – were recalled.

Those included lead-contaminated children’s jewelry, “Spider-Man 3” flashing rings and Halloween pails.

“Third-party testing is a centerpiece of the new law” and a victory for consumers, said Ed Mierzwinski, consumer program director of U.S. PIRG, a grass-roots environmental organization.

The bill would double the budget of the Consumer Product Safety Commission, to $136 million by 2014, and give it new authority to impose civil penalties on violators. The CPSC was founded in 1973 with a staff of about 800. It now employs about half that number, while imports have vastly increased.

It also would boost whistleblower protections to encourage people to report hazards to the CPSC and would direct the agency to set up a database where consumers, government agencies, child care providers or doctors could report incidents of injury, illness, death or risk related to products.

One of the more controversial provisions is the ban on six types of phthalates, chemicals used in a wide range of products, including toys, to make vinyl soft and flexible. Tests on rats have found links to possible reproductive system problems for males and the onset of early puberty for females, and the European Union has banned the six.

Ami Gadhia of Consumers Union said infants are exposed to phthalates through toys, teethers and health care products. While there is no conclusive evidence that the chemical causes health problems in humans, she said a recent study found that mothers reported use of infant lotion, infant powder and shampoo was significantly associated with phthalate urinary concentrations.

But phthalates, said Sharon Kneiss of the American Chemistry Council, “are an important part of our everyday lives. There is no scientific basis for Congress to restrict phthalates from toys and children’s products.”

Under the new third-party testing regimen, a standards organization would set up and run a mandatory protocol that testing labs would have to meet to certify a product. No covered children’s product or toy could be imported without a certification mark. The CPSC has authority to approve and audit the certifications.

The negotiators also resolved to make more products now covered by voluntary industry standards subject to mandatory standards. That step added several potential toy hazards, including goods containing small magnets that were included in products recalled last year, subject to third-party testing requirements.

Among other provisions, the bill requires the CPSC to adopt safety standards on all-terrain vehicles and close a loophole where cribs sold secondhand were not subject to the same standards as new cribs.

The bill is H.R. 4040

FDA: Electronic Cigarettes Contain Toxic Chemicals

Matthew Perrone, Associate Press: July 22, 2009

Federal health officials said Wednesday they have found cancer-causing ingredients in electronic cigarettes, despite manufacturers’ claims the products are safer than tobacco cigarettes.

The Food and Drug Administration said testing of products from two leading electronic cigarette makers turned up several toxic chemicals, including a key ingredient in antifreeze.

“Little is known about these products, including how much nicotine is there and what other chemicals may be there,” said FDA’s Deputy Commissioner Dr. Joshua Sharfstein.

FDA scientists said they tested 19 varieties of cigarettes, half of which contained forms of nitrosamine, a carcinogen known to cause cancer in humans. Many products which claimed to contain no nicotine actually had low levels of the stimulant.

Agency officials said the “quality control processes used to manufacture these products are inconsistent or nonexistent.”

Brands tested by the agency included Smoking Everywhere, marketed by a Florida-based company and NJoy Cigarettes, based in Scottsdale, Ariz. The Electronic Cigarette Association, which represents the companies, had no immediate comment Wednesday afternoon.

Public health advocates have complained the products are aimed at young people and can serve as a “gateway” to tobacco smoking. Many come in flavors, including chocolate, bubblegum and mint.

“Tobacco industry research has demonstrated that fruit and candy flavors increase the social acceptance of cigarettes and curiosity to try the product,” said Dr. Jonathan Winickoff, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Tobacco Consortium.

Because electronic cigarettes are not covered by federal tobacco laws, they are also often easier for young people to buy.

Electronic cigarettes produce a nicotine mist absorbed directly into the lungs. Most can easily pass as a tobacco cigarette with slim white bodies and glowing amber tips. They even emit what look like puffs of white smoke.

Manufacturers have touted the products as a healthier alternative to smoking because there is no burning involved, and they don’t contain the same hazardous cocktail of cancer-causing chemicals.

Advertisement Regulators said they have halted 50 shipments of electronic cigarettes at ports and borders since last summer. The FDA said it is authorized to seize the products because – for legal purposes – they are a medical device used to deliver nicotine.

However, the FDA’s enforcement attempts have been challenged in federal court by manufacturers. The products are made primarily in China.

FDA officials declined to comment on whether they would take action against the two manufacturers whose products were tested.

The agency did say it’s “planning additional activities” to address safety issues with the products, which may include recalls or criminal sanctions.

Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., asked the FDA in March to pull electronic cigarettes off the market until they are proven safe. On Wednesday, Lautenberg said the products should be “taken off the market immediately” and consumer safety advocates prodded the agency to do more.

“Any companies selling these products in shopping malls or online should be immediately shut down by the FDA because they are selling an unregulated product,” said Dr. Diana Zuckerman of the Research Center for Women and Families.[…]

 

AP Business Writer Michael Felberbaum in Richmond, Va., contributed to this report.

