Pink Sheet is part of Informa PLC

This site is operated by a business or businesses owned by Informa PLC and all copyright resides with them. Informa PLC’s registered office is 5 Howick Place, London SW1P 1WG. Registered in England and Wales. Number 8860726.

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use. For high-quality copies or electronic reprints for distribution to colleagues or customers, please call +44 (0) 20 3377 3183

Printed By

UsernamePublicRestriction
UsernamePublicRestriction

DRUG DEVELOPMENT FOCUS ON EFFICACY WILL RESULT IN SAFER DRUGS, UK CONSULTANT TELLS DIA; MERCK REP SAYS SALES FORCE SIZE INFLUENCES NUMBER OF ADR REPORTS

Executive Summary

A shift in the focus of drug development studies toward more precisely defining drug uses could reduce product safety problems, Geoffrey Venning, a consultant to the drug industry in Buckinghamshire, U.K., asserted at the Drug Information Assn.'s annual meeting in Washington, D.C. June 5. Maintaining that in drug regulatory agencies around the world "the emphasis has shifted from efficacy to safety, stimulated by recent withdrawals" of drug products, Venning stated that "we should focus on benefit/risk [ratios] rather than safety . . . and shift the emphasis back to relative efficacy." By increasing the focus on the efficacy, he asserted, more accurate safety profiles would be achieved. Venning contended that "if we develop more useful drugs and establish precisely their necessary indications -- get the dose right, etc. -- we can minimize . . . potentially lethal 'type A' pharmacologically determined adverse effects." In addition, Venning asserted, with reduced "type A" adverse events, "the very, very rare 'type B' idiosyncratic problems will often prove acceptable in the context of the drug's . . . quantified benefits." Sales Reps Are More Dependable ADR Reporters Than MDs, Merck Experience Shows The British consultant was one of eight panel members asked to address the topic "Achieving International Consensus on Standards for Safety." Other panel members included representatives from drug regulatory agencies in Finland, Italy, Sweden, London, and the U.S., as well as a representative from the World Health Organization and a spokesman from Merck. Discussing the accuracy of the U.S. spontaneous adverse drug reaction (ADR) reporting system, Merck Regulatory Affairs Exec Director Kenneth Given, MD, commented that the number of ADR reports submitted to FDA on a particular drug, and any safety judgments based on those reports, are affected by the size of a company's sales force and the resulting amount of sales rep/physician contact. Maintaining that ADRs are underreported in the U.S., Given asserted that "the degree of underreporting will decrease as contracts between prescribing physicians and the mfrs. increase." The Merck exec asserted that "if you were to take two companies, one that had a large sales force with frequent physician visits, and the other a very small sales force with few, if any, physician visits, and the two companies were given the identical drug to market, the one with the large sales force would receive substantially more adverse experience reports." Given noted that in a recent sample of Merck ADR reports the company found that 58% of the reports "resulted from physician contacts with Merck professional representatives." A second variable affecting the number of submitted ADR reports, Given suggested, is the company's directions to sales reps on how to handle reports. "If reps are required to file the reports themselves, there will be less underreporting than if the company requires only that the rep leave an adverse experience report form with the physician or ask that the physician call the company headquarters," he said. Given noted that "at Merck we require our professional reps to file a report and also to leave a report with physicians to complete." Merck has found, Given said, "that in nearly 50% of the cases the physicians do not spontaneously complete and return the forms that have been left with them." Because "differences in size or procedures could lead to differences in reporting or under-reporting," Given maintained, "the size of a company's field force should be taken into consideration when evaluating reports in the spontaneous system." He noted that currently "the regulatory agency will react to the number of reports without attempting to evaluate differences between companies."

You may also be interested in...



Part D Discount Liability Coming Into Focus: CMS Releases Drug Cost Data

Newly released Medicare Part D data sheds light on the sales hit that branded pharmaceutical manufacturers will face when the coverage gap discount program gets under way in 2011

FDA Skin Infections Guidance Spurs Debate On Endpoint Relevance

FDA appears headed for a showdown with clinicians and the pharmaceutical industry over the proposed new clinical trial endpoints for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections, the guidance's approach for justifying a non-inferiority margin and proposed changes in the types of patients that should be enrolled in trials

Shire Hopes To Sow Future Deals With $50M Venture Fund

Specialty drug maker Shire has quietly begun scouting deals with a brand-new $50 million venture fund, the latest of several in-house investment arms to launch with their parent company's pipelines, not profits, as the measure of their worth

UsernamePublicRestriction

Register

LL1134420

Ask The Analyst

Ask the Analyst is free for subscribers.  Submit your question and one of our analysts will be in touch.

Your question has been successfully sent to the email address below and we will get back as soon as possible. my@email.address.

All fields are required.

Please make sure all fields are completed.

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please make sure you have filled out all fields

Please enter a valid e-mail address

Please enter a valid Phone Number

Ask your question to our analysts

Cancel