How drug companies covertly promote off-label drug use



It is a well-known fact in drug trials that individuals can respond just as well to placebos, sugar pills, as to the active drug. On the other hand, it is difficult to explain why only certain people get better from placebos. A team of researchers from Uppsala University and Gothenburg University have now found gene

Full Post: Discovery of gene variants that impact the placebo effect

Off-label prescription of a drug is generally legal, but promotion of off-label uses by a drug manufacturer is illegal. In an article in this week’s PLoS Medicine, two physician researchers describe the techniques that drug companies use to covertly promote off-label use, even when such promotion is illegal.

Adriane Fugh-Berman (Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington DC) and Douglas Melnick (a preventive medicine physician working in North Hollywood, California) argue that while off-label drug use is “sometimes unavoidable” and sometimes “demonstrably beneficial,” it has also been linked with serious side effects. Off-label drug use, they say, “should be undertaken with care and caution due to the uncontrolled experiment to which a patient is being subjected”.

Nevertheless, drug companies have a stake in promoting such off-label use, say the authors, since increased off-label use means “larger revenues from larger user populations, especially for products with narrow indications”.

Based on Dr Melnick’s previous experience working in the pharmaceutical industry in medical affairs (supporting drug marketing) and both authors’ current contacts within the industry, they outline some of the ways that drug companies can promote such off-label use.

One example is known as the “decoy indication”.

In development, say the authors, drugs may be promising for several uses, and companies must choose one or two conditions on which to focus research. Ease of approval is the most important factor in this decision. If extensive off-label use is anticipated, a company may seek approval for just a narrow indication in order to speed a drug to market. In other words, a drug may be approved for this very narrow “decoy indication” while an extensive off-label campaign is not disclosed to drug regulators.

Another technique is to use drug representatives, even though in the US drug reps are not supposed to detail doctors on off-label uses. The authors quote an article in Medical Marketing and Media in which a pharmaceutical industry attorney says: “Before engaging in off-label promotion, companies should ascertain the risk profile, safety, efficacy, and potential commercial benefits of the use-without committing that last bit to print”. In other words, say Fugh-Berman and Melnick, illegal promotion may be cost-effective if potential profits trump potential fines.

Pharmaceutical marketing, they say, has “distorted the discourse on off-label uses and encouraged the unmonitored, potentially dangerous use of drugs by patients for whom risks and benefits are unknown.”

“Companies that engage in off-label promotion should be heavily fined and their future marketing practices subject to increased scrutiny by regulatory agencies.”

http://www.plos.org/

Link




Physicians and policy-makers know that drugs are frequently prescribed to treat certain diseases despite a lack of FDA approval - a practice known as off-label prescribing. Yet they say the problem is so big they don’t know how to begin tackling it. But a potential game plan now exists. In a paper to be published

Full Post: New plan to tackle off-label prescribing



With new drugs being reviewed by regulatory agencies and then released onto the market faster than ever before, patients’ safety is being compromised, warns a study published on bmj.com. Dr David Kao from the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, argues that while drug regulatory bodies are under pressure to make new drugs available more

Full Post: Patient safety compromised with faster drug approvals



Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. and Barr Pharmaceuticals, Inc. have announced that they received approval from the European Commission to proceed with Teva’s acquisition of Barr. In connection with this approval, Teva and Barr are required to divest certain formulations of 17 generic drugs in certain specific countries with respect to which they have a product

Full Post: Teva and Barr receive European approval for acquisition



Mylan Inc. has announced that its subsidiary, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., received final approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for its Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for Fluoxetine Capsules USP, 10 mg and 20 mg. Fluoxetine Capsules, indicated for the treatment of premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) are the generic version of Eli Lilly’s

Full Post: Mylan Receives Final FDA Approval for the Generic Version of the Antidepressant Sarafem(R) Pulvules(R) Capsules



American pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Company has agreed to plead guilty and pay $1.415 billion for promoting its drug Zyprexa for uses not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Department of Justice announced. This resolution includes a criminal fine of $515 million, the largest ever in a health care case, and the

Full Post: Eli Lilly to pay $1.415 billion for off-label promotion of Zyprexa