Category Archives: We’re In the News

Bill to speed approvals for drugs is cut back

By Sabrina Tavernise,  New York Times
April 30, 2015

WASHINGTON — Legislation that would have accelerated the pace of federal drug approvals in a way that critics said threatened to erode patient safety was formally released this week, in a scaled-back version with many of the most controversial provisions left out.

The  draft bill  presented at a  hearing  in the House on Thursday represents a less aggressive streamlining of the drug approval process, critics of the earlier draft said, and seems to have secured strong bipartisan support.

The legislation, called 21st Century Cures, has been in the works for months. Its lead sponsor, Fred Upton, Republican of Michigan, said it would speed the pace of drug cures by removing unnecessary hurdles from the regulatory process.

Critics, including top officials at the  Food and Drug Administration,    had expressed concern that the changes would risk patient safety — for example, by potentially permitting shorter clinical trials and letting drug companies use alternative measures of health as evidence of a drug’s effectiveness and safety.

The bill’s supporters said it was a work in progress that had been assembled in one of the most collaborative, transparent processes Congress has seen in years. The sponsors held eight hearings and more than a dozen round-table meetings in districts across the country to gather comment.

“We have a chance to do something big, and this is our time,” Mr. Upton said.

His co-sponsor, Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, said the lawmakers had made “tremendous progress,” recalling “that hokey video” that she and Mr. Upton made to promote the effort last year.

The draft — at about 200 pages it is half its former size — seemed to allay fears among some experts that it would fundamentally rewire the way drugs are approved. Earlier proposals to give drug companies broad powers to promote their products for uses other than the approved ones and to market brand-name drugs for a longer time without generic competition were not included.

The F.D.A. has defended its record for drug approval speed, saying that in 2014, it approved the most new drugs in almost 20 years, and that it moves faster than its counterparts in other wealthy countries. Experts note that pathways exist for expedited approval, and that the F.D.A. is held to relatively strict timelines under other rules set by Congress. Instead, they say, the bottleneck for new drugs is often a matter of the years of research it takes to find them.

Diana Zuckerman, the president of the National Center for Health Research, said earlier versions of the legislation had “considerable micromanaging of the F.D.A. and enormous power given to industry.”

She added, “Most of that is gone.”

But she cautioned that the bill still held numerous provisions she believed put people at risk, including ones she described as lowering standards for the approval of medical devices and antibiotics. The bill would increase the work the F.D.A. must perform, but not the money it receives, and Dr. Janet Woodcock, an agency official who testified Thursday, said that was a concern.

“We are very stretched in our resources,” she said.

One point that is likely to concern the F.D.A. is a provision that would reduce its authority to regulate some software associated with medical devices.

An earlier version of the bill would have let drugmakers use quicker measures for a drug’s effectiveness during testing — for example, changes in blood sugar level instead of a more final outcome, like development of  diabetes. The new draft instead suggests ways the F.D.A. could use those alternative measures, called biomarkers.

The F.D.A. says it already uses them in a substantial share of drug approvals, and Dr. Woodcock told the lawmakers Thursday that the agency did not need additional authority on this count. Progress has been slow in adopting more biomarkers, she said, because they often did not produce enough evidence to allow scientists to draw firm conclusions.

“You have to know those biomarkers are reliable before you can take a chance on a human life,” she said.

See the original article here.

What do stakeholders think of FDA’s latest effort to get patients timelier access to devices?

By Michael Williamson, Bloomberg BNA

The FDA April 8 released two final guidance documents that will help provide timely patient access to high-quality, safe and effective medical devices for unmet medical needs, Jeffrey Shuren, the director of the agency’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said in a blog posting.

Reaction to the two documents is mixed – pitting industry against some patient advocates.

One guidance document describes the FDA’s Expedited Access Program (EAP), which should “speed qualifying devices to patients with life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating conditions” without compromising the agency’s high standards for safety and effectiveness, Shuren’s blog posting said. The other guidance document outlines the agency’s current policy on balancing premarket and postmarket data collection during FDA review of premarket approval (PMA) applications. In addition, the document addresses whether or not the circumstances when postmarket data collection is appropriate for PMAs meet the criteria for the EAP.

Two stakeholders seemed pleased with the EAP document. The Advanced Medical Technology Association (AdvaMed), “commends the agency for its efforts to explore supplementary review pathways to provide more timely patient access to new technologies for life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions that addresses an unmet medical need,” Janet Trunzo, the association’s senior executive vice president for technology and regulatory affairs, told me in a April 9 e-mail.

