» diabetes drugs

New Diabetes Treatment Guidelines Flawed

Dr. G. Pepper — Mon, 18 Jan 2010 20:35:45 +0000

New Diabetes Treatment Guidelines Lack Credibility:

Recently the American Academy of Clinical Endocrinologists issued new treatment guidelines for treating Type 2 Diabetes. Complex medical guidelines are often referred to as a treatment algorithm. One of the stated goals of the AACE algorithm is to focus primarily on the theoretical ability of the diabetic medications to control blood sugar while ignoring the cost of the medication. The rationale to this approach is that controlling blood sugar with more expensive drugs will cost less in the long run since patients will be healthier and have less complications due better control of the blood sugar. On the surface this philosophy seems sound but digging beneath the surface reveals dangerous flaws in this thinking.

1. The first assumption, that newer medications for diabetes are better than older drugs is unsubstantiated. In fact there is ample evidence that newer diabetic drugs are no better than the older drugs for controlling blood sugar. The latest study finding no benefit of the newer diabetes medications is the FIELD study conducted outside of the U.S. This study showed that 5 years of treatment with the older diabetic drugs (sulfonylureas, metformin and insulin) resulted in adequate and prolonged control of blood sugar. In 2007 researchers from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health summarized the results of major studies using older and newer anti-diabetic medications and found no significant benefit of the newer medications.

2. The next assumption, that cost is not a key factor in treatment success contradicts most clinicians’ experience in diabetes care. It is clear to me, that patients are far less likely to comply with using expensive drugs than medications they can more easily afford. Looking at the numbers reveals the vast cost differences between the older (generic) versus the newer (brand) medications. Using figures provided by a local pharmacy I found that the retail cost of a typical two drug therapy for diabetes using older drugs is $59 per month. The retail cost of using two of the new drugs for a month ranges from $481 to $570. In more severe diabetes three drugs per day may be needed. The low cost alternative amounts to $185 per month while the high end alternative with new drugs is $610 per month. Looking at the cost of using insulin shows a similar vast cost difference between the older and newer drugs. Older forms of insulin may cost $100 for a month’s supply while a similar course of therapy with the newer insulin preparations will cost almost $250 per month. How many people will be willing and able to afford the new versus the old drugs, particularly knowing that there may be no health benefit to the more expensive drug combination?

The end result of not being able to afford these prices is non-compliance with medications and the result of non-compliance is higher costs passed on to the medical system. The Medco study from 2005 showed that the least compliant patients were more than twice as likely to be hospitalized compared to the most compliant, and that the yearly cost of caring for non-compliant patients is double that of compliant patients.

3. My next point is possibly the most contentious. The AACE guidelines were produced by a committee of physicians chaired by two distinguished endocrinologists, Dr. Paul Jellinger and Dr. Helena Rodbard. Both doctors are highly respected and accomplished. They are also both highly compensated consultants to the pharmaceutical companies which market the newest generation of diabetes medications. In the disclaimer attached to the committee’s recommendations, both Dr. Jellinger and Dr. Rodbard admit to consulting arrangements with virtually every one of the pharmaceutical companies whose interests are effected by their committee’s findings. I too am a consultant to many of these same companies (at least, until now), but I am not responsible for developing national guidelines for diabetes care. In my opinion the close association of both committee chairmen to the pharmaceutical companies detracts heavily from the credibility of their recommendations. The need for credibility is even more important when the AACE committee advises physicians to avoid using sulfonylureas, the only class of drugs not marketed by any of the big pharma companies. and which also happens to be the cheapest drug class, the drugs with the longest history of use, and the class of drugs many regard as the most effective at lowering blood sugar levels. The sulfonylurea class of drugs is so effective at lowering blood sugar, in fact, they are used as the gold standard by which the effectiveness of all new diabetic medications are compared.

4. In contrast with the AACE, the American Diabetes Association (ADA) has issued more conservative guidelines for diabetic therapy, preserving the role of the older generic drugs. My recommendation is that AACE go back to their committee and reconsider the way they have produced their algorithm. Appointing new leadership whose credentials do not lend themselves so readily to skepticism, would be an important first step in that process.

Gary Pepper, M.D.
Editor-in-Chief, Metabolism.com

Unreasonable Standards by the FDA for New Diabetes Drug Approval?

Dr. G. Pepper — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 16:37:05 +0000

This post is the third in a series under the title: 2009. Another Troubled Year for Endocrinologists.

This year the FDA has instituted new standards for diabetes drugs coming up for approval. These new standards require that each new drug prior to approval must demonstrate the lack of any negative impact on cardiovascular (heart and blood vessel) health. While this may seem a legitimate requirement, in reality it requires thousands of patients be treated for many more years in research settings to acquire this information. So far three new diabetes medications from Takeda Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk and Bristol Myers have all been put in limbo due to delays on their approval based on the new requirements.

I would point to the case of Avandia as an example of how difficult it is to prove that a drug has negative cardiovascular effects. In 2007 an alarm was sounded by several outspoken critics, whose analysis pointed to increased cardiovascular risk from Avandia. At that time Avandia was a key diabetes medication on the market for over 5 years with millions of individuals treated. Although the diabetes community remained split on the truth of these assertions major medical organizations such as the American Diabetes Association placed a virtual ban on the use of this medication and the FDA placed its highest “black box” level warning on Avandia use. At that time the FDA was criticized widely for allowing this supposed public danger to go unrecognized for so long. Many think that it is in response to this criticism that the FDA was forced to add the new much more stringent requirements on new drug approval.

Since 2007 however, a large V.A. study (the VADT study) and the 2009 RECORD study both found no evidence of cardiovascular risk with Avandia use. The belief is growing that the FDA was initially correct in allowing Avandia to come to market, although so much negative publicity has hurt the use of Avandia and led the FDA to take a highly defensive approach to new drug approval.

Some pharmaceutical executives believe the new FDA requirements will double the cost of bringing a new drug to market. Approval of several promising new diabetes treatments has already been stalled and the companies developing new medical therapies are beginning to move diabetes treatment to the back-burner. It is likely that it will takes years to reverse this trend, if a reversal is possible at all.

Gary Pepper, M.D. Editor-in-Chief, Metabolism.com

Two More Diabetes Drugs in Trouble This Week

Gary Pepper M.D. — Fri, 19 Oct 2007 21:27:30 +0000

Two of the newest diabetes treatments suffered major set-backs this week. Endocrinologists across the U.S. received a notice today that Exubera, the inhaled form of insulin, would soon become unavailable. This is because Pfizer, the pharmaceutical giant which has sole rights for marketing Exubera has decided to end its role in selling this drug. This will effectively end the availability of Exubera and patients taking this medication will have to be switched to something else.

The reason for Pfizer’s abandonment of Exubera appears to be slow sales due to the lack of interest by consumers in using inhaled insulin. Physicians were also slow to recommend this treatment due to the difficulties in teaching patients how to use the inhaler device, and restrictions on using inhaled insulin in patients with minor lung disorders.

The second drug running into trouble this week is Byetta (highlighted in an article at metabolism.com when it first became available). Thirty cases of pancreatitis, a potentially fatal inflammation of the pancreas, have been reported in Byetta users. Of these, 7 cases seem to be linked to higher doses of Byetta while the others had other risk factors for pancreatitis. Most patients improved when Byetta use was discontinued. The FDA is requiring that a warning regarding pancreatitis be added to Byetta’s labelling. At this time it is difficult to say what restrictions will have to be placed on Byetta because of this new development, or how it will effect Byetta sales.