Despite Public Protestations of of Bipartisanship, Many CEOs of the Largest US Health Care Corporations Appear Partisan, and Mainly Republican

Leaders of big health care organizations clearly are interested in influencing public policy and government regulation in ways that favor their organizations, and often indirectly themselves. On the other hand, big health care organizations have traditionally been non-partisan.  While their leaders certainly may have political views, they used to keep them very quiet.

In this sense, the leaders of big health care organizations have seemed similar to the leaders of large businesses in general.  For example, a recent New York Times article noted,

The Business Roundtable, the top lobbying organization for industry in Washington, is often characterized as a nonpartisan or bipartisan organization.

Yet,  recently, especially in the US, we have seen evidence that some health care organizations have become partisan, albeit stealthily, throwing their support behind political candidates, parties and organizations that may support their policy and regulatory goals, even while they may also support positions that go against the health care and public health mission, or even may be frankly anti-democratic.  In the US, organizations and their leaders now may support partisan aims with dark money, funds whose origin is disguised.

The recent NYT article noted above summarized some newly released research showing how corporate leaders in general have become more partisan, and more partisan in a particular sense. 

Based on Disclosed Personal Contributions, Since 2000 Most Top Corporate Executives Became Very Republican

The NYT article summarized a study of disclosed personal political contributions made by S&P 1500 executives from 2000 to 2017.

To be counted a supporter of Republicans or Democrats, executives had to direct at least two-thirds of their donations to candidates affiliated with one party.

They only released aggregate data, not data on particular industries, much less particular companies.  The main findings were:

More than a quarter of the executives studied gave enough to both parties to be classified as 'neutral.'

But,

just 18.4 percent of the executives studied were designated as Democrats. The clear majority — 57.7 percent — demonstrated their affiliation through donations to the Republican Party. Indeed, 75 percent of donations from the median chief executive were directed to Republicans.

That strongly contrasts with the notion that big business and its leaders are non-partisan, although perhaps eager to be popular with people, particularly customers and politicians, with all sorts of political affiliations.

The study disclosed no information on any particular executive or company other than Tim Cook of Apple, one of the minority of apparently studiously bipartisan corporate leaders.


However, another article from October, 2018 in MarketWatch provided some particular information on how partisan leaders of health care corporations have become.


Many CEOs of Big Health Care Corporations are Very Republican

The MarketWatch article, which reported the journalists' own study, also opened with the notion that corporate executives have been known for being non- or bi-partisan,

Company executives often steer clear of any appearance of partisanship, in large part because they don’t want to alienate customers and investors who back the other side.

Their study focused on disclosed political contributions from CEOs of S&P 500 companies, the largest publicly traded companies in the US, from 2017 through August 31, 2018, that is, those relevant to the most recent US national election, the 2018 mid-term election.

They also found that many executives were heavily partisan based on their personal political donations.

MarketWatch’s analysis found that among the CEOs who did contribute to party-affiliated committees, nearly all leaned heavily blue or red, with few donating equally to the two main parties. More than 84% of the 261 CEOs who contributed to partisan committees donated 70% or more of their money to one party or the other. And about 100 of the CEOs spent above the median amount and contributed 75% of their money to one party.

Overall,

The chief executives contributed a total of $7.4 million to Republican groups, almost triple the $2.6 million contributed to Democratic committees.

The article presented a graphic showing the CEOs who were most partisan and contributed the most money.  It included several CEOs of big health care corporations.

The article included a database of CEOs ranked by amount contributed.  The amounts and proportions spent by the health care CEOs among the top 100 spenders were:

9. Timothy Wentworth, Express Scripts Holding: total contributions: $262,594, to Democrats, $10,000; to Republicans, $244,722

10. Robert A Bradway, Amgen: $235,800; D $41,000; R $194,800

13. Kenneth C Frazier, Merck: $196,961; D $48,500; R $140,000

14. Mark J Alles, Celgene; $195,682; D $15,000; R $173,600

16 Ian C Read, Pfizer; $181,833; D $25,800; R $145,400

23. David A Ricks, Eli Lilly; $128,020; D $23,300; R $89,500

25. Leonard S Schliefer, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals; $125,000; D $120,000; R $ 0

28. Marc N Casper, Thermo Scientific; $118,100; D $2,700; R $105,400

29. Brenton L Saunders, Allergan; $115,100; D $ 0; R $105,100

32 Michael F Nieidorff, Centene; $105,994; D $60,794; R $35,200

38 Miles D White, Abbott Laboratories; $90,400; D $ 0; R $90,400

39. Kent J Thiry, DaVita; $86,500; D $ 29,300; R $42,200

57. Clifford W Illig, Cerner; $47,000; D $0; R $42,100

70. Steven H Collis, Amerisource Bergen; $39,784; D $2,800; R $28, 100

85. Dow R Wilson, Varian Medical Systems; $30,800; D $0; R $15,800

88. Giovanni Caforio MD, Bristol-Myers Squib; $30,184; D $5,000 ; R $17,300

90. John F Milligan, Gilead Sciences; $30,000; D $0; R $20,000

92. Larry J Merlo, CVS;  $28, 733; D $0; R $15,400

93. Vincent A Forlenz, Becton-Dickinson; $28,700; D $11,500; R $0

100. George S Barrett, Cardinal Health; $27,168; D $13,900; R $5,000

So, there were 19 health care corporate CEOs among the top 100 of those giving disclosed political donations for the 2018 election.  Of those, 15 gave most of their donations to Republicans, 4 to Democrats.  Furthermore, note that many of the companies represented on the list have been Health Care Renewal "frequent fliers," often discussed because of problems with leadership, governance and/or ethics.  

