Hard to get research funded $ | Arthritis Information

Share
 

I think this explains why it is hard to get research funded.

Boston Globe June 25, 2002

 

By Alice Dembner

Dr. David Trentham is the chairman of the Department of Rheumatology at Harvard. He has used the antibiotic Minocin for successfully for many with rheumatoid arthritis and scleroderma. He decided to study the drug in those ages 6 to 14 and asked drug maker Wyeth for a donation of ,000 worth of the antibiotic. Wyeth, which made billion last year in total sales of drugs and other products, had acquired a small company that supported Trentham's previous studies of minocycline in animals and in adults. But this time, the answer was an unequivocal no.

''While scientifically interesting, the concept and design is not consistent with our current business objectives,'' wrote a company official in a letter that Trentham said stunned him.

While company officials later said patient safety was the reason for the denial - the antibiotic can cause some side effects, such as discoloration of the teeth - Trentham believes the letter gave far more insight into the company's reasoning.

Trentham's translation of the letter: If minocyline worked, it might compete with a blockbuster drug called Enbrel that Wyeth now markets for both adult and juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Enbrel costs ,300 per month for adults and has life-threatening side effects, while Wyeth's brand of minocycline, called Minocin, costs only 0 for an adult monthly dose, Trentham said. And unlike Enbrel, minocycline is no longer under patent, so many companies could benefit from the drug's success.

As rheumatologist Trentham put it, ''It's a commercial decision, and it's unfortunate for the patients.''

Trentham said it was the first time in his career that a drug company had turned down his request for support of a study. But other researchers said denials are becoming more common as the drug market becomes ever more competitive.

''It happens all the time,'' said Dr. Raymond Woosley, a prominent drug researcher who is vice president of health sciences at the University of Arizona. ''They don't want you to study their drug because of what you might find or how your finding might affect another drug they're marketing. They want to control the data on their drug.''

While companies have no legal obligation to support research by doctors who don't work for them, many scientists believe they have a moral responsibility to society.

''When a company refuses to allow someone to do legitimate research on their drugs, we all lose out,'' said Sheldon Krimsky, a Tufts University professor who has studied relationships between academic researchers and drug companies. ''Their interest is in their market share, not in public well-being.''

A spokeswoman for Wyeth, however, said economics played no role in the company's decision. ''The decision was made primarily on safety,'' said Natalie de Vane. ''The company felt there were newer medications that could be studied that didn't have the side effects that this particular drug has. Minocin is contraindicated in young children and there were very young children in this proposal.''

While minocycline carries an FDA warning against use in children under 8 because of possible permanent discoloration of teeth, Trentham said that is a far cry from the warning on Enbrel, of serious and sometimes fatal infection or sepsis. Nonetheless, Enbrel was approved by the FDA in 1999 for use in juvenile rheumatoid arthritis for those patients who fail other treatments.

Despite the rejection by Wyeth, Trentham is forging ahead. He secured a ,000 grant from a small private foundation, the Road Back Foundation, to fund lab fees for the six-month study and will buy Minocin from Wyeth, and then charge study participants or their insurers for the drug. But he said he worries that that will make it much harder to recruit participants and will delay the study, now scheduled to begin this summer. He plans to recruit patients across the country who are not currently taking Enbrel or another treatment, methotrexate.

''It's terribly important to get to the bottom of whether Minocin works in children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis because of the benign nature of Minocin,'' said Trentham, who is known as an antibiotic enthusiast.

Juvenile rheumatoid arthritis affects up to 50,000 children in the United States, causing painful swelling, stiffness and deformity of joints and sometimes stunting growth. While some children outgrow it, others fight the disease their whole lives. Doctors believe it is caused by a malfunction of the immune system and typically treat children with anti-inflammatory drugs starting with ibuprofen and moving to more potent drugs.

If minocycline works consistently in children, Trentham said, it would also be a safer alternative to two other common treatments for JRA - steroids and methotrexate. Steroids can stunt a child's growth, and methotrexate, often used to treat cancer, can be toxic to the liver and it can harm the immune system when given in higher doses than usually given in children.

Some pediatric rheumatologists said, however, that methotrexate is not as risky and minocycline is not as safe for children as Trentham suggests. A cousin of tetracycline, it commonly is used to treat severe acne. But it can discolor teeth and skin, irritate the stomach, and, in rare instances, it can cause liver or kidney damage and has been associated with lupus.

''We're able to control a large number of our patients with currently available drugs,'' said Edward Giannini of Cincinnati Children's Hospital, a senior scientist with an international consortium that studies pediatric rheumatology treatments and helped test Enbrel and methotrexate. ''I don't see much of a need to look at this drug, because we feel it's only partly effective in adults. But there's no harm in studying it.''

Concern about side effects of methotrexate led Melanie Masala to bring her daughter, Gloria, to Boston for treatment with minocycline. ''I was wondering which was worse, the disease or the cure,'' she said.

With minocycline, Marsala said, Gloria's transformation was ''incredible.'' As Gloria said: ''Before, not many people liked to play with me because I couldn't do the things they wanted to do. Now, I ride my bike, I rollerskate, I can jump, I can even climb a little.'' And Trentham said she is growing again, catching up to her classmates, without any medication side effects.

