GlaxoSmithKline – at it again, this time Avandia drug trial results “cannot be trusted”

Avandia, once the best-selling diabetes drug in the world, is set to become a heavily restricted niche product, plastered with scary warnings, writes Matthew Herper at Forbes.com

While the majority of a panel of experts told the Food and Drug Administration that GlaxoSmithKline’s diabetes drug Avandia should remain on the market, they said it should have the most severe restrictions possible.

Several panelists blasted GlaxoSmithKline for not conducting better safety trials of its drug, forcing experts to grapple with uncertainty for two days. Many panelists said they did not trust the results of the company’s main study defending the drug and expressed exasperation at the way the company analyzed its studies. “Why isn’t there better data at this point?” said Lewis Nelson, an emergency physician at New York University Medical Center.

Remember, Glaxo has a track record of hiding negative clinical trial data that would knock sales of its drugs – the story of Seroxat and Study 329 is truly shocking.

Read more about Seroxat here:
More on Paxil and suicide – “Glaxo was aware of this risk, and hid it”

and here:
Let down by the MHRA… again

and here:
Glaxo fails in its responsibility to patients and it hid Seroxat data – it’s official

Back at the Avandia panel, overall, 22 of 33 panelists voted to either withdraw the drug completely or to heavily restrict its use. Seven merely wanted more warnings. Only three thought that no additional warnings were needed beyond what is already on the drug’s label.

In a long discussion period after the vote, it was clear that most panelists wanted to keep the drug around mainly for patients who can’t tolerate a rival medicine, Actos, that appears safe for the heart. “I don’t see why this drug needs to be on the market anymore,” said Morrie Schambelan, a professor of medicine at UC-San Francisco.
Many panelists had grave concerns about the main safety study that Glaxo had done to evaluate Avandia’s risk, called Record. Marvin Konstam, a veteran Tufts clinical trialist who became one of the sternest Avandia critics, said he didn’t think he could use the data from the study at all. “I’m very disturbed by the Record trial and the audit,” echoed Clifford Rosen, a diabetes expert at the Jackson Laboratory in Bar Harbor, Maine.

And this from the London Evening Standard:

GlaxoSmithKline today swallowed a £1.57 billion charge to settle legal wrangles including litigation over its blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia, after winning a reprieve over a potentially reputation-ruining safety scandal.

Britain’s biggest drugs firm said the fee would cover the “substantial majority” of settlements with Avandia patients as well as “the vast majority” of product liability lawsuits against Paxil, an anti-depressant which patients allege has links to suicidal behaviour and birth defects.

And then of course there is the soon to start action against Glaxo in the High Court in London regarding Seroxat (Paxil) and the withdrawal problems associated with it.

Ultimately Glaxo does not care – even though it settles these claims for huge sums of money, those sums are dwarfed by the profits its dangerous drugs have made over the years they have been prescribed.

It matters little to Glaxo that patients suffer and even die as a direct result of taking its dangerous drugs – after all even after all the fines and the legal settlements have been taken into account there is still a healthy profit being made.

3 Responses to “GlaxoSmithKline – at it again, this time Avandia drug trial results “cannot be trusted””

  1. Lynn Says:

    I think this report, as wretched as it is, may be a nail in Glaxo’s coffin when that British trial starts. We’re getting there!

  2. truthman30 Says:

    As always admin, you’ve hit the nail on the head with this post. The business model that GSK, and the pharmaceutical industry in general, seems to be one that factors in the likelihood of litigation. But, there would be no need for litigation if the drugs were tested correctly, ethically and the results were presented truthfully in the first place. There would be no need for litigation if GSK cared to produce, market and sell safe and effective products. The Seroxat business model worked fine for GSK Financially, and it seems with Avandia it worked also. The Seroxat business model might not be ethically sound, nor morally right, but it does bring in profit. What’s a few hundred or a few thousand dead patients when your profits are still rolling in? It really makes no difference to these multi -nationals whether their products are safe or not as long as they can make a profit off them; the carnage and ruined lives are but collateral damage on the road to increased profits. At the end of the day, profits are the bottom line. When a corporation becomes as monstrous, monolithic, powerful and insatiable as GSK then perhaps ethics, morality and humanity just don’t factor into the corporate equation?..

  3. ramiro jackson Says:

    pinche avandia


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: