Problems at FDA Prompting Slowdowns in Development

Should patients accept this?


By Kelly Close,Close Concerns

Reprinted with permission from Close Concerns

The New Year is always a good time for a call to action, and the diabetes community certainly has a long bill of particulars that should be addressed: better access to care, greater reimbursement for doctors and educators, larger investments in prevention, a reduction in complications, an improvement in lifestyles, greater subsidy for healthy food (i.e. vegetables and fruits), and the list goes on.

If an outcry is needed, let's make an outcry, and we'll start with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA)! Please help the FDA help us by signing a petition that you want more patient input and reasonable rules - see

The FDA, an agency responsible for $1 trillion worth of products in the US economy, had an extremely difficult year in 2008 concerning its regulation of diabetes drugs and technology.  In particular, the FDA and the Division of Metabolism and Endocrinology Products (which oversees diabetes therapies) has been under intense scrutiny from Congress and attendant media.

To top this all off, the FDA has been underfunded, understaffed, second-guessed, and pressured from several sides. Predictably, they have responded by retreating into a stance of extreme caution and attention to safety regardless of future cost, development and innovation. What is missing and what should matter most is patient benefit.

It is time to bring patient needs for effective new medicines back into the spotlight. We believe that the new rules the FDA has established will impair research and innovation into diabetes medications and devices. We advocate for safety, but the pendulum has swung too far, and the people who have the most to lose are the patients. Patients, we need to make our needs known!

The FDA's most recent move causes us particular concern. The FDA has sent a letter to companies developing new diabetes drugs requiring a cardiovascular meta-analysis study based on phase 2 and phase 3 data to ensure that there is no cardiovascular signal. The new requirements are based on recommendations from an FDA Endocrinologic and Metabolic Drugs Advisory Committee meeting July 1-2, 2008. The argument, which was presented most avidly to the panel by Dr. Steven Nissen, goes as follows: "We already have diabetes drugs that lower blood sugar. Two thirds of people with type 2 diabetes die from cardiovascular disease. Therefore, we should require new diabetes drugs to prove that they do not increase the risk of cardiovascular disease."

We disagree with the premise. diaTribe was at the meeting and noticed that only two individuals voted against the move: the sole FDA patient representative (Rebecca Killion is one incredible patient advocate) along with a leading smart-as-a-whip pediatrician from Emory, Dr. Eric Felner. Everyone else voted for it although some said the language was confusing and that they did not really understand what they were voting on. We thought the patient representative had it right – she said she did not want innovation slowed. Quite simply, we do not have sufficient diabetes drugs.

While clearly nobody wants diabetes drugs to be approved that increase cardiovascular risk, we think that the requirements outlined by the FDA will chill the development of new diabetes drugs and do very little for patient safety. The worry is that it will increase costs for phase 2 and phase 3 trials based on the number of cardiovascular events needed to prove to the FDA that there is no worrying signal. As Dr. Thomas Fleming stated, "In diabetes, there may be a baseline cardiovascular event rate of 20/1000 patient-years. If a study drug increased cardiovascular risk to 25, this difference of 20 vs 25 event rates per thousand person years would require a trial including an enormous 40,000 patient years to show that the drug increased cardiovascular risk." We believe this move by the FDA may stymie a whole new generation of diabetes drugs that do not have the necessary funding.

Ironically, by slowing the development of new drugs, this plan will encourage the use of older drugs such as sulfonylureas, which are the only drug class that has been shown to increase cardiovascular risk (University Group Diabetes Program).

Page: 1 | 2

Last Modified Date: July 02, 2013

All content on is created and reviewed in compliance with our editorial policy.

More on this Topic

No items are associated with this tag

Sign up for FREE dLife Newsletters

dLife Membership is FREE! Get exclusive access, free recipes, newsletters, savings, and much more! FPO

You are subscribed!
You are subscribed!
You are subscribed!
2235 Views 0 comments
by Brenda Bell
As I mentioned in an earlier post, one of the benefits that made it cost-effective for me to go with the real healthcare (HSA) plan rather than the phony (HRA) plan is that my company is now covering "preventative" medicines at $0 copay. The formulary for these, as stated by CVS/Caremark (my pharmacy benefits provider), covers all test strips, lancets, and control solutions. I dutifully get my doctor to write up prescriptions for all of my testing needs, submit...
  • Watch dLifeTV online now!

    Click here for more info