Scientists do not understand why minocycline appears to help some arthritis patients. A national study of 219 adults with rheumatoid arthritis, supported by the National Institutes of Health and published in 1995, found, however, that minocycline significantly reduced joint swelling and tenderness in more than half of patients, although a dummy pill caused similar improvement in about 40 percent. Lederle Laboratories, which then made Minocin, provided the drug and placebo free for the study. Wyeth subsequently bought Lederle and helped market Enbrel, which chalked up 0 million in sales last year.

Trentham, who was one of several investigators for the NIH study, chose to use Minocin for his new study for consistency, rather than other generic versions of the antibiotic made by other drug companies.

Getting free drugs for research is ''especially a problem when the company has a competing drug,'' said Woosley, a professor of pharmacology and medicine. He and colleagues were thwarted a few years ago, he said, when they wanted to study the side effects of an older synthetic estrogen replacement. The company, which he declined to name, refused because officials were worried the study would focus attention on the side effects of a new drug they were developing.

''From a business point of view, it makes sense. Why should they get involved in anything that might harm them?'' said a Boston-area researcher, who requested anonymity because he feared alienating companies from which he regularly seeks support. ''But the research community is trying to find out the truth, about mechanisms and side effects of drugs and how they are best used clinically. And the drug companies' posture impedes that. It's gotten worse year by year and the last two years have been impossible.''

 

karin101339252.6434837963If this is how pharmaceutical companies are behaving, whct will happen if
anyone does find a cure for RA and other horrible diseases? Will they supress
it because they can make more money off us if we're chronically ill? I've read
about this particular situation before and it disgusts me. How do these
people sleep at night?Gimpy, trying to PM you, but your in box is full.

First and foremost, you didn't post this garbage for me because i didn't ask for it. You posted it for yourself and a few other members that want to turn rheumatoid arthritis medicines into a war on this arthritis forum.

I was the first to say that i was not taking sides in what medicines a person or doctor prefers. I do my own researches and if you have read any of my posts you are fully aware that i am very knowledgable about RA and pretty much everything associated with it. Yous aren't going to like me because i have nothing but good things to say about my doctors and my treatments. And you aren't going to like this either but i believe that most U.S. government health agencies are run by people that got to the top because they really want to help the sick. If the fda takes "too" long to okay a drug, the haters say it's over money. If they fast track a new medicine and later find out that there are bad suide effects, they hurried it for money. Haters will always hate and the hate will generally eat up their stomachs. Good medicine, quit hating.

What is wrong with you people? Why do you like war. I know Gimpy does and she can already sniff the smell of United States hating and bashing in this thread in the near future. If you are going to call the U.S. companies, government agencies, our scientists, our doctors our people corrupt, despised by god and the rest of the world, Gimpy won't just jump on the bandwagon, she'll steer the horses.

I said it before and i'll say it again, it is easy to find negatives. Forget about this war that yous are so intent on starting and start searching for positives. Nobody is ragging on you for your stance on AP therapy, so why keep it going? Are you that big of a hater? Get out and smell the goodness. Only time will tell whether any of us was right or wrong.

Some time ago when ddt was the number one bug killer, a professor at the uofm found that ddt was destroying th food chain. He was detested by not just his fellow professors and scientists but was going to be fired by uofm for not stopping his research and findings. Who do you think came to his rescue? A government agency called the cdc told the uofm that the day they fired that professor would be the last day uofm would ever get another check from the government of the United States and guess what, the rest is history.

You had no right to associate me with this stupid garbage.

Lev

 

 

You're such a lover, levlar!

Darn it, Karin!

I was going to post this one.

Larry - this has nothing to do with love or hate.  The problem is how do we fix this broken health care system we have? 

You do realize, don't you that 1 out of every 6 Americans has a chronic illness or AI disease?  The problem is that most sick people are too sick to take it upon themselves and learn what it will take to make themselves well.  They rely on doctors to do that.  But, if the doctors are not...entirely forthcoming about how they get paid, if they are allowed to invest in their own medical practices (some states require them to only invest in other states they are not licensed in) then we have a profit driven medical establishment that does a lot for the doctors pocketbooks and not a lot for the patient.

Pip

P.S. I'm assuming you're not as eagerly anticipating Sicko as I am?

[quote]''While scientifically interesting, the concept and design is not consistent with our current business objectives,'' wrote a company official in a letter that Trentham said stunned him.[/quote]

in a nutshell that is what is wrong with health care...it is PROFIT DRIVEN...period & end of statement...unless they can take every penny from a patient they do not want to look into any potential treatments.

Can you imagine if Pasteur, the Curries, or name you break-through researcher, were driven by the same concept?

Capitalism in medical/healthcare is completely unethical. Privatization of healthcare & hospital systems have killed millions who might otherwise have been saved under other systems of healthcare.

Heathcare providers (both research & treatment) should be considered a public trust and thus a basic necessity for each person. As of now in the US we are simply cash-cows that provide billions to DrugCo CEO's...even if we die there will always be others to take our place...

If the US really cared about patients and people there would be a return to the prohibition on advertising prescription medications. Think of it this way just home much does each RA patient pay in the way of higher medication costs for these meds they advertise for our disease?

Say we active RA peeps number in the 10-million range or so. And for each med there are maybe 50,000 who respond/tolerate to any given medication. I would bet that each patient on any given medication is paying at minimum 0 - 00+ just to cover the costs of advertising...and today's CEO always mark up ALL production costs so likely the annually cost if far more then that...they call that developing a profit center...that is what we are...profit centers...boy that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Copyright ArthritisInsight.com