In addition, Ben Moscovitch, officer with the medical device project of the Pew Charitable Trusts, a nonproft policy organization, told me April 9 many of the recommendations his group made on the draft version of the EAP document were included in the final document. For example, he told me that the EAP final guidance document reflects a Pew suggestion from 2014 that the FDA should require the initiation of postmarket trials and completion of those studies within a certain timeframe.

Not everyone is pleased with the guidance, however. The EAP final guidance “is part of a larger problem where the FDA is bowing to pressure from Congress to weaken safeguards that are intended to protect patients from unsafe medical products,” Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, told me in an April 9 e-mail. She is also president of the Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund.

See the original article here.

Medicare panel voices doubts about genetic cancer tests

By Virgil Dickson, Modern Healthcare

The Medicare Evidence Development and Coverage Advisory Committee (MEDCAC) has expressed little confidence in genetic tests that supposedly predict common cancers. The decision raises doubts about whether the CMS will authorize Medicare coverage for such tests.

“This is such a promising and exciting field, but the excitement is far ahead of the data,” said Diana Zuckerman, a panel member and president of the National Center for Health Research, an advocacy organization. These tests “could be so helpful if only we knew more.”

Specifically, there was a concern among committee members who met Tuesday about the lack of data regarding clinical utility, which indicates if a test result was actually helpful to a consumer.

“The evidence got very thin, very quickly,” said Dr. Beverly Guadagnolo, a panelist and associate professor in the radiation oncology department at the University of Texas.

Industry stakeholders present at the meeting disagreed. “Two hundred-plus labs around the country wouldn’t be doing these tests if they didn’t have clinical utility,” Dr. Jan Nowak, medical director of molecular diagnostics and cytogenetics at NorthShore University HealthSystem, Evanston, Ill., said during public comments.

Another leading concern was to ensure people did not undergo unnecessary chemotherapy. “We need to be on the side of the angels and minimize access to drugs that don’t necessarily need to be given,” said Dr. Josef Fischer, a panelist and professor in the surgery department at Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center.

The eight-member panel was asked to vote on a scale of 1 to 5 on how confident members were that the tests they were reviewing would actually benefit Medicare beneficiaries by bettering quality of life, helping them avoid inappropriate anti-cancer treatments or death. The tests that were up for consideration claim they help predict the chances of colon, rectum, breast and lung cancers.

Panel member votes were collected and averaged. Most of the tests received an average score under 3, though a test related to breast cancer rated higher at 3.8. Another test meant to find cancerous lung cancer genes scored the lowest at 1.375.

The panelists also were asked to discuss if they would feel more comfortable with a test being used by beneficiaries if it were a laboratory-developed test from a facility certified under the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments or a test that received Food and Drug Administration approval or clearance. Members seemed more comfortable with an FDA-approved test.

It’s unclear what direction the CMS will take moving forward. MEDCAC is generally considered influential, but the agency recently decided to not concur with a committee vote to not recommend Medicare coverage of annual CT scans to detect lung cancer in heavy smokers.

During the meeting, CMS liaison Dr. James Rollins indicated that any future coverage given to these type of tests would need to prove clinical utility. Today, most entities developing these tests focus on proving analytical validity, how accurately a test detects a specific genetic variant, or clinical validity, how well the genetic variant is being analyzed.

See original article here.

Breast implants in France to carry cancer warning: researchers find a ‘clearly established link’

By Dana Dovey, Medical Daily
March 18, 2015

Following France’s National Cancer Institute finding a “clearly established link” between breast implants and a specific type of cancer, the country will now order all breast implants to come with a cancer warning. This announcement came after 18 cases of anaplastic large cell lymphoma were directly linked to women with silicone breast implants since 2011.

Anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) is a type of non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma that affects the blood. The link between breast implants and this form of cancer is extremely rare, so French officials have urged women who already have the implants not to remove them, the Daily Mail reported. Given the severity of the cancer in the few women who do develop it, French officials felt it necessary to inform women of all the possible risks associated with the surgery.

ALCL is extremely rare, affecting around one to six in every three million women who undergo breast augmentation, Medical News Today reported. However, a study conducted by researchers from Cambridge University in the UK found that nearly all cases of ALCL in breasts occurred in patients who had undergone breast augmentation, suggesting a link between the two. Although it’s not clear why silicone breast implants can sometimes cause cancer, the Cambridge investigation did shed some light on the mystery.

