Vioxx: FDA Statement on Recent Allegations (cont.)

In 2001, a project officer in ODS expressed interest in a scientific collaboration between the Office of Drug Safety and Kaiser Permanente of Northern California on the cardiovascular safety of cox-2 drugs. FDA provided partial funding for this pilot project in August 2001 and again a year later, and our project officer served as the project manager.

Last February, our project officer submitted an abstract to the International Society for Pharmacoepidemiology (ISPE) for presentation at the group's August meeting in Bordeaux, France. It described the final study population of nearly 1.4 million patients and the events being studied, but it included no results.

When this draft was shared with the project officer's supervisors within ODS to obtain review and clearance on August 11th, ODS supervisors immediately recognized the importance of the project officer's work and the need to complete a study report for FDA review and publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

Some FDA scientists questioned some of the conclusions in the abstract and, as a result, the project officer voluntarily chose to revise his conclusions, and he did so, in his own words, "without compromising my deeply held convictions."

This poster was presented in Bordeaux in August and discussed publicly at that time. When he returned, his supervisors in ODS asked him to submit a draft report on his findings within two weeks. It was not submitted to the Center for review until September 30th, after Vioxx was voluntarily withdrawn from the market. Senior drug experts in FDA did not have this report or the underlying data prior to that time.

Second, more recently, the project officer notified his supervisors that he had submitted his findings in a paper to The Lancet. He did this without going through the long-established peer review and clearance process established for scientific papers submitted by FDA scientists. When FDA scientists learned that this paper had been accepted for publication in The Lancet, despite not having gone through the normal peer review process, the director of FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research contacted the journal's editor, out of respect for the scientific peer review process.

Third, recently much has been made of FDA's dealings with Dr. Curt Furberg, an expert on the design of clinical trials. The agency intends to discuss cox-2 inhibitors at an upcoming Arthritis Drugs Advisory Committee meeting in early 2005. Dr. Furberg is not an Arthritis Drugs Committee member; however, as part of our preparatory procedures, last week the Advisory Committee staff anticipated that Dr. Furberg could make a valuable contribution to the meeting as a consultant and following normal operating procedures contacted him to ascertain his availability. Dr. Furberg discussed with a staff member his recent activities related to the cox-2 inhibitor controversy at a recent American Heart Association meeting. Based on their discussion, Dr. Furberg concluded that he would not be allowed to participate because of potential bias. However, the advisory committee preparation process is still underway, so it was premature for any FDA official to suggest that Dr. Furberg could not participate in the upcoming meeting. A decision on Dr. Furberg's participation has not been made because all of the relevant information is not yet available.