Discussion

While publicly often non--partisan, it appears that the top leaders of the biggest US health care corporations (and other corporations) have become increasingly partisan, and and increasingly supporters of one US political party, the Republican.  This is important since, as the NYT article noted:

The opinions held by executives have always resonated beyond their own industries, but their importance is more pronounced today. Mr. Trump, for example, has not hesitated to equate economic policy with foreign policy.

Also, the authors of the research paper summarized by the article wrote:

Especially since the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United, which allowed corporations to make unlimited independent political expenditures, corporate political spending can substantially affect politics and policymaking

In particular,

These executives wield enormous influence over not just policy, but the inclinations of their own employees. One of the most fascinating revelations of the study was that it also looked at the conduct of the businesses themselves, and in the process discovered that disclosures of political donations were highly correlated with the political leaning of its chief executive.

Political contributions by public companies do not have to be disclosed to shareholders, although some of companies do it. So the researchers looked instead at the which companies disclosed the donations to shareholders. Using an index developed by the Center for Political Accountability, the professors found that there was'“a statistically significant association between having a Republican C.E.O. and a lower' disclosure score.

Also, in the era of Trump, the heavily Republican partisanship of top corporate CEOs seems at variance with how their corporations' claim to be socially responsible, and

given the outspoken positions a number of executives have taken in recent years on social issues like climate change, guns and immigration policies.

Furthermore, the heavily Republican partisanship of  CEOs of big health care corporations seems at particular variance with the health care missions espoused by these corporations. 

For example, in 2018 we discussed the case of CVS, which boasts a code of ethics including respecting the covenantal relationship between pharmacists and patients, promoting "the good of every patient," acting with "honesty and integrity," and serving "individual, community and social needs." It also has a social responsibility policy including "keeping the planet in balance," and making "quality health care more affordable, more accessible and more sustainable."  However, CVS was revealed to have been contributing to a "dark money" organization called America First Policies, ostensibly a "social welfare" charity, but actually an organization devoted to promoting the Trump agenda.  While CVS said its support for AFP was related to the organization's tax reform agenda, it also promoted various policies that seemed to contradict the CVS ethics and social responsibility policies.  In addition, the relationship between CVS and AFP only came to light after some AFP leaders were found to have made racist and pro-Nazi proclamations.  Whether CVS made is making contributions to other such groups was unknown.  At the time, we speculated whether the contributions to AFP reflected the self-interest of CVS leadership.

Now we find out that CVS CEO Larry Merlo gave $15,400 to Republicans in the run-up to the 2018 election, but nothing to Democrats.  This increases suspicion that CVS corporate political action is more about its CEO's ideology than its professed mission. 

This anecdote, coupled with recent findings that big health care corporations' policies about political activities are lax at best (look here), and the evidence above, should prompt concern about the political actions of other big health care corporations, and their intent. 

Thus not only is more investigation needed, at the very least, "public" corporations ought to fully disclose all donations made to outside groups with political agendas.  This should be demanded by at least the corporations' employees and shareholders, but also by patients, health care professionals, and the public at large.

Meanwhile we are left with the suspicion that top health care corporate management is increasingly merging with the current administration in one giant corporatist entity which is not in the interests of health care, much less government by the people, of the people, and for the people.

Not So Wondrous Drugs? - New Warnings about Severe Adverse Effects of New, Heavily Marketed Drugs for Hepatits C,

Background - Wonder Drugs for Hepatitis C

In our April, 2014, post we noted how Sovaldi (sofosbuvir), the new antiviral drug made by Gilead for hepatitis C was touted as a "triumph of of medical technology."  In that, and subsequent posts we discussed how such claims were not buttressed by much good data from clinical research.

We could find only one published randomized clinical trial of sofosbuvir (and ribavirin), which compared it to the older drug used to treat hepatitis C, peg-interferon (and ribavirin).  At best, the new drug showed about the same ability to eliminate detectable virus from the patients' blood in the short-term as did the older drug.  The new drug also produced fewer unpleasant side effects, but possibly more severe adverse effects.  Just like all previous known published trials of hepatitis C treatments, this trial of sofosbuvir did not follow patients long enough to determine if the drug had any effect on the serious, but not inevitable long-term complications of hepatitis C infection, severe hepatitis, cirrhosis, liver failure, liver cancer, and premature death.

I could find no other published trials of sofosbuvir versus either older drugs or placebo.  Most of the subsequently published, and loudly hyped studies of the drug were of highly selected patients, and did not include control groups which did not receive sofosbuvir.  So the very high short term "cure" rates - which were really rates of elimination of detectable virus from the blood, could have been mainly a function of these studies' highly selected patient populations.

Yet the lack of strong evidence that sofosbuvir, and subsequent competing drugs actually made patients better, i.e., feel better, function better, avoid serious subsequent medical problems, or live longer, did not stop tremendous enthusiasm in the media for the new drug.  Much of it doubtless stemmed from huge marketing and public relations expenditures.  Nor did did the lack of evidence stop Gilead and other drug makers from pricing the new drugs in the stratosphere.  Initially a 12 week course of of Sovaldi cost $84,000.