“It’s becoming clear that implant-related ALCL is a distinct clinical entity in itself,” Dr. Suzanne Turner, lead researcher of the Cambridge study, told Medical News Today. “There are still unanswered questions and only by getting to the bottom of this very rare disease will we be able to find alternative ways to treat it.”

Breast implants are a very popular surgery, with Dr. Diana Zukerman, president of the National Center for Health Research, explaining that in 2013 alone 300,000 American women opted for the operation. Of these women, around 80 percent undergo breast enhancement for cosmetic reasons while a further 20 percent have breast implants following breast cancer.

This is far from the first time that breast implants have been implicated in causing a health hazard. In 2011, French firm PIP caused global hysteria when plastic surgeons reported an abnormal amount of the implants rupture, the Daily Mail reported. It was later found that the firm had been manufacturing these breast implants using industrial grade silicone intended for use in mattresses.

The implants were subsequently found faulty and banned from use. Women who had already received the implants were advised to have them removed, although European health officials found no medical or toxicological evidence to back this advice.

See original article here.

Candidate to lead FDA has close ties to big pharma

By Massimo Calabresi, Time

Duke’s Dr. Robert Califf sees closer collaboration between government and industry

Dr. Robert CaliffLast May, Duke University’s Vice Chancellor for clinical research, Dr. Robert Califf, told an audience of executives that the American system for developing drugs and medical devices was in crisis. Using slides [pdf] developed by Duke’s business school, he said the system was too slow and too expensive, and required disruption and transformation. Towards the end of his talk, he put up a slide that identified a key barrier to change: regulation.

Such views are not uncommon in industry, academic research and on Capitol Hill, but they are noteworthy coming from Califf because he could soon be America’s top regulator overseeing the safety and efficacy of the country’s drugs and medical devices. Califf is already set to become deputy commissioner at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) next month. Now sources familiar with the process tell TIME he is on President Barack Obama’s short list to run the agency following this month’s announcement that its long-serving commissioner, Margaret Hamburg, will step down in March.

The White House declined to comment on pending personnel decisions, but word that Califf is in contention for the top spot at the FDA comes at a key moment. The agency faces potentially dramatic changes this year as Congress prepares to rewrite many of the rules for how drugs and medical devices are reviewed and tested for safety and efficacy. Califf is widely respected in the public and private sectors, but his candidacy is seen by some as a threat to the independence and authority of the FDA, thanks to his views on the need to accelerate change and his deep financial and intellectual ties to the pharmaceutical and medical device industries.

Califf says his salary is contractually underwritten in part by several large pharmaceutical companies, including Merck, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly and Novartis. He also receives as much as $100,000 a year in consulting fees from some of those companies, and from others, according to his 2014 conflict of interest disclosure [pdf]. In an interview with TIME, Califf estimates that less than half of his annual income comes from research money provided by the pharmaceutical industry, though he says he is not certain because he doesn’t tend to distinguish between industry and government research funding. He says he is divesting his holdings in two privately-held pharmaceutical companies he helped get off the ground.

Califf says such collaboration, not just between industry and academia, but with government, too, is the way of the future. “The greatest progress almost certainly will be made by breaking out of insular knowledge bases and collaborating across the different sectors,” Califf says. He says there is “a tension which cannot be avoided between regulating an industry and creating the conditions where the industry can thrive, and the FDA’s got to do both.” He says it would be “useful to have someone [leading the FDA] who understands how companies operate because you’re interacting with them all the time.”

Diana Zuckerman, President of the National Center for Health Research, which advocates for FDA regulatory authority, says such ties “should be of great concern.” Dr. Califf is “a very accomplished, smart physician who’s been an important name in the field,” Zuckerman says, but his “interdependent relationships” raise questions about his “objectivity and distance.” She cites several studiessuggesting the medical products industry uses such ties to influence the behavior and decision making of doctors and researchers, even when the scientists don’t realize it.

The tension over Califf’s collaboration with industry gets to the heart of the future of the FDA at a pivotal moment. While FDA defenders see the collaboration as a threat to its independence, others see close relationships between government, industry and academia as the model for the future. Califf heads a successful and powerful clinical research program, the Duke Translational Medicine Institute, which brings together industry drug researchers, academic scientists and federal regulators to speed drug development and approval. Califf estimates 50-60% of its $320 million in annual research funding comes from industry.

