Crisis deepens at the US Food and Drug Administration
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
The US Food and Drug Administration, rocked by controversy in recent months, has now admitted that a senior management official secretly contacted a whistleblower group. That official attempted to discredit Dr David Graham, the FDA's scientist who criticised the agency during US Senate hearings, saying that the FDA failed to protect the public when it approved rofecoxib (Vioxx, Merck)—despite evidence suggesting that the drug caused heart attacks and strokes ( BMJ 2004;329: 1255, 27 Nov).
The FDA issued a statement on 26 November saying, "FDA had no prior knowledge of any employee's contact with the Government Accountability Project." In addition to acknowledging that the employee is "not anonymous" to the project, the FDA said the "employee has chosen to not divulge their identity, and FDA respects the right of any of its employees to protect their privacy in cases such as this."
Dr Graham's attorney, Tom Devine, legal director of the Government Accountability Project, said the FDA is "fudging on whether there was advance planning" to discredit Dr Graham. "There was more than one manager who contacted me."
Mr Devine also told the BMJ that Steven Galson, acting director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, "engaged in the extraordinary move of personally contacting the Lancet editor, Richard Horton, to block publication of the Vioxx study."
According to an article in newspaper USA Today, Dr Horton wrote in an email to Dr Galson that his intervention was "very unusual indeed," and appeared to be intended to "delay or stop publication of research that was clearly of serious public interest."
The timing of the campaign to discredit Dr Graham and of the calls to the Lancet is significant, said Mr Devine, as they "both climaxed the weekend before Dr Graham's testimony in US Senate hearings."
Senator Chuck Grassley, chair of the Senate committee that held hearings on rofecoxib, Merck, and the FDA, has called for the Inspector General to investigate the FDA's involvement in the attempts to discredit Dr Graham.
Dr Graham told the BMJ that when another drug safety officer, Dr Andrew Mosholder, concluded that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants caused increased suicidal tendency among teens, the FDA prevented him from presenting his findings at an advisory meeting and suppressed his report. When the report was leaked "the FDA's reaction was to do a criminal investigation into the leak. I was named as one of the targets of the investigation along with Dr Mosholder."
Calling the investigation a "plumbing operation," Dr Graham said a culture of intimidation and fear permeates the agency making it difficult for drug safety officers to protect the public.
The criminal investigation was also illegal, according to Mr Devine. He said, "The agency continued to try to catch the leaker even after the inquiry showed that Dr Mosholder's findings were correct. It's extraordinary. Presumably a scientific agency would pursue more civil practices. The FDA is in a class by itself for its almost obsessive intolerance of dissent. Other agencies fire their dissenters. The FDA launches criminal investigations."
Observers inside and outside the beleaguered agency say that the recent controversies point to systemic problems that go beyond any one drug or drug company—or even the FDA itself.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, an FDA drug safety officer told the BMJ that the agency has been virtually paralysed since the scandals erupted. "We can't go on like this," said the officer, "Either David will go—or they will have to go." Dr Graham is "somebody we greatly admire and support," he said, adding that whether or not Dr Graham stays at FDA "the problems will remain."
"The public is very vulnerable," said the officer, who called for provisional approvals of drugs with reviews two years after the release of a new drug.
The officer said that a planned investigation by the Government Accountability Office ( BMJ 2004;329: 935, 23 Oct) would help shed light on the ties between FDA and industry. He joined with other critics in calling for an end to the FDA being partially funded by fees paid by drug companies for drug reviews.