Since then, there has been tremendous buzz about the price of these new antiviral drugs for hepatitis C, and tremendous anxiety about the consequent difficult access to these presumptively "life saving" therapies.  However, my and others' questions about whether these drugs actually benefit patients, and whether any benefits might be worth their harms, remained anechoic (See appendix below.)

The Harms of the "Wonder Drugs" Begin to Appear

Nowadays new drugs, devices, and other health care technologies are often touted based on little evidence.  What evidence is produced mainly comes from commercially sponsored clinical trials.  Commercial sponsors may manipulate the design, implementation, analysis and dissemination of these studies to increase the likelihood that they will make their products look good.

In particular, such trials may fail to detect adverse effects of the new products to be hyped.  The trials  often enroll only small numbers of patients, decreasing the likelihood of finding rare but serious problems.  Often patients who have any health problems other than the disease of interest are excluded from trials, decreasing the likelihood of detecting adverse events that might affect patients with multiple morbidities or on other treatments.  Trials may fail to follow patients long-term, so they may fail to detect adverse effects that appear only after prolonged therapy.  These sorts of problems certainly afflicted the very few real clinical trials of sofosbuvir, and other new antiviral drugs for hepatitis C.   

So it should not have been surprising that sofosbuvir has now been found to produce two kinds of severe adverse events that were undetected, or at least undisclosed when it was launched.  The second kind of adverse event was just announced, and also seems to occur after administration of other new anti-hepatitis C drugs.

Severe Heart Rhythm Abnormalities

In March, 2015, as discussed by Dr John Mandrola in Medscape,

As reported by heartwire , the US FDA recently announced a change in labeling for the hepatitis-C antivirals ledipasvir/sofosbuvir (Harvoni, Gilead Sciences) and sofosbuvir (Sovaldi, Gilead Sciences) after their manufacturers reported bradycardia, pacemaker intervention, and even death in patients who took the medications along with amiodarone. Notably, six of these nine cases occurred within 24 hours of sofosbuvir dosing.

While Dr Mandrola was concerned about this adverse effect, the news media put more emphasis on the Wall Street analysts who thought the problem would have "zero impact" on sales of the fabulously expensive antiviral drugs. (See this post by Ed Silverman on PharmaLot.)

So all remained serene, until this week.

Reactivation of Hepatitis B Infection

On October 4, 2016, Medscape reported

Patients with a past or current hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection can experience sometimes fatal HBV reactivation if they take any of nine direct-acting antivirals for hepatitis virus C (HCV) infection, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced today.

The agency will require a boxed warning for the drugs advising clinicians to screen patients for evidence of a past or current HBV infection before ordering antiviral treatment for HCV.

Also,

The FDA said in a news release that it had identified 24 cases of HBV reactivation in coinfected patients treated with these antivirals from November 22, 2013, to July 18, 2016, in reports to the agency and published literature. Two patients died, and one needed a liver transplant.

Why were we not made aware of this before?  Failure to detect this adverse effect was apparently due to the exclusion of patients with a history of hepatitis B from previous studies of the new drugs.  As we mentioned above, commercially sponsored trials often exclude patients with nearly any medical conditions other than the one of interest.  Yet hepatitis C patients often have comorbidities.  I

clinical trials for the HCV drugs in question did not report HBV reactivation because they excluded patients infected with HBV.

Will this prompt a reexamination of our enthusiasm for new antiviral hepatitis C treatments? I suspect not. Even FDA officials suggested we should not be too alarmed. In particular, Dr. John Farley, deputy director of FDA's Office of Antimicrobial Products, said according to NBC News,

I think it is important to recognize that these hepatitis C drugs are lifesaving medications. What we don't want to do is discourage patients with hepatitis C from getting treatment,...

But remember, there has never been a controlled trial that showed that treatment of hepatitis C with anything actually reduced the risk of later severe hepatitis, cirrhosis, liver failure, liver cancer, or premature death. And there may be other adverse effects of this new treatment that remain unknown.

Even government regulators, who are supposed to put the public health ahead of the profits of the pharmaceutical industry, seem to have fallen for the life saving miracle drug meme in this case.

Summary

The ongoing story of hepatitis C treatment demonstrates how hype and buzz, largely generated by marketing and public relations, and likely fueled by financial relationships among commercial health care firms and health care professionals and academics, has triumphed over rigorous skeptical evaluation of the best available evidence from clinical research.

There has never been good evidence that hepatits C treatments prolong life, or prevent severe liver disease in the long run.  There has never been good evidence that these drugs' clinical benefits outweigh their harms.  Yet they have been relentlessly promoted as game changers, miraculous, triumphant lifesaving medicines.

One obvious lesson is that health care professionals, policy makers, and the public at large have to be much more skeptical about commercial claims for drugs, devices, tests, etc.  We need to figure out when claims are coming from marketing departments and public relations hacks.  We need to figure out when researchers and professionals who are supporting these claims could be influenced by financial relationships with the firms benefiting from the claims.

Furthermore, it is high time to revisit all the regulatory and policy changes over the last 30 years that have put manufacturers in charge of the research meant to test their own health care products.

In conclusion, evidence-based medicine rigorously applied suggests that individual health care and health policy decisions should be driven by the best available evidence, mostly from clinical research, about the benefits and harms of tests, treatments, programs, and so on, in the context of what outcomes matter to patients.  The skepticism EBM should engender could lead to health care that is more about patients and their outcomes, and less about ideology, hype, and hucksterism. If only such skepticism were easier to find.


