Showing posts with label Avandia Actos Januvia drug approval process problems known in 2003. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Avandia Actos Januvia drug approval process problems known in 2003. Show all posts

September 9, 2008

More Evidence Connects Januvia to Cancer

Note since this post was made on 9/9/08 more research has been published which makes a stronger case that inhibiting DPP-4 is a trigger for prostate cancer and enhances the metastatic activity of ovarian, lung and melanoma cancers. To learn more about these findings and follow the citations to the published research, visit this page:

Januvia


and scroll to the section titled "Research Connecting DPP-4 and Cancer."

Below is the original post:

======================================

An investment analyst recently sent me a report prepared by his firm which explored the question of whether more news about Januvia's link to cancer might have an impact on the value of the stock of a competing drug firm. The report cited Dr. Goldstein's letter to Annals of Internal Medicine, which analyzed the cancer statistics from the Phase III testing used to gain FDA approval for Januvia, and then added some new data taken from post-approval studies.

Here, taken from the investment company's report, is a chart of data presented by Januvia-maker Merck which summarizes two years of data from clinical trials as reported at the ADA 2007 conference.

[Click on the images to enlarge them]




The category that includes cancers here does not distinguish benign growths from cancers, but the text of the report points out that in fact are not broken out by type here, but in the Phase III data only one tumor out of 19 was benign. And in that study as Dr. Goldstein has explained there were 10 more cancers per thousand in the Januvia group than in the placebo group. That makes one suspect that the reason that the benign and cancerous growths were lumped together in one category is to obscure the fact that there were more cancerous growths found in this study.

Another chart provided by Merck at the same time is suggestive of this:


Here you see that there were 4 additional cases of Colon cancer in the Januvia group, and none in the placebo group. Colon cancer is one of the cancers that Dr. Goldstein pointed out have been linked to DPP-4 inhibition in previous research.

European data from an 18 month study of Galvus, another DPP-4 inhibitor that has not been approved in the U.S. but is approved for use in Europe found similar hints of a slight increase in the specific cancers that the research Dr. Goldstein flags says are those most likely to be promoted by inhibiting DDP-4.



These are not huge numbers of cancers, though for the people who got them, they were extremely significant. But when looking at this cancer data you must keep in mind that two years is a very short time in which to follow cancer incidence. A tiny but significant difference in cancer incidence at two years might well turn into a dramatic difference at ten years--if someone was to track the incidence of cancers in people taking these DPP-4 inhibiting drugs.

But given the way that aftermarketing studies have been shown to destroy the profitability of top drug, as they did for Avandia, we aren't likely to see such studies.

And because doctors are completely unaware of the linkage between Januvia and cancers it is very unlikely that they will report melanomas, prostate cancers, and colon cancers to the FDA as side effects of Januvia.

It is far more likely that these unnecessary deaths will go unnoticed. After all, doctors have already been told that people with Type 2 diabetes are more likely to develop cancer.

New data from Merck about Januvia was released at this week's EASD conference.

You can read summaries of five studies about Januvia presented at EASD from this Merck Press Release.

Note that the only side effects cited are those that occurred at a rate of 3% or higher--in at least 3 out of 100 people taking the drug.

But the rate of additional cancers that we saw in earlier reports were below that threshold. Still, assuming that the incidence difference attributable to Januvia remains at the same rate as seen in earlier studies, For every 1000 people taking Januvia, an additional 9 would contract a potentially fatal cancer.

But this statistic only becomes meaningful when you factor in how many people are actually taking Januvia. A Sept 4, 2008 press release from Decision Resources reports that "44 percent and 48 percent of surveyed endocrinologists and primary care physicians, respectively, expect to increase their first-line prescriptions for Januvia and 35 percent and 33 percent of surveyed endocrinologists and primary care physicians, respectively, expect to increase their second-line use of Januvia between 2008 and 2010."

