* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Download Benton Daly (Fall `10 file)
Survey
Document related concepts
Polysubstance dependence wikipedia , lookup
Orphan drug wikipedia , lookup
Adherence (medicine) wikipedia , lookup
Pharmacognosy wikipedia , lookup
Pharmaceutical marketing wikipedia , lookup
Compounding wikipedia , lookup
Neuropharmacology wikipedia , lookup
Theralizumab wikipedia , lookup
Drug design wikipedia , lookup
Drug interaction wikipedia , lookup
Drug discovery wikipedia , lookup
List of off-label promotion pharmaceutical settlements wikipedia , lookup
Pharmaceutical industry wikipedia , lookup
Pharmacokinetics wikipedia , lookup
Transcript
1 Avandia: Legal and Ethical Issues November 15, 2010 PHI 300, Section 2 2 In the pharmaceutical field, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has been a leader in developing drugs for treatment and prevention of diseases. One of GSK’s major products is the drug Avandia, which has been under scrutiny by the FDA for the past few years. ”Avandia, a blockbuster drug used to treat type 2 diabetes, is at risk of being pulled by American safety regulators because of ongoing concerns over its connection to heart attacks” (Drummond, 2010, para 1). I will argue that GSK knew of the harmful side effects and risks associated with Avandia, and the company continued to market and distribute the medication to increase company profit. Avandia is the trade name for Rosiglitazone Maleate, an anti-diabetic drug which is part of the Thiazolidinediones classification. Avandia decreases glucose levels by increasing target cell response to insulin in Type 2 diabetes. It improves tissue sensitivity to insulin, thus reducing cell resistance. It also suppresses hepatic glucose production. Avandia works best in conjunction with diet in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes. The drug is often combined with metformin, another oral anti-diabetic drug (Pearson Nurse’s Drug Guide, 2010). The major pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has experienced a drop in profits in the third quarter due to several factors. One factor includes cautious health care spending which is related to the new U.S. heath care reform and European price cuts. The second factor is decreased use of the drug Avandia by consumers because of the restrictions to this drug and concern over the risk of heart attacks. GSK also disclosed in its report that the company has been subpoenaed by U.S. officials concerning their drug Avandia. The basis of the inquiry is concern for the way GSK has been marketing and developing Avandia (Whalen, 2010). Since 2007 there have been many 3 cases of heart attack and strokes associated with patients who were taking Avandia. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has required GSK to put more warnings of the drug’s risks on the bottle. The FDA also conducted a study where they discovered that a person who takes Avandia is 43% more at risk for a heart attack. GSK stood strong by its product though. They conducted an internal study and the results were,” The drug works, and the benefits outweigh the risks” (Drummond, 2010, para 6). The controversy about Avandia has hurt GSK’s profits due to legal cases. Since the public has been made aware of the risks of Avandia, GSK has experienced about 13,000 legal challenges. The company also had to pay over sixty million dollars to settle these cases. Earlier this year a Senate Finance Committee report suggested GSK knew about the increased risk of cardiac problems associated with Avandia, and had this information for several years. The company also minimized the importance of the information to physicians who had concerns about the medication and were still prescribing the drug (Whalen, 2010). There are many reasons why GSK is ethically wrong in the decisions they are making with Avandia. The key issue that GSK has in this case is that they were aware of the health risks associated with taking Avandia. The most devastating fact is that they might have known about the health risks when Avandia was first introduced over eleven years ago. As mentioned previously, GSK knowingly understated the risks associated with Avandia. Therefore many physicians continued to prescribe the medication to their Type 2 diabetic patients. Avandia proved to be a drug that was beneficial to diabetics for glucose control and it has been widely used with good results. This current information about the risks of cardiac events is a major setback for both patients and physicians who found the drug to be effective. GSK has a moral responsibility to disclose to the public all 4 the information from their studies of Avandia. They broke their responsibility to their consumers by downplaying vital information. The company should have been forthcoming when they first learned about the possible risks; instead, the information was only revealed when the FDA prompted them to reveal the facts and put additional warning labels on Avandia medication bottles. According to an article in the New York Times, Dr. David Graham, a drug safety officer at the FDA, “called for withdrawing the drug and estimated that its toxic effects on the heart had caused up to 205,000 heart attacks and strokes, some fatal, from 1999 to 2006. For every month Avandia is sold, Dr. Graham said, 1,600 to 2,200 patients will suffer more of those problems” (Harris, 2007). Trust is a major component in the relationship between the consumer and the product. Patients rely on their physicians to prescribe the best drug for their illness, and physicians rely on the drug company to develop and supply a safe drug. There has been a major breakdown in this connection from consumer to physician to manufacturer. It seems that GSK was only concerned for making a profit. It is morally wrong for a company to only be concerned about the “bottom line” when a person’s life can be jeopardized by using a medication without full disclosure of risks. In defense of GSK, they have been a leader in research and development for diabetes medication. Avandia has proven to be effective in treatment of Type 2 diabetes. The question now is should people stop taking the drug completely? Are the benefits greater than the risks? The FDA recently voted to allow Avandia to stay on the market in America with specific restrictions. These restrictions ensure that physicians and patients are aware of the complications that could develop with taking Avandia. The drug will be available to new patients only if other diabetic drugs were unsuccessful in controlling 5 blood glucose levels. New patients taking Avandia will have to sign a consent form which acknowledges the possible risks (Salahi, 2010). Drug companies and the FDA cannot be blamed for everything. “Since diabetics are already predisposed to heart risks it is extremely difficult to tell which heart attacks are drug-related and which are simply caused by the disease” (Perrone, 2010). It is hard to tell which patients had these heart complications while taking Avandia. The general public is quick to blame the medicine for the problem that occurs without actually looking into the situation fully. GSK also has an obligation to make profits by marketing and selling their product. The company has a duty to the shareholders to make as much money possible to increase the price of the company’s stock. To ensure this happens, GSK has to protect their product from being removed from the market. In conclusion, the defenses for GSK are not plausible. The company should have been upfront with everyone from the beginning. It does not make it right to be forced to put restrictions on the drug years after it was introduced on the market. GSK also should have implemented consent forms to new patients taking Avandia from early on. The health of these diabetes patients should have been their number one concern. Patients rely on drug manufacturers to provide them a drug that will increase their health, not make it worse. GSK was mainly focused on making money at any costs. Most big businesses will defend the fact that they need to make money to keep the shareholders happy. A business cannot put a price on someone’s life. That is exactly what GSK did in the Avandia case. They were only looking out for their best interest. 6 References Drummond, K. (2010) All about Avandia: 6 things to know about the controversial diabetes drug. Retrieved on November 12, 2010, from http://www.aolnews.com/article/avandia-key-questions-about-the-controversialdiabetes-drug-answered/19551984 Harris, G. (2007). Diabetes drug backed, but with warnings. Retrieved on November 13, 2010 from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/31/health/31drug.html?_r=1&ref=avandiadrug Perrone, M. (2010). FDA panel votes to keep Avandia on the market. Retrieved on November 13, 2010 from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38240727/ns/healthdiabetes/ Salahi, L. (2010). Avandia stays, but only for some diabetes patients. Retrieved on November 13, 2010 from http://abcnews.go.com/Health/DiabetesNews/fdarestricts-avandia-patients/story?id=11709403 Whalen, J (2010, October 22). Glaxo Subpoenaed on Avandia in U.S. The Wall Street Journal, pp. B4. Wilson, B., Shannon, M., and Shields, K. (2010). Pearson Nurse’s Drug Guide 2010. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.