.......
APPENDIX - Clinical Research about Hepatitis C Treatments

Starting in March, 2014, we have posted about the lack of good evidence from clinical research suggesting these drugs are in fact so wondrous.  The drugs are now touted as "cures," at least by the drug companies, (look here), and physicians are urged to do widespread screening to find patients with asymptomatic hepatitis C so they can benefit from early, albeit expensive treatment.

However, as we pointed out (e.g., here and here)
-  The best evidence available suggests that most patients with hepatitis C will not go on to have severe complications of the disease (cirrhosis, liver failure, liver cancer), and hence could not benefit much from treatment.
-  There is no evidence from randomized controlled trials that treatment prevents most of these severe complications
-  There is no clear evidence that "sustained virologic response," (SVR), the surrogate outcome measure promoted by the pharmaceutical industry, means cure. 
-  While the new drugs are advertised as having fewer adverse effects than older drugs, it is not clear that their benefits, whatever they may be, outweigh their harms.

Furthermore, health care professionals and researchers with heftier credentials in clinical epidemiology and evidence based medicine than mine have since published similar concerns.  These included
- a report from the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (the English summary is here)
- an article in JAMA Internal Medicine from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (1)
- a report from the Center for Evidence-Based Policy (link here)
- an article in Prescrire International (2)

These publications and your humble scribe noted that the clinical trials or other types of clinical research about new hepatitis C treatment published in the most prominent journals had numerous methodologic problems that all seemed likely to make the new drugs look better, perhaps intentionally.  (See posts here,  here, and here.)

References

 1. Ollendorf DA, Tice JA et al. The comparative clinical effectiveness and value of simeprevir and sofosbuvir in chronic hepatitis C viral infection. JAMA Intern Med 2014;174(7):1170-1171. Link here.
2. Sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), active against hepatitis C virus, but evaluation is incomplete. Prescrire Int 2015; 24: 5- 10. Link here.

ADDENDUM (11 October, 2016) - This post was republished on the Naked Capitalism blog. 

Abort, Retry, Fail - Billionaire Bill Gates Opines, Sans Evidence, on ... the Efficacy of Hepatitis C Treatment?

If you needed advice about the technical characteristics of computer operating systems you probably would not go to your doctor for it.  So why would you seek the opinion of a software company mogul about the efficacy of pharmaceuticals?

Software Mogul Bill Gates on the Pricing and Efficacy of Antiviral Drugs for Hepatitis C 

Nonetheless, per Bloomberg, last week Bill Gates pontificated about drugs for the treatment of hepatitis C.  When apparently asked about the priorities of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Mr Gates said

market forces were working properly in hepatitis C, invoking Gilead Sciences Inc.’s treatments Sovaldi and Harvoni, which have been criticized by insurers and politicians as too expensive at $1,000 a pill or more for 12 weeks of treatment, before discounts and rebates.

While Gilead is the market leader, it’s now facing competition from Merck & Co. and AbbVie Inc., forcing prices lower.

'Curing hepatitis C, this is a phenomenal thing, and now you have multiple drug companies competing in terms of the quality and the price of that offering,' he said.

More broadly, Mr Gates defended the high prices of drugs in the US, partly because:

The drug companies are turning out miracles....

Not a Wonder Drug, According to the Clinical Research Evidence

Mr Gates, it seems, has not done a critical review of the data on the new antiviral treatments for hepatitis C.  In fact, starting in March, 2014, we have posted about the lack of good evidence from clinical research suggesting these drugs are in fact so wondrous.  The drugs are now touted as "cures," at least by the drug companies, (look here), and physicians are urged to do widespread screening to find patients with asymptomatic hepatitis C so they can benefit from early, albeit expensive treatment.

However, as we pointed out (e.g., here and here)
-  The best evidence available suggests that most patients with hepatitis C will not go on to have severe complications of the disease (cirrhosis, liver failure, liver cancer), and hence could not benefit much from treatment.
-  There is no evidence from randomized controlled trials that treatment prevents most of these severe complications
-  There is no clear evidence that "sustained virologic response," (SVR), the surrogate outcome measure promoted by the pharmaceutical industry, means cure. 
-  While the new drugs are advertised as having fewer adverse effects than older drugs, it is not clear that their benefits, whatever they may be, outweigh their harms.

Furthermore, health care professionals and researchers with heftier credentials in clinical epidemiology and evidence based medicine than mine have since published similar concerns.  These included
- a report from the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (the English summary is here)
- an article in JAMA Internal Medicine from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (1)
- a report from the Center for Evidence-Based Policy (link here)
- an article in Prescrire International (2)

These publications and your humble scribe noted that the clinical trials or other types of clinical research about new hepatitis C treatment published in the most prominent journals had numerous methodologic problems that all seemed likely to make the new drugs look better, perhaps intentionally.  (See posts here,  here, and here.)

Why Do Rich People Who Run Foundations Tout Expensive Drugs?


