Quantcast
Get breaking news alerts via email

Click here to manage your alerts
FDA considers lifting safety limits on diabetes drug Avandia

First Published Jun 03 2013 08:02 am • Last Updated Jun 03 2013 09:54 am

WASHINGTON • A former blockbuster diabetes pill which was subjected to major safety restrictions in 2010 may not be as risky as once thought, according to the latest analysis of the much-debated GlaxoSmithKline drug Avandia.

The Food and Drug Administration is reviewing a new interpretation of the key study of Avandia’s heart attack risks, which suggests the drug is as safe as older diabetes drugs. At a highly unusual meeting this week, the FDA will ask a panel of experts to vote on a range of options for the drug, including lifting restrictions on its use.

Join the Discussion
Post a Comment

The positive safety review from Duke University researchers is the latest twist in a years-long debate over Avandia, which has divided medical experts, cost Glaxo billions of dollars and possibly resulted in an unknown number of patient heart attacks.

First approved in 1999, Avandia became the top-selling diabetes pill in the world by 2006 with sales of $3.4 billion. But prescriptions plummeted the following year after an analysis of dozens of studies suggested Avandia could raise the risk of heart attack.

For three years the FDA struggled to answer a seemingly simple question: Does Avandia increase the risk of heart attacks? A definitive answer has never been reached, in part because patients with diabetes are already predisposed to heart problems. That makes it extremely difficult to tell which heart attacks are drug-related and which are simply a result of the underlying disease.

Finally in 2010 the FDA decided to restrict the drug’s use to all but the rarest of cases. Regulators in Europe banned the drug outright.

FDA critics have speculated that the real purpose of this week’s meeting is to vindicate FDA officials who kept Avandia on the market for so many years. They say regulators appear poised to roll back safety limits on the drug.

"It’s the wrong reason to take a regulatory action," said Dr. Steven Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic, who authored the 2007 analysis that first raised public safety concerns about Avandia.

"You want to take a regulatory action because it’s going to benefit patients. I don’t see how patients could possibly benefit from lifting these regulatory restrictions."

Nissen says he requested time to make a presentation during the meeting but was turned down by FDA officials.


story continues below
story continues below

The FDA says Wednesday and Thursday’s meeting was prompted by a new analysis of the lone study of Avandia’s heart risks. Known as RECORD, the study followed 4,400 patients and tracked rates of heart attack, hospitalization and death for six years.

The results were first reported in 2009 and medical experts have been debating their legitimacy ever since.

At the last Avandia panel meeting in 2010, FDA leadership generally backed RECORD’s findings that Avandia appeared as safe as other standard diabetes drugs. But FDA staff scientists said the study was unreliable because of underreported heart attacks and other design flaws. Because of that disagreement the FDA asked Glaxo to obtain an independent analysis by an outside party.

The new analysis by the Duke Clinical Research Institute generally supports Glaxo’s original findings. In documents posted Monday, an FDA review of Duke’s analysis states: "These results show no statistically significant evidence to suggest an increased cardiovascular risk."

Despite that assessment, the agency says it "has not reached any final updated conclusions" on the heart safety of Avandia.

The FDA will seek advice from two panels comprised of outside experts in the fields of diabetes and drug safety. The panelists will be asked to vote on four options for Avandia:

— Removing the drug’s safety restrictions

— Leaving the safety restrictions in place

— Modifying the safety restrictions

Next Page >


Copyright 2014 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Top Reader Comments Read All Comments Post a Comment
Click here to read all comments   Click here to post a comment


About Reader Comments


Reader comments on sltrib.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Salt Lake Tribune. We will delete comments containing obscenities, personal attacks and inappropriate or offensive remarks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. If you see an objectionable comment, please alert us by clicking the arrow on the upper right side of the comment and selecting "Flag comment as inappropriate". If you've recently registered with Disqus or aren't seeing your comments immediately, you may need to verify your email address. To do so, visit disqus.com/account.
See more about comments here.
Staying Connected
Videos
Jobs
Contests and Promotions
  • Search Obituaries
  • Place an Obituary

  • Search Cars
  • Search Homes
  • Search Jobs
  • Search Marketplace
  • Search Legal Notices

  • Other Services
  • Advertise With Us
  • Subscribe to the Newspaper
  • Login to the Electronic Edition
  • Frequently Asked Questions
  • Contact a newsroom staff member
  • Access the Trib Archives
  • Privacy Policy
  • Missing your paper? Need to place your paper on vacation hold? For this and any other subscription related needs, click here or call 801.204.6100.