Capitol Hill is considering codifying parts of that collaborative model for the FDA. The powerful Energy and Commerce Committee in the U.S. House of Representatives recently introduced a draft bill called 21stCentury Cures, which would loosen the drug approval and post-market oversight process. Califf says because the bill is still in draft it is too early to pass an overall judgment on it but he says, “I support a lot of the concepts in the bill.”

In the Senate, the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee has begun work on its own bill, with committee chairman Lamar Alexander declaring, “It takes too long and costs too much to develop medical products.” In a report paving the way for his legislation, Alexander concluded the FDA has grown too large, has fallen behind scientific innovation and threatens American leadership in biomedical innovation. Reform efforts in the Senate may be aided by the support of liberals like Elizabeth Warren who back looser regulations on the medical device industry.

The FDA uses a model for drug testing and oversight largely developed in the early 1960s, with phased trials before drugs and devices are approved for sale to ensure they are safe and effective, and “post-market” studies afterwards to monitor them. Over time, the agency has come to rely on the medical product industry for more than 60% of its budget for post-market monitoring.Accused of regulatory capture by those who see undue industry influence, the FDA has faced attacks from both sides.

That means the FDA has few defenders and will rely heavily on its next commissioner to stand up for it in public and on Capitol Hill. “This is a very dangerous time for the agency,” says Zuckerman of the National Center for Health Research, “It’s under fire in a way that is unprecedented in the last 20 years.”

Califf’s supporters point out that he is among the ten most cited medical authors in America, and that he has spent his career as a clinician helping patients. Regarding the danger of regulators being “captured” by their interactions with industry, Califf says, “The difference between capture and collaboration towards improving human health is a pretty big difference.”

The White House has set no time frame for its decision on Hamburg’s replacement. It has announced the acting commissioner will be Dr. Stephen Ostroff, a scientist and long-time official at the Health and Human Services department, when she steps down in March.

Link to original article here.

Letter to the Editor: "Keep the Medical Device Tax"

THE NEW YORK TIMES, FEBRUARY 13, 2015

Our research strongly supports your Jan. 30 editorial “No Case for Killing the Medical Device Tax”: Repealing the tax is indeed “a terrible idea” that solves a nonexistent problem. It could result in cutting health care programs that patients rely on.

Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, millions more Americans can now afford medical care that relies on devices like CT scans, cardiac implants or joint replacements. Our nonpartisan research center just released a report indicating that the device industry is thriving in the two years since the tax went into effect.

Stock prices increased an average of 66 percent for the largest United States-based device companies and even more for the smaller ones, much higher than the pharmaceutical companies, Nasdaq or the New York Stock Exchange.

Device companies’ sales and research and development also increased, and profit margins remained very strong. These data are consistent with the Congressional Research Service report that said the benefits of the health care law would help make up for the minimally negative effect of the tax.

Congress intended for industries that would benefit from the health law to help pay for it. The $29 billion raised from the device industry is far less than the amounts raised from other industries that benefit from the law, like drug makers and insurance companies. Why should those industries pay if the device tax is repealed?

Paul Brown, Washington

The writer is government relations manager at the National Center for Health Research.

See original letter here.

The Hamburg legacy at FDA: accomplishments and controversies

By Ed Silverman. The Wall Street Journal. Published Feb. 5, 2015.

Link to original article here. 

Has the other shoe dropped?

Following mounting speculation, FDA commissioner Margaret Hamburg has told staffers that she will step down at the end of March, after a nearly six-year run heading the agency. The news comes just 10 days after the FDA hired Robert Califf, a widely regarded Duke University cardiologist, as deputy commissioner for medical products and tobacco.

That move quickly set off speculation that Califf would, in fact, soon succeed Hamburg, since he starts his new job later this month. And his new job involves overseeing a large swath of the agency – the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research; the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research; the Center for Devices and Radiological Health, and the Center for Tobacco Products.

An FDA spokeswoman declined to say whether a search was under way or, if so, how long the process may take. For now, FDA chief scientist Stephen Ostroff will temporarily assume command until a new commissioner receives congressional approval.

Hamburg, who has been one of the longest-serving FDA commissioners, presided over a string of accomplishments and controversies. A key mission from the start of her tenure was to bolster drug safety. There had been scandals over undisclosed side effect data for such medicines as the Vioxx painkiller and contaminated heparin that was imported from China and blamed for 81 deaths.