Yet there is something about hepatitis C and the newer treatments of it that seems to inspire rich people who run foundations to sound like marketers for Gilead, sans evidence to support their viewpoints.  About one year ago, former US President Bill Clinton, now a leader of the well-publicized Clinton Foundation and of the now apparently independent Clinton Health Access Initiative, said something similar, as we posted here:

Clinton pointed to new hepatitis C drugs, Sovaldi and Harvoni, which are sold by Gilead Sciences for more than $80,000 for a 12-week program of treatment. Those medications often cure a disease that can cause liver disease and eventually lead to transplants or death, which are expensive, too. But the sticker price on the drug has caused a backlash by payers and patients.

'Who wants to let somebody's liver rot? Nobody,' Clinton said. 'Who's got $80,000 to spend? Not many. And if you're a small businessperson and you're in a small pool [of employer-based insurers], are you going to fire somebody who needs that treatment? These are all practical problems, and we can solve them.'

So what is going on here?  In a general sense, it may be that people who have become very rich, and have held very high level executive positions, start to believe they are expert on everything, especially in a country increasingly dominated by market fundamentalism/ neoliberalism in which money is touted as the ultimate measure of everything important.  But more specifically, Mr Gates may also be spending too much time with the top brass of his foundation, who may be all too used to hawking expensive drugs.

Former Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Executives Running Supposedly Charitable Foundations

In particular, the current CEO of the Gates Foundation is Dr Susan Desmond-Hellmann.  When Dr Desmond-Hellmann's appointment as Chancellor of UCSF was announced in 2009, I suggested that she was a very unusual choice because of aspects of her track record in the pharmaceutical/ biotechnology business.  During her previous service as President of Drug Development at Genentech, Dr Desmond-Hellmann had defended the then sky high pricing of bevacizumab.  Of course, Dr Desmond-Hellmann, as a top executive, personally profited from such pricing.  In her last year at Genentech while the company was still independent, her total compensation was over $8,000,000.  As we discussed in 2014, while she was at UCSF, questions arose about her committment to public health when it was revealed she and her husband had large stock holdings in the tobacco company Altria.  Yet she continued to dismiss the importance of her many apparent conflicts of interest.

Also, in 2011, prior to the hiring of Dr Desmond-Hellmann, as we discussed here, a PLoS Medicine article by Stuckler et al(3) suggested a revolving door between the leadership of the Gates Foundation and of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies,

Members of personnel also move between the Foundation and pharmaceutical companies. For example, in April 2010, a former Merck senior vice president, Richard Henriques, became the chief financial officer of the Gates Foundation. At least two other members of the Gates Foundation leadership have transferred from the leadership of GlaxoSmithKline to sit on the Foundation’s board of directors, including Kate James, the chief communications officer, and Tachi Yamada, until February 2011, the head of the Foundation’s global health program. Similar patterns were observed with the other foundations studied.

Foundations Promoting the Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Agenda

Dr Desmond-Helmann has continued to use her bully pulpit at the Gates Foundation to promote high-tech medicine that uses the newest, most expensive drugs.  For example, in an interview in December, 2015 in the Washington Post, she promoted "precision public health" which would emphasize the supposed "innovation, that speed, that ability to use big data" characteristic of precision medicine brought to public health.  However, "precision medicine" has so far not been proven to fulfill its promise to benefit patients.

In addition, in May, 2016, a Wall Street Journal article noted that she has led the Gates Foundation to invest in commercial biotechnology firms,

Dr. Desmond-Hellmann cited a $52 million investment by the foundation in CureVac, a German biopharmaceutical company, as the type of partnership that could produce new tools against epidemics. CureVac is developing vaccine technologies based on messenger RNA that would instruct the body to produce its own defenses against infections. The funding, which the foundation announced in 2015, is for construction of a manufacturing facility; the foundation said it would provide additional funding to develop vaccines for several infectious diseases.

Are these investments the best way to provide better global health care?  An aside in the Bloomberg article suggests they may be more about making money.

The foundation reported in May that it had received an unexpected boost to its endowment when a stake in a small biotechnology firm, Anacor Pharmaceuticals Inc., sold for $86.7 million -- about 17 times the fund’s original investment. While the foundation had invested in Anacor to encourage the company’s work in neglected diseases, Anacor shares took off after its toenail fungus drug was approved.

I am sure that toenail fungus is not a major public health problem anywhere, much less in the developing world.

The tragedy here is that the Gates Foundation, which appears to be the largest private foundation in the US (and the world), has a huge impact on global health, and yet its leadership is squandering its moral authority in the pursuit of the pharmaceutical/ biotechnology agenda.  A review of a new book out about the foundation in November, 2015 in the Intercept noted that the book's author

spends much more time discussing whether the Gates Foundation is protecting the patents of pharmaceutical companies and whether it is making common cause with Monsanto to spread genetically modified crops in Africa

In January, 2016, the  Global Policy Forum put out a report that, per a Guardian article,  accused

organisations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and others are promoting solutions to global problems that may undermine the UN and other international organisations, says the report by the independent Global Policy Forum, which monitors the work of UN bodies and global policymaking.

Futhermore, the report asserted,

 Through their multiple channels of influence, the Rockefeller and Gates foundations have been very successful in promoting their market-based and bio-medical approaches towards global health challenges in the research and health policy community – and beyond.

More specifically, an article in the Independent accused the foundation of having a

ideological commitment to promote neoliberal economic policies and corporate globalisation

The report, per the Guardian, also accused the foundation of conflicts of interest,

The report also questions why the Gates foundation invests heavily in companies like Monsanto and Bayer. 'In addition to its grant-making activities, the Gates foundation has recently stepped up its support for the biotechnological industry directly.'