Testimony of Dr. Diana Zuckerman to the FDA on Transparency

Diana Zuckerman, PhD, Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund, June 24, 2009

I am pleased to have the opportunity to testify as president of the National Research Center for Women & Families. Our Center is dedicated to improving the health and safety of adults and children, and we do that by scrutinizing medical and scientific research to determine what is known and not known about specific treatments and programs, and to compare their safety and effectiveness.

In addition to my work at the National Research Center for Women & Families, I am a fellow at the University of Pennsylvania Center for Bioethics.

My doctorate is in clinical psychology and my post-doctoral training at Yale was in epidemiology and public health. Prior to my current position, I was on the faculty at Yale and Vassar, directed a multi-site longitudinal research project at Harvard, and worked in the U.S. Congress, the White House, and the Public Health Service. I have worked on FDA issues for 19 years. I am speaking from a public health perspective as a researcher and policy expert.

I was very glad to hear the FDA Commissioner and Deputy Commissioner talk about the need to refocus the FDA on its public health mission. This initiative on transparency is a great place to start.

I have scrutinized FDA policies, processes, and decisions as a Congressional investigator and in my current position. There is no doubt that I know more about the FDA than at least 99% of Americans and probably more than at least 95% of health policy experts. However, as an outsider who does not work at the FDA, I am still amazingly limited in terms of the information that I have access to. That’s why this conversation about transparency is so important.

I know how to go to the FDA web site to find industry data and FDA analyses for medical products that have been reviewed at public FDA Advisory Committee meetings since 1998, when that information was put online. I know how to use the FDA web site to find other information about those same medical products, such as approval decisions and recalls.

However, if I want to see data about other medical products—the vast majority of medical products that were not subject to public FDA Advisory Committee meetings—I am not able to get that information. The information available is the tip of the iceberg in terms of FDA’s data and decisions about prescription drugs and vaccines, and not even the tip of the iceberg for the thousands of medical devices cleared for market by the FDA every year.

In recent years, I have written testimony and articles about the safety and effectiveness of certain medical products reviewed at FDA meetings, based on FDA statistical analysis. In some cases, such as Neurostar, a medical device for the treatment of depression, the data presented at the public meeting clearly indicated that the product was not effective—in that case, Neurostar was shown to be equally effective whether it was turned on or off. In other words, it was no more effective than sham treatment. As one of the Advisory Committee members so eloquently summarized the situation: you can’t determine the risk-to-benefit ratio when the benefit is 0. And yet, about a year later the FDA quietly announced that they had cleared Neurostar for market, and that the data indicated it was effective. What happened to magically transform data indicating no effectiveness to data indicating it was effective? I don’t know. Those data are not available. However, published data suggest that post-hoc manipulation of the outcome measures produced the results the company needed for approval.

Similarly, data presented at FDA meetings on silicone gel breast implants indicated that women who got breast implants had lower self-esteem and lower quality of life two years after getting breast implants than they had before surgery. Those data were made available on the FDA web site. Since the manufacturers and the plastic surgeons claimed that increased self-esteem was a major benefit of breast implants, these scientific results should have been devastating for the application. However, despite the lowered self-esteem and quality of life, silicone breast implants were approved by the FDA, apparently over the objections of FDA scientists. As a condition of approval, FDA required that doctors provide free booklets to their patients prior to breast implant surgery, showing the risks and benefits as analyzed by the FDA, but the data in the patient booklets are substantially different from the data presented at the FDA meetings. Complication rates are lower, and data indicating lower self-esteem and quality of life have magically disappeared. How did those data change to make the products look more effective? We don’t know and there is no way to find out.

These are just two examples, but there are many more. For example, when medical devices are approved under the condition of continued longitudinal research, those future longitudinal data are almost never made public. They are not on the FDA web site and they are usually not published either. Are they not published because the product is found to be less safe or less effective than expected? Or are so many patients lost to follow-up that the studies are not publishable? We don’t know because we can’t see the data. In some cases, I know that key Members of Congress have requested the data from FDA regarding required long-term studies and have not received them.

These are examples of lack of transparency regarding medical devices, but the same is true for drugs and biologics. The data are rarely available, the data made available at Advisory Committee meetings sometimes mysteriously change behind closed doors, and the public has no way to know if those changes are a result of new data or of non-scientific decisions resulting from negotiation between a company and the FDA, or some other reason. We don’t have access to the data or to a clear explanation of how FDA made a decision—even when the decision seems suspicious.

The American public deserves better. Most people will not go on the FDA web site looking for data, but any scientist, journalist, or other interested person who wants to see the data on products that the FDA has approved or not, should be able to access that information, whether the studies were the basis of approval (or non-approval) or whether those studies were required in the post-market period.

