McClatchy DC Logo

Two drug makers spar with FDA panel over safety of arthritis medicines | McClatchy Washington Bureau

×
    • Customer Service
    • Mobile & Apps
    • Contact Us
    • Newsletters
    • Subscriber Services

    • All White House
    • Russia
    • All Congress
    • Budget
    • All Justice
    • Supreme Court
    • DOJ
    • Criminal Justice
    • All Elections
    • Campaigns
    • Midterms
    • The Influencer Series
    • All Policy
    • National Security
    • Guantanamo
    • Environment
    • Climate
    • Energy
    • Water Rights
    • Guns
    • Poverty
    • Health Care
    • Immigration
    • Trade
    • Civil Rights
    • Agriculture
    • Technology
    • Cybersecurity
    • All Nation & World
    • National
    • Regional
    • The East
    • The West
    • The Midwest
    • The South
    • World
    • Diplomacy
    • Latin America
    • Investigations
  • Podcasts
    • All Opinion
    • Political Cartoons

  • Our Newsrooms

Latest News

Two drug makers spar with FDA panel over safety of arthritis medicines

Chris Mondics - Knight Ridder Newspapers

    ORDER REPRINT →

February 16, 2005 03:00 AM

WASHINGTON—Two top drug makers defended their decisions Wednesday to market painkillers that have been linked to an increased risk of heart attack, but a panel of medical experts questioned whether the companies had dug deeply enough to expose potential hazards.

The comments came at a hearing of advisory committees of the federal Food and Drug Administration, called in response to evidence that a class of arthritis painkillers known as COX-2 inhibitors can trigger heart attacks and strokes in some patients.

Some researchers fear that many thousands may have died as a result.

One of those painkillers, Vioxx, was pulled from the market Sept. 30 after its manufacturer, Merck & Co. Inc., received data showing that the drug raised the risk of heart attacks and strokes. Pfizer is the manufacturer of the two other COX-2 drugs, Celebrex and Bextra, which remain on the market.

SIGN UP

Several panel members said that a primary purpose of the three-day hearing, which could result in a recommendation to restrict marketing of COX-2s or to ban them, was to weigh the known benefits of the drugs against their potential hazards.

"We say over and over again that all drugs have risk," said Dr. Steven Galson, the acting director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. "When an (adverse) event is discovered, the faulty assumption is sometimes made that the drug should never have been approved."

The stakes at the hearings are high, not only for Pfizer and Merck, which face an avalanche of lawsuits from patients, but also for FDA officials, who have been forced to defend their drug approval procedures amid a public uproar over the safety of COX-2s.

The stakes are high as well for public health officials faced with what appears to be a difficult choice between the benefits of the drugs, which include the potential to prevent some forms of cancer, and their potential for harm.

The hearing quickly evolved into a clash of competing studies showing different reactions to the drugs.

Dr. Garret FitzGerald of the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, who was the first to identify the potential cardiovascular risk of COX-2 inhibitors in 1998, said the cardiovascular risks of the drugs are well established, with five studies clearly demonstrating the problems.

FitzGerald said the drugs can suppress the body's production of prostaglandins, substances that protect against heart disease.

But he also argued that COX-2 inhibitors can be beneficial for patients by protecting against intestinal bleeding and noted later that they may prevent pre-cancerous lesions of the colon.

The key is to screen carefully patients who may be more vulnerable to heart disease before administering the drugs, he said.

Dr. Ernest Hawk of the National Cancer Institute said there is compelling evidence that COX-2 inhibitors and other painkillers reduce the risk of intestinal cancer.

"Based on this abundance of literature we believed ... these reactions reduce the risk of colon cancer, and moreover those benefits may extend to other organs as well," Hawk said.

Dr. Ned S. Braunstein, senior director of research laboratories at Merck, said conclusive evidence of the harmful side effects of Vioxx did not emerge until September, when the company promptly withdrew the drug.

Merck had agreed to place a label warning of the potential risk to heart patients on the drug in 2002, after some preliminary results suggested problems. But the FDA panel expressed some skepticism over why the label did not appear until 14 months after evidence emerged.

Braunstein's testimony also drew questions from panel members who wanted to know why Merck did not follow up with patients who had dropped out of its studies. Had the company done so, the rates of cardiovascular risk might have gone up, some panel members maintained.

Despite the skepticism, Dr. Kenneth Verburg, a Pfizer scientist, suggested that his company's drug, Celebrex, had demonstrated benefits and said the issue of whether there are cardiovascular risks deserves further study.

"It's important to remember why we are at this hearing. This is a drug ... for which the reason to give the drug is to reverse adverse events," said Dr. Alastair Wood, who headed the hearing. "It is certainly worrisome when a drug is supposed to be providing safety benefits seems to be causing mortality."

———

(c) 2005, Knight Ridder/Tribune Information Services.

Need to map

  Comments  

Videos

Democrats announce Green New Deal

Sen. McConnell says Trump will sign spending bill and declare a national emergency

View More Video

Trending Stories

‘It is time to complete that revolution’: Sanders says he’s running for president

February 19, 2019 07:00 AM

Texas GOP searches for candidate to take on Colin Allred

February 19, 2019 05:00 AM

Stacey Abrams: ‘Incompetence’ led to voting rights suppression effort

February 19, 2019 10:20 AM

Trump slams California’s ‘fast train’ as Gavin Newsom leads 16 states suing over border wall

February 19, 2019 10:46 AM

Operative at center of NC election fraud hearing won’t testify

February 18, 2019 02:16 PM

Read Next

Congress

Stacey Abrams: ‘Incompetence’ led to voting rights suppression effort

By William Douglas

    ORDER REPRINT →

February 19, 2019 10:20 AM

Stacey Abrams tells congressional subcommittee of toxic environment for voting rights enforcement

KEEP READING

MORE LATEST NEWS

On offshore drilling, Mark Sanford and Joe Cunningham find their legacies are linked

Congress

On offshore drilling, Mark Sanford and Joe Cunningham find their legacies are linked

February 15, 2019 05:00 AM
McConnell’s opposition to Green New Deal comes as he backs coal

Congress

McConnell’s opposition to Green New Deal comes as he backs coal

February 15, 2019 02:10 PM
Hawley fights subpoena: ‘The judicial process does not exist to harass public servants’

Congress

Hawley fights subpoena: ‘The judicial process does not exist to harass public servants’

February 15, 2019 10:35 AM
U.S. House committee advances bill to close ‘Charleston loophole’

Congress

U.S. House committee advances bill to close ‘Charleston loophole’

February 13, 2019 09:20 PM
Accusations of socialism drive GOP’s 2019 (and 2020) playbook

Congress

Accusations of socialism drive GOP’s 2019 (and 2020) playbook

February 13, 2019 12:00 AM
Trump and Colombian president huddle on how to get aid to Venezuelans

White House

Trump and Colombian president huddle on how to get aid to Venezuelans

February 13, 2019 03:41 PM
Take Us With You

Real-time updates and all local stories you want right in the palm of your hand.

Icon for mobile apps

McClatchy Washington Bureau App

View Newsletters

Subscriptions
  • Newsletters
Learn More
  • Customer Service
  • Securely Share News Tips
  • Contact Us
Advertising
  • Advertise With Us
Copyright
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service


Back to Story