Also, similar to the PLoS Medicine article cited above(3)

'There is a revolving door between the Gates foundation and pharmaceutical corporations. Many of the foundation’s staff had held positions at pharmaceutical companies,' the report adds.

More dramatically, per the Independent,

the Gates Foundation 'often appears to be a massive, vertically integrated multinational corporation, controlling every step in a supply chain that reaches from its Seattle-based boardroom … to millions of end-users in the villages of African and south Asia.'

Furthermore, per the Intercept book review article, the larger problem is that the Gate Foundation and its CEO are largely unaccountable,

Bill and Melinda Gates answer to no electorate, board, or shareholders; they are accountable mainly to themselves. What’s more, the many millions of dollars the foundation has bestowed on nonprofits and news organizations has led to a natural reluctance on their part to criticize it. There’s even a name for it: the 'Bill Chill'  effect.

I would note parenthetically the foundation's board of trustees only includes Bill and Melinda Gates, Mr Gates' father, and Mr Warren Buffet.  Most large foundations have considerably larger boards of trustees, with at least some diversity in family membership and backgrounds.

In an interview with the Financial Times in March, 2016, Dr Desmond-Hellmann made a hash of addressing the accountability issue:

Accountability is another concern. To whom do these multibillion-dollar foundations answer?

For once, Dr Desmond-Hellmann’s confident responses falter. In reply to a suggestion that trans­parency is not the same thing as accountability — putting everything online means you can see what the foundation is doing, but does not mean that it is being held to account — she seems uncharacteristically stuck for words.

'The way that people can hold us accountable is to look at what we achieved as a foundation through our collaborations,' she says, quickly regaining her poise.

So even the foundation's CEO cannot say to whom, and how she is accountable.


Conclusions

So maybe Bill Gates' seemingly ill-informed apologia for the extremely high drug prices charged in the US, and his lack of understanding of the evidence about the efficacy, or lack thereof, of some of these high priced drugs is a small humorous story that indicates just the tip of the iceberg.  It appears that in our current market fundamentalist, neoliberal world, foundations may be more about promoting the commercial interests of their board members and officers than about improving the lot of humanity.  Yet for the most part they may succeed in obfuscating what they are doing through the haze of marketing and public relations.

True health care reform would first make transparent the web of institutional and individual conflicts of interest that seems to tie together nearly all big health care organizations, and open discussion of how to make health care organizations better serve health care rather than the narrow financial interest of their top leaders.

Graphic Interlude

A "blue screen of death"

 References

1. Ollendorf DA, Tice JA et al. The comparative clinical effectiveness and value of simeprevir and sofosbuvir in chronic hepatitis C viral infection. JAMA Intern Med 2014. Link here.
2. Sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), active against hepatitis C virus, but evaluation is incomplete. Prescrire Int 2015; 24: 5- 10. Link here.
3.  Stuckler D, Basu S, McKee M. Global health philanthropy and institutional relationships: how should conflicts of interest be addressed? PLoS Med 8(4): e1001020.  doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001020.  Link here.

Bill Clinton, Paid to Speak to Biotech Conference, Extolled $1000 Pill to Prevent "Liver Rot," Despite Lack of Evidence that It Does

What were they thinking?

Former President Clinton Talkes to Pharma and Biotech Executives

In mid June, 2015, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported that former US President

Clinton was the keynote speaker at Klick Ideas Exchange, sponsored by Klick Health, a Toronto-based digital marketing agency, along with Veeva Systems and the Biotechnology Industry Organization. BIO, the Washington-based trade association, is holding its annual convention at the Pennsylvania Convention Center this week, attracting 15,000 people.

For his troubles he was apparently paid, however

his foundation did not respond to a request for information about Monday's speaking fee. Hillary Clinton's campaign also did not respond to a similar request. A spokeswoman for Klick Health declined to provide Clinton's fee.

It is likely he was well paid, since his going rate is very high:

disclosure forms indicated Bill Clinton received between $225,000 and $275,000 for each of eight speaches delivered between March 31 and May 14 of this year.

Clinton Endorses the Miraculous $1000 Pill

So what would a former president say to a bunch of pharmaceutical and biotechnology executives and their friends?  He chose to talk about the prices of new drugs:

Former president Bill Clinton said Monday in Philadelphia that high prices for some medicines are hard to justify, and the biotech and pharmaceutical industries should try full explanation and disclosure to make their case.

'Explain, explain, explain and disclose, disclose, disclose,' Clinton said in a speech and question-and-answer session before about 200 biotech and health-care executives at the National Museum of American Jewish History. 'Don't expect everybody to love you, but at least they will hear your side of the story.'

Who could quarrel with more explanations and disclosures?  President Clinton did not stop there, and went on to opine about prices versus drugs' purported value to patients, with a focus on new drugs for hepatitis C.

Clinton pointed to new hepatitis C drugs, Sovaldi and Harvoni, which are sold by Gilead Sciences for more than $80,000 for a 12-week program of treatment. Those medications often cure a disease that can cause liver disease and eventually lead to transplants or death, which are expensive, too. But the sticker price on the drug has caused a backlash by payers and patients.

'Who wants to let somebody's liver rot? Nobody,' Clinton said. 'Who's got $80,000 to spend? Not many. And if you're a small businessperson and you're in a small pool [of employer-based insurers], are you going to fire somebody who needs that treatment? These are all practical problems, and we can solve them.'

