SERVING MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL / MINNESOTA
Donate Now Sustaining Member

MinnPost thanks these major sponsors:




Sponsor of
Second Opinion



Our major advertisers


Our in-kind partners


MinnPost thanks these generous donors:

INDIVIDUALS AND FOUNDATI0NS
Blandin Foundation
Otto Bremer Foundation
Bush Foundation
Sage & John Cowles
David & Vicki Cox
Toby & Mae Dayton
Jack & Claire Dempsey
Ethics and Excellence in Journalism Foundation
Sam & Stacey Heins
John S. and James L. Knight Foundation
Joel & Laurie Kramer
Lee Lynch & Terry Saario
Martin & Brown Foundation
The McKnight Foundation
The Minneapolis Foundation
The Saint Paul Foundation
Rebecca & Mark Shavlik

(See all donors here.)

This content is made possible by the generous sponsorship support of UCare.
  • Switch to Small Text Size
  • Switch to Medium Text Size
  • Switch to Large Text Size
Email Print Submit a Comment

    Article describes disturbing elements in Medtronic drug's approval, use

    By Susan Perry | Published Mon, Aug 30 2010 10:23 am

    The cozy financial relationships between some of the country’s leading surgeons and Medtronic Inc. helped the Minnesota-based medical-device company gain the FDA’s approval for a spine-surgery product now associated with serious safety concerns, according to an investigative article published Sunday in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

    As reporter John Fauber notes, it’s a cautionary tale that is “equal parts the art of medicine and the art of the deal.” Here’s Fauber’s lede:

    In January 2002, a group of Food and Drug Administration advisers met on whether to approve a powerful new biological agent that promised to revolutionize back surgery.
    The product was like nothing the burgeoning field of spinal fusion surgery had seen before. If used properly, it essentially turned whatever it touched into bone. This was a good thing if it could be confined to the tiny space between vertebrae, but potentially calamitous if it leaked out.
    One of the FDA advisers at the meeting raised a concern about nine of the doctors whose research on the product had been submitted to the FDA: The doctors all had a financial stake in the product, and their test results with it were nearly twice as good as the doctors who did not have a financial interest.
    The concern by the FDA advisory panel member was laughed off with a joke, according to a transcript of the hearing, and the panel ultimately deferred to Medtronic, a company that stood to get billions in sales as the maker of the product known as Infuse.
    What has happened since is no laughing matter.
    Since recombinant bone morphogenetic protein-2, the biological agent used in Infuse, was approved by the FDA for fusion surgery, early concerns about its widespread, unapproved use and adverse reactions in patients have materialized. Studies have warned that it can cause life-threatening swelling in the neck, form bone in unwanted locations and possibly fuel the growth of cancer cells or spark adverse immune system reactions.
    The approval of Infuse followed what drug industry critics say is a familiar playbook: First, a buzz is created about a potential new therapy. Then, research — often by doctors with financial ties to the product — is presented to the FDA for a specific use in a narrow group of people. Once the product is on the market, other uses for it are promoted in articles and presentations, often by doctors with financial ties to the company.
    Now, Medtronic is back before the FDA, this time seeking approval for a different BMP-2 product for use in back surgery. Once again, concerns about cancer, immune reactions and effectiveness have been raised by a different panel of FDA advisers.
    The story of BMP-2 raises questions about whether doctors should be allowed to do clinical trial research involving products that might enrich them or the company they work for. It also shows weaknesses in the FDA process for approving drugs and devices.

    Here are few of the troubling details from Fauber’s report:

    • Medtronic refused to reveal to the Journal Sentinel the names of the nine surgeons whose research on Infuse helped gain the FDA’s 2002 approval for the product. And, inexplicably, those names have been redacted from the FDA’s files. FDA officials gave the Journal Sentinel conflicting reasons for why the names are missing — and whether or not it could reproduce them from archived material. The agency agreed on Friday that it could produce the names for the Journal Sentinel — but not until December.
    • The four doctors who co-authored a 2002 medical journal paper that reported on the benefits of Infuse receive royalty payments from Medtronic for various products. Their payments for the first quarter of 2010 were in the six figures each, with one prominent surgeon from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Dr. Thomas Zdeblick, receiving $473,000.
    • Of the 63 surgeons involved in the clinical trial for Medtronic’s new BMP-2 product, Amplify, 27 had a financial interest in Medtronic at the time they conducted their research.  And those 27 operated on more than half of the 463 patients in the trial.
    • The FDA approved Infuse only for use in spinal surgery that is approached from the front. Yet 85 percent of BMP products are used off-label, or during surgical approaches from the back. Sales of Medtronic’s Infuse have grown to about $800 million a year, much from off-label use. Companies are not allowed to market their products for off-label use, but doctors are allowed to tout off-label uses — even doctors with financial ties to the company selling the product.

    Medtronic, of course, defends its product and its payments to surgeons. A spokesperson told the Journal Sentinel that (in Fauber’s words) “Medtronic is strongly committed to preventing the promotion of its products for unapproved uses and has implemented corporate policies and training to prevent that” and that “the package label for BMP-2 covers all safety concerns that the FDA believes the public should know.”

    The spokesperson also added (in her own words): “Collaboration between physicians and industry remains absolutely vital to innovation in the medical industry.”

    You can read Fauber’s article here. He wrote it as a joint project between the Journal Sentinel and MedPage Today. You can read his slightly more technical and physician-aimed MedPage version of the story here.

    Like what you just read? Support high-quality journalism in Minnesota by becoming a member of MinnPost.

    Advertisement:

    0 Comments:

    E-mail address

    Password

     

    Forgot Password? | Register to Comment

    MinnPost does not permit the use of foul language, personal attacks or the use of language that may be libelous or interpreted as inciting hate or sexual harassment. User comments are reviewed by moderators to ensure that comments meet these standards and adhere to MinnPost's terms of use and privacy policy.

    We intend for this area to be used by our readers as a place for civil, thought-provoking and high-quality public discussion. In order to achieve this, MinnPost requires that all commenters register and post comments with their actual names and place of residence. Register here to comment.


    medium_UCareLogo125.jpg

    Health care that starts with you. That's what you'll find at UCare, the fourth-largest health plan in Minnesota, serving more than 225,000 members across Minnesota and 26 counties in western Wisconsin.

    minnpost.com/healthblog


    Susan Perry

    In "Second Opinion" Susan Perry will coordinate coverage to help MinnPost readers make their way through the thicket of health happenings, trends, studies and research. Perry has written several health-related books, and her articles have appeared in a wide variety of publications, including Minnesota Monthly, The History Channel Magazine and Woman's Day. She is a former writer/editor for Time-Life Books and a former editor of Nutrition Action Healthletter, published by the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Perry can be reached at sperry [at] minnpost [dot] com.

    Recent Second Opinion posts