"That money needs to completely go. The NIH budget is enormous, but we get next to nothing. Maybe Congress could give us ."(Jeanne Lenzer)
婵犵數鍎戠徊钘壝洪悩璇茬婵犻潧娲ら閬嶆煕濞戝崬鏋ゆい鈺冨厴閺屾稑鈽夐崡鐐差潾闁哄鏅滃Λ鍐蓟濞戞ǚ鏋庨煫鍥ㄦ尨閸嬫挻绂掔€ｎ亞鍔﹀銈嗗坊閸嬫捇鏌涢悩宕囥€掓俊鍙夊姇閳规垿宕堕埞鐐亙闁诲骸绠嶉崕鍗炍涘☉銏犵劦妞ゆ帒顦悘锔筋殽閻愬樊鍎旀鐐叉喘椤㈡棃宕ㄩ鐐靛搸婵犵數鍋犻幓顏嗗緤閹灐娲箣閻樺吀绗夐梺鎸庣箓閹峰宕甸崼婢棃鏁傜粵瀣妼闂佸摜鍋為幐鎶藉蓟閺囥垹骞㈤柡鍥╁Т婵′粙鏌ｉ姀鈺佺仩缂傚秴锕獮濠囨晸閻樿尙鐤€濡炪倖鎸鹃崑鐔哥閹扮増鈷戦柛锔诲帎閻熸噴娲Χ閸ヮ煈娼熼梺鍐叉惈閹冲氦绻氶梻浣呵归張顒傜矙閹烘鍊垫い鏂垮⒔绾惧ジ鏌￠崘銊モ偓绋挎毄濠电姭鎷冮崟鍨杹閻庢鍠栭悥鐓庣暦濮椻偓婵℃瓕顦抽柛鎾村灦缁绘稓鈧稒岣块惌濠偽旈悩鍙夋喐闁轰緡鍣ｉ、鏇㈡晜閽樺鈧稑鈹戦敍鍕粶濠⒀呮櫕缁瑦绻濋崶銊у幐婵犮垼娉涢敃銈夊汲閺囩喐鍙忛柣鐔煎亰濡偓闂佽桨绀佺粔鎾偩濠靛绀冩い顓熷灣閹寸兘姊绘担绛嬪殐闁哥姵鎹囧畷婵婄疀濞戣鲸鏅ｇ紓鍌欑劍宀ｅ潡鍩㈤弮鍫熺厽闁瑰鍎戞笟娑㈡煕閺傚灝鏆ｉ柡宀嬬節瀹曟帒顫濋鐘靛幀缂傚倷鐒﹂〃鍛此囬柆宥呯劦妞ゆ帒鍠氬ḿ鎰磼椤旇偐绠婚柨婵堝仱閺佸啴宕掑鍗炴憢闂佽崵濞€缂傛艾鈻嶉敐鍥╃煋闁割煈鍠撻埀顒佸笒椤繈顢橀悩顐ｎ潔闂備線娼уú銈吤洪妸鈺佺劦妞ゆ帒鍋嗛弨鐗堢箾婢跺娲寸€规洏鍨芥俊鍫曞炊閵娿儺浼曢柣鐔哥矌婢ф鏁Δ鍜冪稏濠㈣埖鍔栭崑锝夋煕閵夘垰顩☉鎾瑰皺缁辨帗娼忛妸褏鐣奸梺褰掝棑婵炩偓闁诡喗绮撻幐濠冨緞婢跺瞼姊炬繝鐢靛仜椤曨厽鎱ㄦィ鍐ㄦ槬闁哄稁鍘奸崹鍌炴煏婵炵偓娅嗛柛瀣ㄥ妼闇夐柨婵嗘噹閺嗙喐淇婇姘卞ⅵ婵﹥妞介、鏇㈡晲閸℃瑦顓婚梻浣虹帛閹碱偆鎹㈠┑瀣祦閻庯綆鍠栫粻锝嗙節婵犲倸顏柟鏋姂濮婃椽骞愭惔锝傛闂佸搫鐗滈崜鐔风暦閻熸壋鍫柛鏇ㄥ弾濞村嫬顪冮妶鍡楃瑐闁绘帪绠撳鎶筋敂閸喓鍘遍梺鐟版惈缁夋潙鐣甸崱娑欑厓鐟滄粓宕滃顒夋僵闁靛ň鏅滈崑鍌炴煥閻斿搫孝閻熸瑱绠撻獮鏍箹椤撶偟浠紓浣插亾濠㈣泛鈯曡ぐ鎺戠闁稿繗鍋愬▓銈夋⒑缂佹ḿ绠栭柣鈺婂灠閻ｇ兘鏁撻悩鑼槰闂佽偐鈷堥崜姘额敊閹达附鈷戦悹鍥ｂ偓铏亖闂佸憡鏌ㄦ鎼佸煝閹捐绠ｉ柣鎰綑椤庢挸鈹戦悩璇у伐闁哥噥鍨堕獮鍡涘磼濮ｎ厼缍婇幃鈺呭箵閹烘繂濡锋繝鐢靛Л閸嬫捇鏌熷▓鍨灓缁鹃箖绠栭弻鐔衡偓鐢登瑰暩閻熸粎澧楅悡锟犲蓟濞戙垹绠抽柡鍌氱氨閺嬪懎鈹戦悙鍙夊櫣闂佸府绲炬穱濠囧箻椤旇姤娅㈤梺璺ㄥ櫐閹凤拷The FDA issued a statement on 26 November saying, "FDA had no prior knowledge of any employee's contact with the Government Accountability Project." In addition to acknowledging that the employee is "not anonymous" to the project, the FDA said the "employee has chosen to not divulge their identity, and FDA respects the right of any of its employees to protect their privacy in cases such as this."
Dr Graham's attorney, Tom Devine, legal director of the Government Accountability Project, said the FDA is "fudging on whether there was advance planning" to discredit Dr Graham. "There was more than one manager who contacted me."
Mr Devine also told the BMJ that Steven Galson, acting director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, "engaged in the extraordinary move of personally contacting the Lancet editor, Richard Horton, to block publication of the Vioxx study."
According to an article in newspaper USA Today, Dr Horton wrote in an email to Dr Galson that his intervention was "very unusual indeed," and appeared to be intended to "delay or stop publication of research that was clearly of serious public interest."
The timing of the campaign to discredit Dr Graham and of the calls to the Lancet is significant, said Mr Devine, as they "both climaxed the weekend before Dr Graham's testimony in US Senate hearings."