So the implications are clearly
-  President Clinton thinks it is reasonable to charge $80,000 for a course of treatment with Sovaldi, but society needs to figure out who will pay
-  Apparently he thinks it is reasonable because without treatment, patients with hepatitis C will get "liver rot," but the drugs will prevent that.

The Evidence Fails to Support the President

President Clinton's preparation for this talk apparently did not include speaking with someone who had critically reviewed the best evidence from clinical studies about hepatitis C, and the effects of new drugs on it, particularly, the effects of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi.)  Neither did President Clinton read Health Care Renewal.

If he did, he would have found out starting in March, 2014, we have posted about the lack of good evidence from clinical research suggesting these drugs are in fact so wondrous.  The drugs are now touted as "cures," at least by the drug companies, (look here), and physicians are urged to do widespread screening to find patients with asymptomatic hepatitis C so they can benefit from early, albeit expensive treatment.

However, as we pointed out (e.g., here and here)
-  The best evidence available suggests that most patients with hepatitis C will not go on to have severe complications of the disease (cirrhosis, liver failure, liver cancer), and hence could not benefit much from treatment.
-  There is no evidence from randomized controlled trials that treatment prevents most of these severe complications
-  There is no clear evidence that "sustained virologic response," (SVR), the surrogate outcome measure promoted by the pharmaceutical industry, means cure. 
-  While the new drugs are advertised as having fewer adverse effects than older drugs, it is not clear that their benefits, whatever they may be, outweigh their harms.

Furthermore, health care professionals and researchers with heftier credentials in clinical epidemiology and evidence based medicine than mine have since published similar concerns.  These included
- a report from the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (the English summary is here)
- an article in JAMA from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (1)
- a report from the Center for Evidence-Based Policy (link here)
- an article in Prescrire International (2)

These publications and your humble scribe noted that the clinical trials or other types of clinical research about new hepatitis C treatment published in the most prominent journals had numerous methodologic problems that all seemed likely to make the new drugs look better, perhaps intentionally.  (See posts here,  here, and here.)

But because, as we noted here, concerns about the lack of evidence in support of Sovaldi and its new competitors have been anechoic, it might not have been so easy for President Clinton to quickly determine if hepatits C usually causes "liver rot," and whether Sovaldi almost always prevents "liver rot," and hence might just be worth $1000 a pill.

Hype Wins, Logic and Reason Lose

Unfortunately, the problem is not merely that the BIO folks hired a celebrity to tell them what they wanted to hear.  President Clinton has a lot more gravitas than a Hollywood star, even given his famous equivocation about the meaning of the word "is."

More unfortunately in this context, President Clinton is also the husband of the current front running Democratic candidate for President.  Should former Senator and Secretary of State Hilary Clinton win the election, would her health policy choices be influenced by the (probably erroneous) belief that the current extremely high prices of medical treatments, particularly new drugs, are reasonable because of their magical curative properties?  Furthermore, President Clinton is also the Founder and presumed current leader of the the Bill, Hilary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation whose goals include working "to improve global health and wellness,..."  Is this work based also based on the assumption that the astronomical prices of new drugs are justified by their miraculous powers?

Thus President Clinton's apparent endorsement of the wonderful powers of Sovaldi, despite the lack of good evidence underlying them, may carry a lot of weight.  

Conclusion

How distorted is health care these days.  Misinformation, even disinformation seems to dominate evidence and logic.  Concerns about health care dysfunction are suppressed by the anechoic effect.  Perhaps inspired by the generic managers who now run health care organizations, everyone seems to have become a health care expert, and so the reach of viewpoints on health care seems to be more about the celebrity of their proponents rather than their knowledge, or the logic and evidence underlying their views.

As a start, true health care reform has to somehow liberate good clinical evidence from where it has been hidden, and encourage logical discourse over marketing, public relations, hype, propaganda, and disinformation.

If only someone who knows something about health care, logic and evidence could get their views heard by ex Presidents and others who dominate our 24/7 conversation. 

ADDENDUM (2 July, 2015) - This post was republished on the Naked Capitalism blog

See also comments by Micky on the 1BoringOldMan blog.

References
1. Ollendorf DA, Tice JA et al. The comparative clinical effectiveness and value of simeprevir and sofosbuvir in chronic hepatitis C viral infection. JAMA Intern Med 2014. Link here.
2. Sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), active against hepatitis C virus, but evaluation is incomplete. Prescrire Int 2015; 24: 5- 10. Link here.

As the Hepatitis C Marketing Frenzy Continues, a Reminder Not to Ignore the Evidence

The Hepatitis C Spin Cycle Continues

Since our last post in July, 2014, about sofosbuvir (Sovaldi, Gilead), the $1000 pill proclaimed to be a wonder drug for the treatment of hepatitis C, the marketing juggernaut for new antiviral drugs for this condition continues to roll along.

For example, I just got a notice to look at a Gilead website which proclaims 

HCV can be cured

In October, Gilead got permission so sell Harvoni, a new combination drug that includes sofosbuvir and ledipasvir, hailed as a once daily pill that can cure hepatitis C, for a mere $94,500 for a typical treatment course. (See this article in the Wall Street Journal.) Meanwhile, AbbeVie launched its own antiviral treatment for hepatitis C, Viekira Pak, (ombitasvir, paritaprevir, and ritonavir tablets plus dasabuvir tablets) priced just under sofosbuvir, but still very expensive.  (See this Bloomberg article.)

