JAMA Ghostwriting Controversy Forces FDA to Reconsider New Off Label Promotion Rule Changes
As I mentioned in a post about a month or so ago, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) floated a proposal to ease the rules regarding promotion of off-label use of previously approved drugs. According to the newly proposed rules, FDA would allow drug makers to provide physicians with reprints of journal articles that conspicuously promote off-label uses for previously approved products. At present, drug companies are strictly forbidden to promote off-label use of their products. A major proviso of the proposed rule changes is that the articles/reprints must be published in peer reviewed medical journals before they can be disseminated to physicians and other healthcare professionals. Apparently, FDA officials believe that peer review can take the place of the rigorous regulations and requirements that are currently in place for US approval of drugs, biologics and medical devices!
For those of you who don’t know, an editorial appeared in last week’sJournal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that took drug maker Merck to task for using alleged ghostwriters and ghost authors on clinical studies that were published about it painkiller Vioxx. As you all know, Merck voluntarily took Vioxx off the market in 2004 after it was revealed that the drug could lead to increased risk of heart attack and stroke.
The incendiary firestorm that has ensued since the appearance of the Although I believe that the practices of ghostwriting and ghost authoring are not as widespread as the JAMA authors would like you to believe, I think that it is a good thing that FDA may scuttle its proposed new off-label drug promotion rules.
In my opinion (humble or otherwise), drug makers MUST be required to prove that off-label uses of previously approved products don’t pose any serious safety or health risks before companies are allowed to promote them for new indications. As we have seen time and again in recent years, safety issues and serious health risks can arise for drugs even though they received FDA approval. With this in mind I ask: “Why would FDA allow drug makers to provide less rigorous proof for an off-label indication than that required for approval of the intended use of the original product?” It makes little sense to me. However, looking more closely at the proposed rule changes, it would obviate the need for companies to spend additional monies (possibly hundreds of millions) to garner FDA approval for a new product indication. Hmmm….maybe I am beginning to see a pattern here!!!!!!!
Until next time….
Good Luck and Good Job Hunting!!!!!!!!!!!!
For the past 30 years or so, the Unites States government has been looking for any reason what so ever to argue against the legalization of marijuana. This is despite a growing body of evidence that marijuana use provides documented, palliative and therapeutic benefits to people who suffer from serious illness like glaucoma, chronic pain and the side effects of cancer chemotherapy. Although marijuana use for medicinal purposes is illegal at the federal level, some Western States, most notably California, have legalized its use —it can now be purchased by people who have valid prescriptions from specially-designed .
