[india-drug] FDA, paracetamol and 450 deaths a year

[E-drug <e-drug@usa.healthnet.org>]

[Copied from Edrug. Thanks???..SS]

E-DRUG: FDA, paracetamol and 450 deaths a year
----------------------------------------------


BMJ 2002;325:678 ( 28 September )

FDA fails to reduce accessibility of paracetamol despite 450 deaths a
year Confidential documents from the US Food and Drug Administration
suggest that the agency has avoided a debate on tough new measures to
reduce overdoses from painkillers to avoid offending the pharmaceutical
industry. Ray Moynihan reports from Washington, DC

Staff at the Food and Drug Administration's Office of Drug Safety
wanted
the United States to consider following the United Kingdom's policy of
reducing the public's ease of access to paracetamol to try to reduce
the
number of deaths from overdose, a concern in both these countries.

But the office's views never reached the FDA's non-prescription drugs
advisory committee, which met last week to consider the drug's safety.
The result was that the advisory committee recommended only that the
drug,known as acetaminophen in the United States, carry expanded safety
warnings. No change was recommended in how it is sold.

Drug company executives were delighted with the committee's decision.
"I
felt really very good," said Dr Anthony Temple, a vice president of the
Johnson & Johnson company McNeil, which dominates the market in
Paracetamol products, taken by almost 50 million Americans a week. "I'm
pleased the panel came up with the same concepts we've come up with
already."

The advisory committee was looking at the drug, which is contained in
many combination products, in an effort to reduce the accidental liver
damage it can cause when taken in overdose. In the United States, 
Paracetamol is associated with more than 100000 calls a year to poison
control centres, as well as 56000 visits to emergency departments,
26000 hospitalisations, and 450 deaths.

The FDA appoints outside expert members to its advisory committees, and
before meetings it provides them with background documents and lists of
questions, in an effort to seek informed recommendations on important
decisions about drug approval or regulation.

In the case of last week's hearing, after eight hours of what were at
times confused, uncertain, and vague deliberations, the FDA advisory
committee simply recommended changes to labelling and better consumer
education about paracetamol (marketed in the United States as Tylenol).
These are initiatives in which the manufacturer is already engaged.
Asked whether the recommendations could have been worse, Dr Temple
responded instantly: "Absolutely it could have been a lot worse."

The FDA advisers did not seriously consider following the lead of the
United Kingdom and some other countries, which have introduced measures
to restrict the numbers of tablets per pack and replacing bottles full
of loose pills with "blister packs." The option was not even suggested
for consideration by FDA officers appearing before the advisory
committee despite the fact that tentative evidence indicates that such
reforms in the United Kingdom may have significantly reduced the number
of drug related poisonings, liver transplantations, and deaths (BMJ
2001;322:1203-7)[Abstract/Full Text].

The reforms in the United Kingdom have also led to a substantial
reduction in annual sales of tablets containing paracetamol and
paracetamol compounds, from 123 billion to 84 billion.

Behind the closed doors of the FDA, in the lead up to the meeting,
staff
from the Office of Drug Safety had suggested that the advisory
committee
should consider the measures that the United Kingdom took. A
confidential draft document reveals that the Office of Drug Safety also
wanted the advisory panel to discuss whether the "maximum tablet
strength should be decreased," whether "combination products be
reformulated without acetaminophen," and whether there was "a need to
standardize the various paediatric formulations."

The advisers never saw that draft, however, and none of these key
options ended up being clearly presented to the committee by the FDA in
the final list of questions they were to consider.

Acknowledging an unusual level of confusion throughout the hearings,
the
advisory committee's chairman, Dr Lou Cantilena, said in an interview
afterwards that the questions supplied by the FDA were too vague. "The
committee would have preferred more focused questions," he said.

According to one FDA insider, the draft questions were dropped because
senior FDA managers saw them as too offensive to Johnson & Johnson.
Asked about this alleged corporate influence within the FDA, Dr
Cantilena smiled and said he did not want to speculate.

In an interview last Friday, FDA spokesman Dr John Jenkins said he was
not aware of the draft questions from the Office of Drug Safety but
said that FDA managers had opted to give the advisory committee more
open ended, rather than yes/no-type, questions.
At one point, when the committee's deliberations drifted towards
consideration of the United Kingdom changes, another FDA manager, Dr
Charles Ganley, effectively cut off debate by strongly cautioning
advisers against such action. "It's very difficult to impose these
things," he warned. Dr Ganley is understood to have been actively
involved in rejecting the draft questions before they got to the
advisory committee.

More than 200 people attended last week's two day hearing, which
focused
first on paracetamol and then on aspirin and non-steroidal
anti-inflammatory drugs, said to be associated with more than 16000
deaths in the United States every year as a result of gastrointestinal
bleeding.
As on day 1, the recommendations on day 2 were for minor changes to
labels and more education.

Although liver damage from paracetamol is rare, its effects can be
devastating. Ms Kate Trunk told the committee meeting that her healthy
23 year old son Marcus had died after an accidental overdose, because
he had inadvertently taken several products containing the same drug.
"Death is not an acceptable side effect," she said.

The FDA's apparent timidity over reforming the marketing of the
multibillion dollar paracetamol will only add to concerns that the
regulatory agency may be too close to the companies that by law now
fund
half of its drug review work. Rejecting those concerns, Dr Temple said
the manufacturer had "shared data with the FDA, worked with them, and
talked back and forth" in the lead up to last week's meeting, but the
FDA had been "pretty arm's length on this."

The FDA refused a request by the BMJ for an interview with Dr Ganley.





________________________________________________________________________
Missed your favourite TV serial last night? Try the new, Yahoo! TV.
       visit http://in.tv.yahoo.com
The INDIA-DRUG discussion group is a partnership between SATELLIFE
(www.healthnet.org), WHO Essential Drugs and Medicines Policy
(www.who.ch), and the Delhi Society for the Promotion of the
Rational Use of Drugs (DSPRUD) in India.

To send a message to india-drug, write to: india-drug@usa.healthnet.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe, write to: majordomo@usa.healthnet.org
in the body of the message type: subscribe india-drug OR unsubscribe india-drug
To contact a person, send a message to: india-drug-help@usa.healthnet.org