Senator Chuck Grassley, chair of the Senate committee that held hearings on rofecoxib, Merck, and the FDA, has called for the Inspector General to investigate the FDA's involvement in the attempts to discredit Dr Graham.
Dr Graham told the BMJ that when another drug safety officer, Dr Andrew Mosholder, concluded that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor antidepressants caused increased suicidal tendency among teens, the FDA prevented him from presenting his findings at an advisory meeting and suppressed his report. When the report was leaked "the FDA's reaction was to do a criminal investigation into the leak. I was named as one of the targets of the investigation along with Dr Mosholder."
Calling the investigation a "plumbing operation," Dr Graham said a culture of intimidation and fear permeates the agency making it difficult for drug safety officers to protect the public.
The criminal investigation was also illegal, according to Mr Devine. He said, "The agency continued to try to catch the leaker even after the inquiry showed that Dr Mosholder's findings were correct. It's extraordinary. Presumably a scientific agency would pursue more civil practices. The FDA is in a class by itself for its almost obsessive intolerance of dissent. Other agencies fire their dissenters. The FDA launches criminal investigations."
Observers inside and outside the beleaguered agency say that the recent controversies point to systemic problems that go beyond any one drug or drug company—or even the FDA itself.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, an FDA drug safety officer told the BMJ that the agency has been virtually paralysed since the scandals erupted. "We can't go on like this," said the officer, "Either David will go—or they will have to go." Dr Graham is "somebody we greatly admire and support," he said, adding that whether or not Dr Graham stays at FDA "the problems will remain."
"The public is very vulnerable," said the officer, who called for provisional approvals of drugs with reviews two years after the release of a new drug.
The officer said that a planned investigation by the Government Accountability Office ( BMJ 2004;329: 935, 23 Oct) would help shed light on the ties between FDA and industry. He joined with other critics in calling for an end to the FDA being partially funded by fees paid by drug companies for drug reviews.
"That money needs to completely go. The NIH budget is enormous, but we get next to nothing. Maybe Congress could give us ."(Jeanne Lenzer)