And the Merck Press Release about the EASD presentations bragged that "More than six million total prescriptions for JANUVIA have been dispensed worldwide since launch. JANUVIA has received approval in 80 countries and is available in every region around the world."

So if 6 million people are taking Januvia, what does that 9 extra cases of cancer per thousand translate into? 54,000 people! 54,000 people who developed colon cancer, prostate cancer, ovarian cancer or melanoma because the DPP-4 which their body would have used to fight these cancers was turned off.

That's a LOT of people. Especially when you realize that it only took evidence that it had caused 155 unnecessary deaths to get Rezulin taken off the market.

And if you are one of those 54,000 people whose life is cut tragically short, it won't matter much to you that the incidence of this side effect does not rise to the 2% or 3% needed to get it included in the reports that doctors see.

The data presented at EASD showed that Januvia does lower blood sugar. But another study also showed that Byetta lowers it better. The recent bad press for Byetta linked it to 6 cases of pancreatitis, however it did not show that the rate of pancreatitis in the huge group of people taking Byetta was higher than that of the diabetic population at large. The Januvia data does compare cancer incidence in people not taking Januvia with those who were taking it, and that gives it far more credibility to my mind.

So I continue to believe that if you want to see what raising GLP-1 levels will do for your blood sugar, Byetta is a much safer alternative. Januvia raises GLP-1 by turning off DPP-4, the enzyme responsible for eliminating naturally produced GLP-1. Byetta is synthetic GLP-1 designed so that it sticks around longer than the natural stuff. With Byetta you are not messing with an enzyme (DPP-4) used throughout the body for many other, non-blood sugar related uses--like killing cells that have recently become cancerous.

And if you or a loved one do develop a cancer while taking Januvia make sure to tell your doctor about the research linking DPP-4 inhibition to cancer that Dr. Goldstein cited in his letter to Annals of Internal Medicine. And then report your case to the FDA yourself, because that is the only way that the FDA is going to learn about cancers linked to Januvia.

You can report serious side effects of FDA approved drugs here:

http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/.

I hope you will never get cancer, but sadly, given the solid research connecting DPP-4 inhibition with the promotion of cancer and the very early data emerging from these very short clinical trials of Januvia, it looks like a lot of people with diabetes who are having this drug heavily promoted to them will.

June 7, 2007

Avandia/Actos Problems Well Known in 2003

I just did a search of the alt.support.diabetes newsgroup to see when, exactly, I became aware of the significant problems with Avandia and Actos that just made the medical news this month.

It was in 2003.

Here are the side effects I posted about along with the date of the posting and the thread title in case you want to look up the old messages yourself. All postings were made under the username "Jenny." The posted text is in italics.

1. Heart Failure:

Posted on a.s.d. on Oct 24, 2003. Thread name: Metformin & Glyburide should I change meds?:

Actos and Avandia (a similar drug) have their own problems--notably a tendency to cause weight gain and worsen heart failure. Also, they have not been on the market long enough for us to really know what their long term effects might be. They are related to Rezulin which was pulled off the market after an initial success for causing a number of after-market deaths through liver failure

On Jan 18, 2004 in the thread "Problems with Actos":


Thiazolidinediones Contraindicated in Patients at Risk for Heart Failure
CME [Medscape]

News Author: Laurie Barclay, MD
CME Author: Charles Vega, MD
Release Date: December 8, 2003; Valid for credit through December 8, 2004
Dec. 8, 2003 - A joint statement from the American Heart Association (AHA) and the American Diabetes Association (ADA), published in the Dec. 9 issue of Circulation, urges physicians not to prescribe thiazolidinediones (TZDs) to patients at risk for congestive heart failure (CHF). The statement will also be published in the January 2004 issue of Diabetes Care.

The message goes on to reproduce the entire text of the CME including the warning that patients who gain more than 6.6 lbs should be watched very carefully.

The text of the article reporting the macular edema was repeated in this thread too.