“It’s fair to say that Dr. Hamburg came to [the agency] at a time when the FDA was under a cloud,” says Peter Pitts, who was an FDA associate commissioner for external affairs before Hamburg’s arrived and is now a policy consultant to drug makers. “Whether or not the criticism the agency was receiving was fair (most of it was not) isn’t the point. Morale was low. Moral authority amongst constituents was fading.”

Despite efforts to bolster safety, Hamburg was widely criticized following an outbreak of fungal meningitis in 2012 that was traced to a compounding pharmacy and blamed for 64 deaths. Acknowledged as the worst U.S. public health crisis in decades, the FDA was accused of failing to properly oversee compounders, and Hamburg received some harsh grilling from members of Congress.

She was also chastised for her efforts to loosen rules governing conflicts of interest between industry and the outside experts who sit on FDA advisory panels. Hamburg complained that the rules – which set limits on financial ties, for instance – made it more difficult to attract qualified panelists, although she later backed away from this position. But some consumer advocates say her oversight remained lax.

“Too often, the FDA has succumbed to industry and political pressures, implementing policies and taking actions that tilt too far toward the bottom-line interests” of industry, says Michael Carome of Public Citizen, which regularly spars with the FDA over safety issues. He argues the FDA needs a commissioner who will be an “aggressive, proactive crusader.”

There was also controversy over an FDA decision to approve an opioid painkiller, even though it did not have tamper-resistant features and an agency advisory panel recommended against approval. The FDA argued that the drug, Zohydro, offered a needed option to pain patients, but Hamburg was chastised for allegedly overstating the number of people who may have benefited.

“Under Hamburg, the FDA approved a steady stream of new opioids despite an epidemic of opioid addiction caused by overprescribing,” says Andrew Kolodny, who heads Physicians for Responsible Opioid Prescribing and argues the agency has been too friendly to industry. “I’m pleased to hear that Hamburg is leaving.”

At the same time, Hamburg won plaudits for emphasizing programs, such as breakthrough therapy designations and accelerated approvals, which have sped drugs to market faster. This remains a hot-button issue, especially among patients who clamor for treatments for hard-to-treat and rare diseases. In recent years, the number of novel new medicines that FDA has approved has steadily increased.

The issue also resonates, of course, with the pharmaceutical industry, which benefits whenever drugs are launched more quickly. “These programs have proven invaluable in bringing groundbreaking new therapies to patients more efficiently, while maintaining the FDA’s high standards for safety and efficacy,” says Jim Greenwood, who heads the BIO trade group, in a statement.

Hamburg also was caught up in a highly charged political battle. In 2011, former Health & Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius overruled an FDA decision to allow the Plan B emergency contraceptive to be sold over-the-counter to younger teenagers. The FDA maintained the treatment was safe. Two years later, the FDA was able to proceed and approved its use.

Such backbone will be missed by some, especially now and Hamburg’s departure comes at an unfortunate time, according to Diana Zuckerman, who heads the National Center for Health Research, a non-profit think tank. She worries that a sweeping law Congress is drafting called 21St Century Cures will have a detrimental effect on how medical products are regulated.

“Hamburg has been a strong voice for public health and this is a major loss at a dangerous time for the FDA,” she tells us. “The proposed legislation represents a frightening assault on the agency and the safety of medical products, and the FDA will need a strong leader to protect its public health mission.”

And in a statement, Ellen Sigal, who heads Friends of Cancer Research, a non profit, says Hamburg “changed the direction of the FDA, creating an environment of science-based collaboration that has fostered a new era of regulatory science focused on expediting the best treatments to patients.” We should note that various drug makers are among its supporters.

AND HERE IS THE MEMO THAT HAMBURG SENT TO FDA STAFF….

Dear FDA Colleagues:

It has been a privilege to serve as your FDA Commissioner for almost six years.  So it is with very mixed emotions that I write today to inform you that I plan to step down as FDA Commissioner at the end of March 2015.  As you can imagine, this decision was not easy.  My tenure leading this Agency has been the most rewarding of my career, and that is due in no small part to all of you – the dedicated and hard-working people that make up the heart of this Agency.  While there is still work ahead (and there always will be), I know that I am leaving the agency well-positioned to fulfill its responsibilities to the American public with great success.

I feel so fortunate to have worked at an organization as remarkable and productive as the FDA.  The expertise, dedication and integrity of our people and the unique nature and scope of FDA’s role make this Agency truly special.  Every day, FDA employees around the world recommit themselves to the Agency’s work, to quality science, to facilitating innovation, and to the protection of public health.  And because of your dedication and your service, we have been able to achieve so many significant milestones over the past years.

