Oct. 7, 2005
GlaxoSmithKline Misled FDA, Doctors and Patients with Faulty Asthma
Drug
Study, Public Citizen Writes in Lancet Medical Journal
Drug Maker Included Data From Six Months After Trial Ended, Skewing
Results
WASHINGTON, D.C. - GlaxoSmithKline presented misleading results to the
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from a study of the popular asthma
drug salmeterol (Serevent, known as Advair when combined with the
steroid fluticasone), Public Citizen writes in a letter in this week's
issue of The Lancet.
In 1996, the Salmeterol Multicenter Asthma Research Trial was initiated
to study tens of thousands of asthma patients who received either
salmeterol or a placebo. The study lasted 28 weeks and showed an
increased risk of asthma-related death for those taking salmeterol. The
results have never been published, although GlaxoSmithKline presented
the interim results to the FDA in July 2003, when the drug came up for
review before the FDA's Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee. The
company submitted final study data to the FDA on August 29, 2003.
However, that data included adverse events that were reported six
months
after the trial ended and were not to be included, according to the
original study protocol. The inclusion of the post-study data reduced
the apparent dangers of salmeterol with respect to four critical study
outcomes, including asthma-related death.
GlaxoSmithKline did not clearly inform the FDA that the final study
included data from six months after the trial had concluded until the
FDA inquired about the results in April 2004. The FDA had presumed the
data were only from the 28-week trial itself, since that was the
"period
of interest," according to the FDA.
Since learning of the suspicious reporting of the study results, the
FDA's Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee on July 13, 2005,
recommended strengthening the warning on the labels for both Servent
and
Advair, but the agency has yet to make a final decision. Public Citizen
learned of the misleading data presentation from materials provided to
the advisory committee.
"The behavior of GlaxoSmithKline in submitting these faulty data is
deplorable," said Dr. Peter Lurie, deputy director of Public Citizen's
Health Research Group and co-author of the letter. "Absent greater
transparency at the FDA, we will never know how often this kind of
self-serving data analysis occurs."
Public Citizen listed Serevent as a "Do Not Use" drug in its Worst
Pills, Best Pills newsletter (www.worstpills.org) in March 2003 because
of the interim study results.
Salmeterol was dispensed more than 2.1 million times in U.S. pharmacies
in 2004. The combination product, Advair, was dispensed more than 16.1
million times in U.S. pharmacies that year.
###
jackmallory@webtv.net - 05 Nov 2005 04:27 GMT
The pitch we get is that the Salmeterol is ok when used in combinaion
with a steroid, for example fluticasone, which makes the blockbuster
combination Advair.
Glaxo making zillions on Advair worldwide. Most users seem to swear by
it. I'd sure be interested in seeing adverse Advair numbers if they
exist.
............One of the Pulmicort Faithful.
Alison Chaiken - 05 Nov 2005 04:46 GMT
> GlaxoSmithKline Misled FDA, Doctors and Patients with Faulty Asthma
> Drug Study, Public Citizen Writes in Lancet Medical Journal
As far as I can tell by googling, the Public Citizen information
appears on Public Citizen's web site, www.citizen.org. I cannot find
it on Lancet's web site:
"Your search - serevent "public citizen" site:thelancet.com - did not
match any documents."
Public Citizen is not a medical group. Their claim to have published
in _Lancet_ is unsubstantiated. While I'm sure Dave had the best of
intentions in posting this article, I'm not so sure about Public
Citizen's intentions. There's no information at citizen.org about
who's on the board of the organization.
All this is not to say that Glaxo may not have done something nasty.

Signature
Alison Chaiken "From:" address above is valid.
(650) 236-2231 [daytime] http://www.wsrcc.com/alison/
Predators fail often; prey fail only once. -- Tom Evslin
00doc - 05 Nov 2005 15:37 GMT
http://www.citizen.org/publications/release.cfm?ID=7404&secID=1657&catID=126
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/section?volume=366&issue=9493§ion=C
orrespondence
Looks like it is the first one.

