Avandia Dispute: good or bad for consumers?
The Food and Drug Administration does very little to monitor the safety of drugs, such as Avandia, after they are approved by the FDA. Independent researchers are usually the first to reveal potential safety hazards of medications, such as in the case of Merck's anti-inflammatory drug, Vioxx. On Tuesday, the FDA is scheduled to hold an advisory panel hearing to evaluate the risks and benefits of Avandia. THIS IS ABOUT FIVE YEARS TOO LATE!
Avandia was approved by the FDA in 1999 and became a best seller in short order. Safety concerns were raised by Glaxo in 2005, but those safety concerns were not shared by the FDA with the public. Fortunately, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic, Steven Nissen, did his own investigation and found that consumers had a 43% higher risk of heart attack with Avandia and the New England Journal of Medicine published his analysis. As a follow up to Nissen's analysis, the FDA required a warning on Avandia's label.
The FDA is useless at monitoring drugs for safety, as evidenced by the Avandia story. Once the FDA approves a drug, it does nothing to monitor the safety of the drug even though risks emerge as usage of the drug expands. It's tough to admit that the drug is safe when it is approved and then later admit that the FDA was wrong. The FDA and Glaxo should make available to the public all of the data and investigation materials that they possess relating to Avandia. As stated in today's USA Today, "Patients shouldn't have to depend on outside whistle-blowers trolling the internet to learn about potential drug dangers."