From creating a modernized food safety system that will reduce foodborne illness; advancing biomedical innovation by approving novel medical products in cutting-edge areas; and responding aggressively to the need to secure the safety of a globalized food and medical product supply chain, to taking critical steps to reduce the death and disease caused by tobacco, we have accomplished a tremendous amount in the last six years.  We can honestly say that our collective efforts have improved the health, safety and quality of life of the American people.

At the heart of all of these accomplishments is a strong commitment to science as the foundation of our regulatory decision-making and of our integrity as an Agency.  And while there are far too many significant actions, events, and initiatives to count, there are some highlights of the past years that I particularly want to mention.

In the foods area, we have taken critical actions that will improve the safety of the food Americans consume for years to come.  These include science-based standards developed to create a food safety system focused on preventing foodborne illness before it occurs, rather than responding after the fact.  We have taken several significant steps to help Americans make more informed and healthful food choices.  These include working to reduce trans fats in processed foods; more clearly defining when baked goods, pastas and other foods can be labeled “gluten free;” updating the iconic Nutrition Facts label; and, most recently, finalizing the rules to make calorie information available on chain restaurant menus and vending machines.

We have also made great strides in advancing the safety and effectiveness of medical products. Some of these important steps include new oversight of human drug compounding and provisions to help secure the drug supply chain so that we can better help protect consumers from the dangers of counterfeit, stolen, contaminated, or otherwise harmful drugs.  We are continuing to increase the speed and efficiency of medical product reviews.  We just had another strong year for novel drug approvals, with most of these drugs being approved on or before their PDUFA goal dates and most being made available to patients in the United States before they were available to patients in Europe and other parts of the world.  We launched a powerful new tool to accelerate the development and review of “breakthrough therapies,” allowing FDA to expedite development of a drug or biologic to help patients with serious or life-threatening diseases.  In fact, almost half of the novel new drugs approved in 2014 received expedited review with a combination of breakthrough designation, priority review and/or fast track status.  These included drugs for rare types of cancer, hepatitis C, type-2 diabetes and idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, as well as a number of groundbreaking vaccines.  We have also established a regulatory pathway for biosimilar biological products that will create more options for patients.

On the medical device side, the average number of days it takes for pre-market review of a new medical device has been reduced by about one-third since 2010.  The percentage of pre-market approval (PMA) device applications that we approve annually has increased since then, after steadily decreasing each year since 2004.  We also published the Unique Device Identification (UDI) final rule that is intended to improve the tracking and safety of medical devices.  And we proposed a risk-based framework for laboratory developed tests (LDTs) to help ensure patients and providers have access to safe, accurate and reliable tests, while continuing to promote innovation of diagnostic tests to help guide treatment decisions.

We have ushered in the era of personalized medicine across all of our medical product centers. For example, many cancer drugs are increasingly used with companion diagnostic tests that can help determine whether a patient will respond to the drug based on the genetic characteristics of the patient’s tumor.  A growing percentage of our recent approvals have involved targeted therapies, offering many patients more effective response profiles and/or reduced likelihood of side effects.

We made significant progress in implementing both the letter and spirit of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act.  Our tobacco compliance and enforcement program has entered into agreements with numerous state and local authorities to enforce the ban on the sale of tobacco products to children and teens; conducted close to 240,000 inspections; written more than 12,100 warning letters to retailers; proposed the extremely important foundational “deeming” rule; and broken new ground for FDA with the launch of the Agency’s first public education campaigns to prevent and reduce tobacco use among our nation’s youth.

As Commissioner, my goal has been to shape and support an FDA that is well-equipped to meet the challenges posed by scientific innovation, globalization, the increasing breadth and complexity of the products that we regulate, and our new expanding legal authorities.  I have worked hard to advocate for FDA and our unique and essential mission, including building new partnerships to support our work.  The Agency has received numerous votes of confidence with the bi-partisan enactment of a series of landmark bills extending our authority in the areas of tobacco, food safety and medical products.  In addition, we have achieved a dramatic increase in our budget, from some $2.7 billion in FY2009 to almost $4.5 billion in FY2015.

As hard as it is to leave this Agency, I am confident that the leadership team that we have in place will enable FDA to capitalize on, and improve upon, the significant advances we’ve made over the last few years.  Many of these leaders have been with the FDA throughout my tenure, and I am proud to say that we’ve recently made some wonderful new additions.