Signature
00doc
00doc - 05 Nov 2005 15:50 GMT
For what it is worth it seems that things are moving toward a trial registry
where all human trials will have to be registered before they start and
inlcude all the design information. This should make it easier to tell what
is not being published and when the protocols have been altered or
selectively reported. There is also a movement to mandate that all the data
be made available even if the study is not published.
So there is a problem, it is recognized, it is being solved. It just takes
some time. Rome wasn't built in a day and all that.

Signature
00doc
Richard Friedel - 08 Nov 2005 08:28 GMT
Dear Dr. Issh,
I once attended a talk by a State Department official and was surpirsed
to hear of the necessity for a "fundamental mistrust" (I''ve forgotten
the exact wording used) regarding politicians.
Should not the need for such mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry
also become part of the spirit of the times? The trick of keeping
quiet about unfavorable research results is porbably just one of many
present and future tricks.
After all we speak of "medical opinion" (like legal opinion) and not
of "geographical opinion" where knowlege (in geography, namely) is
truly cumulative. Although the ideas of "altmed" are often just plain
silly, considering an alternative approach (which is most likely
nonsense) may be a good mental exercise. Too much of the science in
the pharamaceutical industry seems to be outwitting the public by spin
doctoring etc. Regards, Richard Friedel
00doc - 08 Nov 2005 17:54 GMT
> Dear Dr. Issh,
> I once attended a talk by a State Department official and was surpirsed
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Should not the need for such mistrust of the pharmaceutical industry
> also become part of the spirit of the times?
Yes.
> The trick of keeping
> quiet about unfavorable research results is porbably just one of many
> present and future tricks.
Surely it is. But you have to understand that they are businesses. They
are in this to sell products and you wouldn't expect them to point out
the downsides any more than you would expect a car company to point out
that they get lower gas mileage and break down more often.
Peer review was supposed to keep that stuff in line but it obviously
doesn't work. They've done a lot with limiting "gag clauses" etc but
that was not enough. A trials registry will help quite a bit but it
still won't be the whole answer. Right now it is being spear-headed by
the journal editors so it will only affect research that someone hopes
to one day publish. A lot of the stuff is done by the drug companies,
presented to the FDA and never published. Really, the government should
step in and mandate it for all human trials done in this country or
where the data will be presented to this country (like to the FDA).
There is some talk that they may do that.
Of course, none of this will affect studies done in such a way as to
stack the results or how the data is presented. To detect flawed
designs and presentations people will just need to pay attention.
Unfortunately, the FDA does not have a great track records for that.
> After all we speak of "medical opinion" (like legal opinion) and not
> of "geographical opinion" where knowlege (in geography, namely) is
> truly cumulative.
The line between fact and opinion is blurred in every area of science.
They all have cummulative knowledge and they all have areas of
controversy. Law is different since the fundamental rules are
determined by man and change regularly.
> Although the ideas of "altmed" are often just plain
> silly, considering an alternative approach (which is most likely
> nonsense) may be a good mental exercise. Too much of the science in
> the pharamaceutical industry seems to be outwitting the public by spin
> doctoring etc. Regards, Richard Friedel
I don't think that the problems with conventional research bolters the
case for alt meds. If anything it shows that anyone trying to sell a
product should be distrusted to some extent. You don't really think
that the company sellling herbs or breathing techniques instruction is
any more altruistic than Pfizer, do you? The difference is that the
surveillance system for conventional meds, although highly flawed, at
least exists and is improving.
Imagine what things would be like if the pharmaceutical industry was
totally unregulated. That is what you have now with alt med. My biggest
problem with alternative treatments is not so much that they don't work
(some certainly do) buyt, rather, that every study I have seen on the
products shows that it is hard to find one that has what it says it has
in it. So if you can't even count on the bottle to have the med what
good are the studies showing it works?