So here’s an interesting twist. Avandia, also known as rosiglitazone, once GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) blockbuster diabetes drug that turned out to be not so good for you after all, has failed to prove benefit in clinical trials as a treatment for Alzheimer’s disease.
Why was GSK testing Avandia in Alzheimer’s, you ask? Well, sales of Avandia plummeted after the now infamous Nissen study was published in 2007 showing a link between the diabetes medication and heart attacks. In fact, one source puts 2008 sales down by 40 percent from 2007. So, GSK was looking for a new indication that would generate some cash—up to $300 million one estimate suggests.
So GSK must look for new ailments for Avandia. After all—product recycling applies to the pharmaceutical industry just as it does in other industries.
But what if Avandia had proven beneficial in treating Alzheimer’s—whatever ‘beneficial’ was defined as being? It is unlikely that the risk for heart attack would have disappeared or not been an issue in this population. So I find myself wondering about the ethics of testing a drug with an established link to potentially fatal adverse events, such as heart attack, in a population that may not be able to articulate their health problems. Not only that, had Avandia made the grade, would the FDA have approved the indication, despite the health risks?
Perhaps the most worrying element of all this is why Avandia is being tested at all for any additional indications, when there are very real concerns about it remaining on the market in the first place.