And with respect to the agency’s senior leadership team, I am pleased that Dr. Stephen Ostroff has agreed to serve as Acting Commissioner when I step down.  Since joining the Agency in 2013, and most recently serving as FDA’s Chief Scientist, Dr. Ostroff has successfully overseen numerous significant initiatives, while helping to ensure that scientific rigor, excellence and innovation are infused across the Agency.  I have every confidence that he will take on this new role with the same energy, dedication and care.

I want to extend my deepest gratitude to each and every one of you for your service and for making FDA an agency that is not only an exciting and rewarding place to work, but also a place of remarkably meaningful achievement and impact on the health and well-being of Americans.

Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D.

Commissioner of Food and Drugs

Statement of Dr. Zuckerman on FDA Commissioner Hamburg’s resignation

Statement of Dr. Diana Zuckerman, President
Cancer Prevention and Treatment Fund
February 5, 2015

Commissioner Hamburg has been a strong voice for public health and her resignation is a major loss at a dangerous time for the FDA.  The 21st Century Cures proposed legislation represents a frightening assault on the agency and the safety of medical products, and the FDA will need a very strong leader to protect its public health mission.

Many Members of Congress have been attacking the FDA nonstop for the last few years, criticizing FDA efforts to improve the safety of medical devices and to ensure the safety of pharmaceuticals, including those made by compounding pharmacies.  Congress lacks the scientific expertise make appropriate judgments about how or whether the FDA can safely speed up its already efficient approval process, so recent Congressional efforts to do so would undermine patient safeguards even more.   This has made the job of FDA Commissioner a thankless one, and at the same time made it more important than ever.

House GOP proposes changes for NIH, FDA

By John Fritze, The Baltimore Sun. January 27, 2015.

House Republicans are considering significant changes to the way billions of dollars in National Institutes of Health grants are awarded to research institutions under a proposal intended to speed medical breakthroughs.

The proposal, which Republican lawmakers unveiled Tuesday, would require the Bethesda-based NIH to set aside more money for high-risk research and young, emerging scientists while also giving the director more power to shape the agency’s direction.

Nearly a year in the making, the proposal from the House Energy and Commerce Committee represents a political shift from the Republican Party’s persistent effort to undercut the Affordable Care Act toward a focus on medical research that might ultimately draw bipartisan support.

The 393-page document has implications for major research institutions such as the Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland, Baltimore, which are among the largest recipients of NIH money in the nation.

“If we want to achieve great things at the NIH, one of the things we have to do is empower younger investigators,” said Rep. Andy Harris, a Maryland Republican and Hopkins-trained anesthesiologist whom the panel gave credit for several provisions. “I don’t think these are Democrat or Republican ideas.”

The proposal also calls for changes at the Food and Drug Administration, such as the speeding of clinical trials and extending patents for drugmakers who develop therapies for complex diseases such as Alzheimer’s. Debate over those proposals is sure to set off a flurry of lobbying by universities, drug companies and medical device manufacturers.

Yet the draft drew a tepid response from some Democrats, including one of the lawmakers who has been most closely associated with its development. Colorado Rep. Diana DeGette said in a statement Tuesday that while she appreciated the public airing of ideas, she does not endorse the proposal.

Others said they were wary of significant new requirements for the National Institutes of Health, particularly since there islittle discussion of additional funding for the agency. Research groups have complained that federal money for research has been inconsistent and has not kept pace with medical inflation.

“The problem has been Congress,” said Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research. “When Congress tells the NIH to do something — when it tells any federal agency to do something, there are a lot of unforeseen consequences.”

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, a Maryland Democrat long considered a champion of the National Institutes of Health, said she is reviewing the proposal.

“Maintaining America’s innovation edge is a subject worthy of national discussion and debate,” she said.

Dr. Francis Collins, whom President Barack Obama named as NIH director in 2009, has frequently lamented the difficulty young scientists have in securing grants. The average age of first-time recipients of the agency’s most sought-after funding is 42, even as studies suggest that scientists are likely to come up with their best ideas in their mid- to late 30s.

The House proposal includes an idea pushed by Harris to dedicate an NIH fund specifically for young researchers.

Republicans also want the leaders of individual centers and institutes, such as the National Cancer Institute, to report to the NIH director instead of the secretary of health and human services. And they would give NIH leadership more power to transfer money from one institute to another and would require the head of each institute to personally sign off on research grants.