Treatments Available for Pancreatic Cancer

Carly West, 2020

Different types of treatment are available for patients with pancreatic cancer.  The information in this article is based on a web article by the National Cancer Institute in 2020.

This article will discuss treatments that are considered to be proven to have benefits that outweigh the risks for most patients.  Keep in mind that not all patients will benefit from those treatments, and in some cases the benefits might not last long.  We will separately list several treatments that are being tested in clinical trials, which are studies conducted on pancreatic cancer patients. The purpose of clinical trials are to see if the treatment being tested has benefits that outweigh the risks and in some cases will compare a new treatment to other treatments.

Three types of treatment are considered to be appropriate:

Surgery

If the cancer has not spread and the tumor can be removed, these are the different types of surgery to remove the tumor:

If the cancer has spread and cannot be removed, the following types of palliative surgery may be done to relieve symptoms:

  • Surgical biliary bypass: If cancer is blocking the small intestine and bile is building up in the gallbladder, a biliary bypass may be done. During this operation, the doctor will cut the gallbladder or bile duct and sew it to the small intestine to create a new pathway around the blocked area.
  • Endoscopic stent placement: If the tumor is blocking the bile duct, the surgeon may decide to put in a stent (a thin tube) to drain bile that has built up in the area. The doctor may place the stent through a catheter that drains to the outside of the body or the stent may go around the blocked area and drain the bile into the small intestine.
  • Gastric bypass: If the tumor is blocking the flow of food from the stomach, the stomach may be sewn directly to the small intestine so the patient can continue to eat normally.

Radiation Therapy

Radiation therapy uses high-energy x-rays or other types of radiation to kill cancer cells or stop them from growing. There are two types of radiation therapy. External radiation therapy uses a machine outside the body to send radiation toward the cancer. Internal radiation therapy uses a radioactive substance that has been sealed in needles, seeds, wires, or catheters that are placed inside the body directly into or near the cancer. The type of radiation therapy depends on the type and stage of the cancer being treated.

Chemotherapy

Chemotherapy uses drugs to stop the growth of cancer cells, either by killing the cells or by stopping them from dividing. When chemotherapy is taken by mouth or injected into a vein or muscle, the drugs can reach cancer cells throughout the body. When chemotherapy is placed directly into the spinal column, or an organ, or a body cavity such as the abdomen, the drugs mainly affect cancer cells in those areas. The way the chemotherapy is given depends on the type and stage of the cancer being treated.


There are Treatments for Pain Caused by Pancreatic Cancer.

Pain can occur when the tumor presses on nerves or other organs near the pancreas. When pain medicine is not enough, there are treatments that act on nerves in the abdomen to relieve the pain. The doctor may inject medicine into the area around affected nerves or may cut the nerves to block the feeling of pain. Radiation therapy with or without chemotherapy can also help relieve pain by shrinking the tumor.

Patients with Pancreatic Cancer Have Special Nutritional Needs.

Surgery to remove the pancreas may interfere with a person’s ability to digest food and absorb nutrients. To prevent malnutrition, the doctor may prescribe medicines that replace enzymes that will help with digestion.


Immune Therapy

Biologic therapy uses the patient’s immune system to fight cancer. It uses natural or synthetic cells to boost or restore the body’s natural defenses against cancer. This type of cancer treatment is also called biotherapy or immunotherapy.

This therapy is often experimental, so patients who are interested may need to consider taking part in a clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted to find out if new cancer treatments are safe and effective or better than the standard treatment.


Clinical Trials

New types of treatment are being tested in clinical trials.  They are being tested because they are not yet proven to be safe or effective.  Participating in clinical trials is therefore risky, and is most likely to be chosen if no other treatments are available or if all other treatments have failed.

Many of today’s standard treatments for cancer are based on clinical trials conducted years ago. Patients who take part in a clinical trial are usually randomly assigned to either receive the standard treatment or to receive a new treatment.

Patients who take part in clinical trials may benefit, or might not.  Either way, they help improve the way cancer will be treated in the future. Patients can enter clinical trials before, during, or after starting their cancer treatment.


Explanations of some commonly used words in the article:

Metastasis is the spread of cancer cells from the place where they first formed to another part of the body. When that happens, the tumor in the new location is the same type of cancer as the initial tumor. For example, if breast cancer spreads to the lung, the cancer cells in the lung are breast cancer cells, not lung cancer cells.

Palliative care aims to improve the quality of life of patients who have a serious or life-threatening disease. The goal of palliative care is to prevent or treat the symptoms of a disease, side effects caused by treatment of a disease, and psychological, social, and spiritual problems related to a disease or its treatment. Also called comfort care, supportive care, and symptom management. Palliative care can be provided instead of or in addition to treatment of the disease itself.

Recurrent cancer is cancer that has come back, weeks, months, or years after the cancer was removed or could not be detected. The cancer may come back to the same place as the original tumor or to another place in the body.

Resectable means the cancer can be removed by surgery.

Read the original article here.