Skip to main content

FDA Restricts Use of Diabetes Drug Avandia

FDA Decides Not to Ban Avandia, but Puts Restrictions on How It’s Used.
By Daniel J. DeNoon
WebMD Health News

Sept. 23, 2010 -- The FDA will not ban Avandia -- but stringent restrictions will make it far harder for doctors to prescribe the safety-troubled diabetes drug.

The European Medicines Agency took harsher action. European sales of Avandia-containing drugs will be suspended over the next few months, although the agency did not formally withdraw approval.

The 600,000 U.S. patients currently taking Avandia can continue to take the drug only if their doctors officially attest that their patients understand the risks, that the drug is helping them, and that no other diabetes drug can keep their blood sugar under control.

New Avandia prescriptions can only be written for patients who, for medical reasons, cannot take Actos. Actos, a diabetes medication in the same class as Avandia, does not cause the heart problems linked to Avandia.

"Avandia will be available to new patients only if they cannot achieve [blood sugar] control on other agents and cannot take Actos," FDA commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, MD, said at a news conference. "Current patients can continue taking Avandia only if they benefit and understand the risks."

Avandia maker GlaxoSmithKline will be required to establish a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) program. Patients, their doctors, and their pharmacists will have to enroll in the program in order to receive, prescribe, or sell Avandia.

Avandia Heart Risks Clouded by Uncertainty

Hamburg admitted that FDA experts are split over how to interpret the scientific evidence suggesting that Avandia damages the heart. Both Avandia and Actos increase the risk of heart failure. But evidence suggests that only Avandia increases risk of heart attack.

Janet Woodcock, MD, director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, noted that an FDA advisory panel last July split over the issue of whether the evidence proved Avandia unsafe.

"In and outside the agency there is mostly agreement on the facts, but not on the weight of the safety analysis," Woodcock said at the news conference. "This has resulted in different conclusions, not only inside FDA but among outside experts. This reflects uncertainty in the science that tells us whether or not Avandia causes these problems."

Questions about Avandia heart safety should have been answered by the RECORD study, which Avandia maker GlaxoSmithKline conducted at the behest of the European drug agency. This study found Avandia to be safe, but critics have lambasted the study's poor design. Moreover, an FDA analysis suggests that the study failed to investigate all possible heart attacks in study patients.

Today's FDA action will require GlaxoSmithKline to convene a panel of independent scientists to review the RECORD data. That review may cause the FDA to lift the new Avandia restrictions -- or to ban the drug.

The FDA today also officially ended a study called TIDE, which was directly comparing Avandia and Actos. The FDA decided that the study, which already had been suspended, posed too much risk to participants.

In a statement, GlaxoSmithKline says it "continues to believe that Avandia is an important treatment for patients with type 2 diabetes," but that it will work with the FDA and the European Medicines Agency to implement their decisions.

Thank you, WebMD

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Registration of herbal trials in CTRI is not mandatory

A trial patient visited the site complaining breathlessness and tachycardia. The investigator advised hospitalization but as subject could not afford the expenses, he refused for admission. Is this an SAE because investigator advised hospitalization? G Praveen Kumar. If the patient was not hospitalized, it does not fall into SAE criteria of hospitalization. However, it appears from your mail that the PI felt that the event was serious enough to admit the subject for treatment. This makes it an “important medical event." As per ICH E2A such event also are considered serious. See the ICH E2A excerpt below: Medical and scientific judgement should be exercised in deciding whether expedited reporting is appropriate in other situations, such as important medical events that may not be immediately life-threatening or result in death or hospitalisation but may jeopardise the patient or may require intervention to prevent one of the other outcomes listed in the defin...

Evidence for Atypical Antipsychotic Drugs Called into Question

Despite massive advertising and booming prescriptions, use and sales, the new atypical antipsychotic medications such as Seroquel and Abilify – used to treat schizophrenia , bipolar disorder, depression and other illnesses – lack sufficient evidence to support their widespread and generalized usage. This according to a new study out of the Stanford University School of Medicine and University of Chicago. In the past decade, atypical antipsychotics have rocketed past many commonly prescribed, but older antidepressant and other psychiatric medications. Although initially touted as having few side effects, followup studies have found that atypical antipsychotics have serious side effects, including significant weight gain that can lead to diabetes and heart disease. “Because these drugs have safety issues, physicians should prescribe them only when they are sure patients will get substantial benefits,” said Randall Stafford, M.D., Ph.D., a Stanford associate pro...

In India, there is no separate guidance on pregnancy reporting

How will we conclude that the subject is illiterate? Dr Prakash Atlam The guidelines don’t use the term illiterate. Their focus is subject’s ability to read and/or write. Schedule Y treats anyone who is unable to read or write in the same way. See the excerpt below. If the subject or his/her legally acceptable representative is unable to read/write - an impartial witness should be present during the entire informed consent process who must append his/her signatures to the consent form. While designing a protocol we found that there are high likely chances of worsening of some of the symptoms. Do we have to wait for these to happen and report it as SAE or in case we define them in the protocol upfront then can we prevent from expediting reporting it as SAE? Om Please see suggested guidance from ICH. Exemption from reporting such events would require prior agreement with regulatory authorities. ICH E3 12.2.2 Display of Adverse Events: All adverse events occurrin...