• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

'Cures' bill raises safety concerns for experts 6/7/15 Washington Examiner

*GG*

senior member
Messages
6,389
Location
Concord, NH
Medical devices and drugs could reach your hands faster if a massive House bill is approved, but leading experts question whether they will be safe.

Two medical experts are concerned several provisions in the bipartisan 21st Century Cures Act may unnecessarily speed up product approvals at the expense of thorough reviews for safety and effectiveness.

"Changing the Food and Drug Administration's standards to get more drugs on the market is inherently risky to patients," Dr. Aaron S. Kesselheim, associate professor of medicine with Harvard Medical School, told the Washington Examiner.

Kesselheim, with Harvard professor Dr. Jerome Avorn, wrote an editorial in the New England Journal of Medicine that criticizes parts of the measure.

The bill was unanimously approved by the House Energy and Commerce Committee last month and awaits a vote from the full chamber. That vote could happen as early as next month, Committee Chairman Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., and Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., told the Examiner.

cont'd

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/cures-bill-raises-safety-concerns-for-experts/article/2565734
 

*GG*

senior member
Messages
6,389
Location
Concord, NH
Since it is being brought to us by the US gov't, probably not much for the money spent! LOL

Like Pharma wants to CURE disease, then they would have fewer customers!

I think only time will tell, some of the implications is probably letting dying patients try drugs that are in the pipeline. Seems reasonable to me!

GG
 

sarah darwins

Senior Member
Messages
2,508
Location
Cornwall, UK
Well, that's confusing. From the article:

More than two-thirds of new drugs are approved based on data from trials that last six months or less, according to the opinion piece, which cited a separate study of clinical trial data from 2005-12.

In addition, a third of new drugs are approved on the basis of a single trial, the average size of which is about 760 patients, the authors wrote [Kesselheim and Avorn in a New England Journal of Medicine editorial].

"Once the FDA starts its review, it approves new medications about as quickly as any regulatory agency in the world, evaluating nearly all new drug applications within six to 10 months," the article reads.

That evidence juxtaposes a study from Tufts University that found it costs more than $2 billion and takes a decade to get a drug to market.

I had always understood something like the later to be the case — ie. it takes many years and vast sums of money to get a new drug to market. If Kesselheim and Avorn are correct, the drug companies may have been fibbing just a teeny bit. Who knew?

It would be nice to get the truth of this.
 

WillowJ

คภภเє ɠรค๓թєl
Messages
4,940
Location
WA, USA
The authors were pleased, however, that the House gives the National Institutes of Health $10 billion and the FDA $550 million in new funding over five years.

New money (for research for unmet needs?) at least sounds like good news.

"...we took our time drafting the 21st Century Cures Act, worked very closely with the top officials at FDA and included leaders from across all facets of healthcare innovation in our effort."

"All facets of healthcare innovation"? Who is and is not included in that? I also feel confused.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
I think only time will tell, some of the implications is probably letting dying patients try drugs that are in the pipeline. Seems reasonable to me!
That has usually been an accepted practice though I think there are a lot of hurdles which are country and possibly even state dependent. If you are dying then some chance might be better than no chance.
 

*GG*

senior member
Messages
6,389
Location
Concord, NH
That has usually been an accepted practice though I think there are a lot of hurdles which are country and possibly even state dependent. If you are dying then some chance might be better than no chance.

No, I don't think it is an accepted practice. I remember of a young married couple, the wife had Cancer, if I recall correctly, and had less than a year to live. She died and never received the drug that was in the pipeline, that might have helped.

GG
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
No, I don't think it is an accepted practice. I remember of a young married couple, the wife had Cancer, if I recall correctly, and had less than a year to live. She died and never received the drug that was in the pipeline, that might have helped.

GG
That comes down to hurdles and barriers. It is probably something that is widely done, but it isn't easy to do. Furthermore by the time you figure out all the barriers and how to work around them you could be dead. To complicate matters its often the case that the drug companies require patients to enroll as test subjects. Its not just given without strings. You might also have to pay for the treatment, which will not be covered by insurance.

Take Ampligen for example. Lots of patients were on that outside of existing trials organized trials, and probably still are. Maybe someone still getting Ampligen can comment.
 

sarah darwins

Senior Member
Messages
2,508
Location
Cornwall, UK
@sarah darwins

I could be wrong but I think the approval times are after all the years of studies, ect.

OK, I think I understand. So there are two different things here — the development time and the official approval process. It sounds a bit like this bill is aimed at lowering the bar in the second part. I have no idea if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Or both.
 

*GG*

senior member
Messages
6,389
Location
Concord, NH
LOL, I would say less time for approval is better, bureaucracies kill more people than they help!

GG