By using this site, you agree to the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Accept
Health Works CollectiveHealth Works CollectiveHealth Works Collective
  • Health
    • Mental Health
  • Policy and Law
    • Global Healthcare
    • Medical Ethics
  • Medical Innovations
  • News
  • Wellness
  • Tech
Search
© 2023 HealthWorks Collective. All Rights Reserved.
Reading: Lawyers and Medical Decision-Making
Share
Notification Show More
Font ResizerAa
Health Works CollectiveHealth Works Collective
Font ResizerAa
Search
Follow US
  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy
© 2023 HealthWorks Collective. All Rights Reserved.
Health Works Collective > Business > Lawyers and Medical Decision-Making
Business

Lawyers and Medical Decision-Making

gooznews
gooznews
Share
4 Min Read
SHARE

We’ve heard a lot over the years about the inappropriate role of lawyers in the medical system. The complaints usually center  on trial lawyers who sue physicians for malpractice and drug companies for failure to warn consumers about unsafe drugs and devices. We’ve heard much less about lawyers who work for drug companies and try to game the regulatory system.

We’ve heard a lot over the years about the inappropriate role of lawyers in the medical system. The complaints usually center  on trial lawyers who sue physicians for malpractice and drug companies for failure to warn consumers about unsafe drugs and devices. We’ve heard much less about lawyers who work for drug companies and try to game the regulatory system.

This latter problem was in full display this afternoon at the FDA hearing on Roche/Genentech’s appeal of the FDA’s decision to remove breast cancer from Avastin’s label.  Paul Schmidt, a Covington & Burling attorney representing Genentech, repeatedly tried to pin down FDA oncology drugs chief Richard Pazdur and his colleagues as to whether they had ever specified that replicating the progression free survival benefit seen in the first trial that led to accelerated approval would satisfy the FDA and therefore lead to permanent approval.

Pazdur repeatedly replied that progression free survival was a surrogate marker of benefit and had to be accompanied by some other benefit, such as improved quality of life. Of course, a trial showing extended survival would be the best. But given the adverse events profile of Avastin — increased cardiovascular deaths; GI perforations; an increase in hypertension in a quarter of patients — any increase in time before a tumor began progressing as the sole benefit would have to be substantial before a drug would be approved based on that surrogate marker alone.

More Read

Payer Trends Healthcare
Mid-Year Update: 4 Major Payer Trends
Innovating Medicaid for Healthcare Reform
Mobile Stroke Unit – Does It Really Save Time? And Money?
8 Quick Steps You Can Do Today to Set Your Healthcare Practice Up for Gigantic Success
The Daraprim Debacle – The Smell Test Sniffs Out Price Gouging.

“The approval process is not about a median progression free survival,” Pazur said. “It’s about a risk benefit analysis. The magnitude of a progression free survival change has to be viewed in the context of the safety profile of the drug, the disease setting, the existing therapies, and patient performance status. For me to give you an exact progression free survival would be impossible to do.”

Schmidt pressed ahead: “Did CDER say to Genentech that .8 months progression free survival (the amount seen in one of the follow-up trials) wouldn’t be enough to support approval?”

“I don’t believe we ever said that,” Pazdur said. “All we’re asking for here is one trial that shows clinical benefit.”

There has only been one new piece of clinical evidence introduced at this hearing. A phase II trial published in Lancet Oncology in April, where Avastin was added to several chemotherapy regimens, showed it slightly increased the time before the cancer resumes progressing by a few months — again! — and had no impact on the long-term mortality rate for women struck by a recurrence of this devastating disease.

So, there have been five follow-up trials, and not one has replicated the initial evidence that led to accelerated approval. Tomorrow, Genentech and its lawyers get to present their side of the story. If the company attempts to present new evidence, it will violate the ground rules set by the FDA for the hearing (not to mention normal legal procedures). Why do I think the real purpose of this hearing is to lay the groundwork for a lawsuit against the FDA?

TAGGED:AvastinFDAGenentechhealthcare businesshealthcare law
Share This Article
Facebook Copy Link Print
Share

Stay Connected

1.5kFollowersLike
4.5kFollowersFollow
2.8kFollowersPin
136kSubscribersSubscribe

Latest News

dental care
Importance of Good Dental Care for Health and Confidence
Dental health Specialties
October 2, 2025
AI in Healthcare
AI in Healthcare: Technology is Transforming the Global Landscape
Global Healthcare Policy & Law Technology
October 1, 2025
Choosing the Right Swimwear for Health and Safety
News
September 30, 2025
sports concussions
Concussion In Sports: How Common They Are And What You Need To Know
Infographics
September 28, 2025

You Might also Like

Nurses Using BlackBerrys at the Hospital for Communication and Patient Care (Video)

February 24, 2011

California Hospital Association Sues HHS

November 5, 2011
eHealthHospital AdministrationTechnology

How Predictive Analytics And Big Data In Healthcare Can Improve Care

September 1, 2018
old school ivory tower hospital
BusinessSocial Media

How Hospital Marketing is Thinking Beyond the Ivory Tower

September 14, 2016
Subscribe
Subscribe to our newsletter to get our newest articles instantly!
Follow US
© 2008-2025 HealthWorks Collective. All Rights Reserved.
  • About
  • Contact
  • Privacy
Welcome Back!

Sign in to your account

Username or Email Address
Password

Lost your password?