Avandia Study Conflicts – and Conflicts of Interest?

June 30th, 2010. By AbiK

So after the latest two Avandia studies came out earlier this week, we then see a third Avandia study—this one will also be debating fodder for the advisory panels at the FDA’s July meeting—the one that will determine Avandia‘s fate. The study was presented late Monday at the American Diabetes Association’s annual meeting by Dr. Richard Bach, associate professor of medicine at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis.

Here’s the thing though—the fist two studies basically added a few nails in Avandia’s ever-growing coffin. But this latest study to hit the airwaves actually digresses from the previous two in its findings—it states that there is no increased risk of heart attack, stroke or death associated with taking Avandia.

Hmm. Doesn’t that just make things a little…less definitive?

However, upon looking more deeply into this third study, some things about it just sort of pop out. For example, according to an article from healthfinder.gov, this third study if of a smaller sample size: 2,400 patients—compared to over 35,000 from the study done at the Cleveland Clinic.

There’s more..

• The third study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Oh, and GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). Oh, and if you recall, GSK just happens to make Avandia. Conflict of interest? (just asking).
• While death, heart attack and stroke incidence rates were apparently 28 percent lower in the third study for those taking Avandia vs. those not taking a thiazolidinedione (TZD) medication, congestive heart failure was higher—just not at a rate “considered significant”. What was significant was a 45 percent increase in risk of fractures for those who took Avandia. (Ok—not heart-related, but 45 percent sounds more than significant to me).
• Apparently the ages of the participants in the third study were lower than that of the other studies. Translation: the other studies’ participants may have been more frail. Two things here: first, I don’t care what ages folks are who are affected by a drug–everyone’s well-being matters. So if an older population is more adversely affected, they’re still adversely affected. And second, so the tests are not comparing apples to apples–which should detract from the ability to make comparisons and draw conclusions.

Hard to say where the FDA advisory panel will net out in July. Will we still see Avandia on the market? Stay tuned.

Tags: Avandia, Glaxo, GlaxoSmithKline, GSK

This was posted on Wednesday, June 30th, 2010 at 5:45 pm and is filed under Drugs/Medical . Feel free to respond, or trackback. Read our comments policy.