Skip to main content

Aricept 23 - Another Victory for Marketing Over Patients

"What is the difference between 20 and 23? If you said three, you are off by millions—of dollars in sales, that is—at least from the perspective of Eisai, the manufacturer of donepezil (marketed as Aricept by Pfizer)." 
Lisa Schwartz and Steven Woloshin, BMJ 2012

An article in today's New York Times online covers a superb piece in BMJ describing the saga of Aricept 23 - a new low in the triumph of marketing over science and patient well-being. Drug manufacturers, when faced with loss of patent protection and exclusivity for their drugs, have relied on a package of tricks to maintain a healthy revenue stream. Some have rolled out slightly modified versions (e.g., omeprazole to esomeprazole, albuterol to levalbuterol). Some have rebranded their product for special and sometimes dubious indications (e.g., rebranding fluoxetine as Sarafem). Some have delayed entry of generic competitors onto the market through dubious litigation and "pay-to-delay" arrangements.

In the case of Aricept (donepezil), the manufacturer tried a different tack - getting FDA approval for a new dose of the drug (23 mg), which they alone would be able to market even as generic manufacturers could compete on the traditional 5 and 10 mg doses. Why 23 mg? Presumably this dose was chosen because it would be difficult to replicate by combining standard-dose pills available through generic competitors.

If the 23 mg dose provided a clear therapeutic benefit, that would be one thing. However, as Schwartz and Woloshin explain, the single trial that compared the standard and new doses failed to demonstrate any benefit in daily functioning yet found a substantially greater risk of harms from the higher dose including nausea and vomiting, diarrhea, and anorexia. As a result, FDA reviewers recommended against approving the new dose. However, they were overruled by senior officials. To add insult to injury, lack of FDA oversight led to an erroneous statement on the product label that the higher dose improved overall functioning...and because of this, the company was legally allowed to perpetuate this falsehood in their advertisements.

Beware drug companies bearing prime numbers!

by: Mike Steinman

Comments

Catherine DuBeau said…
It's more like beware senior officials at FDA! This is where the real breakdown occured, they should have never let this approval thru.
Paul Tatum said…
I would have gone for Aricept 17 if I got to choose the prime number to market.
Anonymous said…
Yellow Pigs- they are everywhere! (Math reference to number 17 for those not in the know)

Popular posts from this blog

The Dangers of Fleet Enemas

The dangers of oral sodium phosphate preparations are fairly well known in the medical community. In 2006 the FDA issued it’s first warning that patients taking oral sodium phosphate preparations are at risk for potential for acute kidney injury. Two years later, over-the-counter preparations of these drugs were voluntarily withdrawn by the manufacturers.  Those agents still available by prescription were given black box warnings mainly due to acute phosphate nephropathy that can result in renal failure, especially in older adults. Despite all this talk of oral preparations, little was mentioned about a sodium phosphate preparation that is still available over-the-counter – the Fleet enema.

Why Oral Sodium Phosphate Preparations Are Dangerous 

Before we go into the risks of Fleet enemas, lets spend just a couple sentences on why oral sodium phosphate preparations carry significant risks. First, oral sodium phosphate preparations can cause significant fluid shifts within the colon …

Dying without Dialysis

There is a terrific article in this weeks Journal of Pain and Symptom Management by Fliss Murtagh of King's College in London about the epidemiology of symptoms for patients with advanced renal failure who die without dialysis.  This study is important because while we know that patients with advanced renal failure have a limited life expectancy and the average age of initiation of hemodialysis is increasing, we know little about the alternatives to hemodialysis.  Specifically, we know nothing about symptoms affecting quality of life among patients who elect not to start dialysis (so called "conservative management" - is this the best label?).  This article provides a terrific counterpoint to the article in last years NEJM showing that nursing home residents who initiated hemodialysis tended to die and decline in function (see GeriPal write up here). 

The study authors followed patients with the most advanced form of chronic kidney disease (the new name for renal failu…

Survival from severe sepsis: The infection is cured but all is not well

Severe sepsis is a syndrome marked by a severe infection that results in the failure of at least one major organ system: For example, pneumonia complicated by kidney failure. It is the most common non-cardiac cause of critical illness and is associated with a high mortality rate.

But what happens to those who survive their hospitalization for severe sepsis? An important study published in JAMA from Iwashyna and colleagues provides answers and tells us all is not well. When the patient leaves the hospital, the infection may be cured, but the patient and family will need to contend with a host of major new functional and cognitive deficits.

Iwashyna examined disability and cognitive outcomes among 516 survivors of severe sepsis. These subjects were Medicare enrollees who were participants in the Health and Retirement Study. The average age of patients was 77 years.

When interviewed after discharge, most survivors were left with major new deficits in their ability to live independently. …