The proposal also includes a program to dedicate an unspecified amount to high-risk research, in which unexpected breakthroughs are often developed.

An NIH spokeswoman said that officials are reviewing the draft and that the agency urges Congress “to work in a bipartisan way to more rapidly translate scientific discoveries into therapies that will improve patient outcomes.”

Neither Hopkins nor the University of Maryland responded to requests for comment Tuesday. Hopkins President Ronald Daniels used an article in a scientific journal this month to call for reforms to increase opportunities for young researchers.

Several medical research groups applauded the announcement.

“The initiative could be a game-changer for the medical innovation ecosystem,” Research!America President and CEO Mary Woolley said in a statement.

The proposal also represents something of a political victory for Harris, Maryland’s only Republican in Congress, who has been expanding his reach on medical issues in recent years. Harris, who conducted NIH-funded research on cerebral blood flow during childbirth, influenced several provisions of the bill despite not serving on the Energy and Commerce Committee.

There is little discussion in the draft about overall funding for the National Institutes of Health, which has hovered around $30 billion for the past several years. Harris, a member of the House Appropriations subcommittee that approves health agency spending, said he believes the changes could make it easier for the new Republican majorities in both chambers to consider allocating more money for NIH.

“I’m not averse to increasing NIH funding,” Harris said. “If they’re willing to listen to some of these reforms … then I think Congress is going to be willing to consider an increase in funding.”

Payment reform puts medical-device industry on the defensive

By Sabriya Rice. Modern Healthcare. October 7, 2014

Medical technology companies are warning that burgeoning pay-for-performance and risk-based reimbursement models will motivate providers to block access to clinically important innovations.

Healthcare economists and quality experts, though, counter that the new models appropriately put the onus on manufacturers to prove their products are worth the cost.

The tension was the centerpiece of a news conference held by the leaders of AdvaMed, the industry’s trade group, at the start of its annual conference in Chicago Monday.

“We have to ensure these new payment models include safeguards to protect patients from unintended consequences,”AdvaMed CEO Stephen Ubl said. Ubl, flanked by AdvaMed Chairman and Covidien CEO Joe Almeida, said too many of the contracts put too much emphasis on cost targets over quality benchmarks.

New payment models have proliferated quickly in recently years, nurtured by provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. More than 360 accountable care organizations have signed contracts with Medicare, agreeing to strive for cost and quality targets to earn some of the savings achieved (or in some cases return money to the government if they fail). Many providers are striking similar agreements with private payers—Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association recently said that it’s now paying one in five dollars under incentive-based contracts—or assuming financial risk with their own insurance products.

AdvaMed is promoting an industry-funded white paper based on the responses of nine unnamed health insurance companies interviewed about their movement toward pay-for-performance and risk-based contracts. Five said they had become more selective about approving coverage for new technologies in the past three years. Four said they plan to demand more evidence before covering products. All said costs were driving their organizations to explore new reimbursement models. The findings are published in the Journal of Medical Economics.

“They run the risk of really tipping too far, so physicians have incentive not to adopt things that really benefit patients,” AdvaMed Senior Vice Presdient David Nexon said in a phone interview.

Representatives for insurers Cigna and Aetna, which responded to requests for comments on AdvaMed’s conclusions, said new technology is embraced if it adds value. “Providers, members and payers deserve and increasingly want to have proof,” an Aetna spokeswoman said. Cigna said in a statement that “technology that simply adds cost without improving quality, health, satisfaction and productivity is counter to our goals.”

Mark Pauly, professor of Health Care Management at the University of Pennsylvania called it an overstatement to suggest that new payment models will inspire widespread failure to adopt products that promise significant benefits to patients. The models add an appropriate hurdle, he said. Manufacturers that can’t provide evidence “won’t go over the hurdle.”

Diana Zuckerman, a researcher who has been critical of the Food and Drug Administration’s procedures for approving and monitoring medical devices, said the industry isn’t accustomed to having to prove that a product is cost-effective. “Something can be clinically appropriate and not be necessary,” said Zuckerman, who is president of the National Center for Health Research.

Manufacturers, though, are in a difficult situation, acknowledged Tom Skorup, VP of applied solutions for the ECRI Institute, a not-for-profit organization that studies the quality and costs of medical technologies, procedures and drugs. Many manufacturers are finding ways to partner with providers to generate evidence. “The greater the collaboration in the creation of the evidence, the fewer the barriers to the potential for uptake,” he said.​