2. Liver Failure.

Posted Oct 24, 2003.Thread name: Metformin & Glyburide should I change meds?:

Coincidentally, I just read an article today online on the American Academy of Family Physicians site http://www.aafp.org/afp/20010501/1747.html that said that:

"Although results from pre-marketing trials revealed no evidence of hepatotoxicity with the newer agents (rosiglitazone and pioglitazone), two recent case reports demonstrated that rosiglitazone [AVANDIA] may be associated with hepatic failure following just 14 days of therapy, although a true cause-and-effect relationship has not been established.""

3. Macular Edema.

Posted Nov. 19, 2003. Thread name: Avandia/Actos associated with Macular Edema:

From Medscape:
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/464732
November 19, 2003

Glitazone Use May Be Associated With Macular Edema in Diabetics

Karla Harby

Nov. 19, 2003 (Anaheim) - Results of a retrospective chart view suggest that glitazone use may be linked to the existence of macular edema in patients with diabetes, according to a study presented here at the annual meeting of The American Academy of Ophthalmology.
[Entire article follows]
=================

If this information was public enough in 2003 that a humble reader of newsgroups and Medscape knew about these significant side effects, why didn't doctors? The current medical press coverage makes it clear that doctors have been prescribing these drugs to people who were at known risk for heart failure.

Considering how many people have posted on the newsgroups over the years about how they experienced sudden, very intense weight gain and swelling while taking these drugs, and that they have also posted that their doctors told them to keep taking them in the hope the drug would rejuvenate beta cells, it isn't a surprise that there are "excess" deaths attributed to these drugs.

The really scary thing to me as this story unfolds is the way in which reputable medical organizations are still urging people to keep taking these drugs despite the growing evidence that they may be very harmful--and without even mentioning their contribution to Macular Edema or Osteoporosis.

A few people have emailed me that my "attitude" towards new drugs and their side effects would keep any drug from being approved, but that isn't the case at all. What my "attitude" would do is ensure that the drug approval process would:

1. Insist that drug companies be required to document in detail HOW their drug works, not, just as is the case now, that the drug works, though the cause may be mysterious or, as in the case of Avandia, attributed to causes that turn out not to be true like beta cell regeneration or redistribution of fat from the abdomen to thigh.

2. Insist that drug companies investigate more thoroughly other physiological effects of a new drug, especially those related to its mechanism.

That way approval of a drug like Januvia, that inhibits a specific enzyme would require that researchers investigate how the drug affects the OTHER known functions of the enzyme being affected and ensure that inhibiting the enzymes does not have a disastrous effect on some system besides the one the drug is being used to effect. As it is now, though we know DPP-4 plays a huge role in immune system regulation, there have been no studies to see why it is raising leucocyte counts in people taking Januvia or whether it might promote melanoma, a cancer known to be suppressed by DPP-4.

In the case of Avandia, the drug companies knew pretty early that it was growing new fat cells, but did not look at the process and learn that the new cells were being made out of bone precursor cells. They also knew of the edema but did not investigate the effects of this edema on the heart function of people who had not yet been diagnosed with heart failure. It is very possible that the large water burden these drugs add to the body cause subclinical heart failure.

Yes, this additional testing would be expensive--though nowhere near as expensive as the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on TV and press campaigns intended to get you to buy the drug or the many millions spent on enticing doctors to prescribe it. But if you or a loved one are one of the people who is going to die because of a poorly understood "side effect" of a new drug I bet you'd want that research money to be spent.

ONE LAST NOTE: AN INTERESTING POLL

http://diabetes.about.com/b/a/000114.htm

This poll taken by About.com's diabetes editor shows that 50% of those reporting that they took Avandia experienced side effects. The most common was edema, but 5% reported developing heart failure and 4% reported worsening previously diagnosed heart disease.

These numbers reflect the kinds of anecdotal reports we've long been hearing in online bulletin boards.