Media coverage of these developments suggests that there is no controversy about the curative, nay lifesaving properties of these new drugs.  For example, a Wall Street Journal article about how Express Scripts will only pay for the slightly less expensive Viekira Pak referred to Sovaldi, Harvoni, and the Viekira Pak as "lifesaving medicines," and later noted, "Both Gilead’s Harvoni and AbbVie’s Viekira Pak have been shown in clinical trials to cure as many as 90% of patients..."


Never Mind the Evidence from Clinical Research, or Lack Thereof

Nearly all cases of hepatitis C can be cured, and one of the best hopes for a cure is sofosbuvir, maybe plus ledipasvir?

Never mind that the prominent published studies of sofosbuvir plus ledipasvir(1-3) did not compare this combination to any other drugs.  They simply compared different durations of treatment with the combination, plus minus other drugs.  So whether this combination is better than any other treatment, and even whether the apparently high rate of "cure," really suppression of virus detectable in blood samples at 12 weeks, would apply to patients less highly selected than those in the study was unclear. 

Of course, like every other trial of antiviral drugs for hepatitis C, these studies only assessed whether the drugs causes a "sustained virological response," that is, made the virus undetectable in patients' blood for 12 weeks.  They did not assess whether the virus reappeared after that, and certainly did not assess whether the drugs affected the development of the dreaded complications of hepatitis C infection, that is cirrhosis, liver failure, liver cancer, and death.  In the absence of controlled trials that assessed these long term clinical outcomes, the assertions that these drugs are curative or lifesaving do not appear to be well substantiated.

It is not even obvious that the new sofosbuvir based regimens are better than the old peg-interferon based regimens.   As we noted here, there apparently has only been one published study that compared sofosbuvir to another antiviral drug, peg-interferon.  That study had multiple methodologic problems, most of which appeared likely to make sofosbuvir look better, but nonetheless did not show sofosbuvir to be clearly more effective or safer than this, or any other alternative. (See posts here and here.)

In October, a cost-effectiveness analysis appeared that was used to make the case that expensive drugs like sofosbuvir could nevertheless be cost-effective.(4)  It showed that the drugs increased quality adjusted life expectancy for a relatively modest cost.

Never mind that the analysis was based on the highly questionable assumption, that "treatment resulting in cure [presumably meaning sustained virological response] could leave patients with residual fibrosis consistent with their stage at the time but without additional progression." [Italics added.] This assumption was completely unsupported by randomized controlled trial data.  As Chavez-Tapia et al wrote in a December, 2014, letter to JAMA,(5) "SVR is poorly correalted with clinical outcomes in randomized controlled trials, and even though efforts have been made to correlate it with mortality, evidence to date is insufficient to assert that SVR will translate into improved quality of life or life expectancy."

Is the evidence supporting the Viekira Pak any better?

Not obviously.  The prominent November, 2014, New England Journal of Medicine study by Ferenci et al of the drugs within the Viekira Pak also equated 12 week SVR with cure, also failed to allow patients long-term, and also failed to assess clinically important complications of hepatitis C such as cirrhosis, liver failure, liver cancer, and death.  Furthermore, the study did not compare the Viekira Pak with any other treatment option, e.g., one containing sofosbuvir or peg-interferon, or to placebo.(6)   Thus, assertions that the Viekira Pak is curative or lifesaving also do not appear to be substantiated by evidence from well-designed long-term clinical trials.

However, the lack of evidence so far as not discouraged the breathless claims, and the acceptance of these claims in the media, and probably by many physicians.

Another Skeptical Review

However, one bit of common sense about all this just appeared in the form of a 2015 article in the French journal Prescrire International.(7)  The full article requires a subscription, but a summary is available on the web, and includes the following dry but telling language:

Sofosbuvir’s initial clinical evaluation includes several comparative trials. But these trials investigate its harm-benefit balance in a minimal way. Sofosbuvir has not been compared directly with a viral protease inhibitor in a randomised clinical trial. The evaluation of sofosbuvir in patients infected with a genotype 1 HCV and suffering from cirrhosis is very poor.

Clinical trials have shown that the addition of sofosbuvir to various drug combinations increases their virological efficacy, but there is no guarantee of success.

In practice, in patients with liver damage requiring antiviral drug therapy, sofosbuvir seems to be at least as effective and less harmful than viral protease inhibitors such as boceprevir. Its use makes it possible to reduce the duration of treatment by several months. But there is a great deal of uncertainty as to its adverse effects and its interactions. In genotype 1 cases, the addition of sofosbuvir to the peginterferon alfa + ribavirine combination is an option. In genotype 2 or 3 cases, sofosbuvir is an alternative to peginterferon alfa. However, given the slow progress of hepatitis C and the many unknowns surrounding sofosbuvir, it is a reasonable option to await further clinical evidence to be available.

Meanwhile, more skepticism about the sky high pricing of these new antiviral drugs appeared in the form of a lawsuit by the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) for price gouging that allegedly violates antitrust laws.

But even the coverage of this lawsuit, like nearly all the other coverage of Sovaldi, Harvoni, and competing drugs, assumed that these drugs are miracle cures, e.g., see this Wall Street Journal article.  As we discussed in detail before (look here, here, here, here, here and here)  there is no good evidence that any of these new treatments prevents cirrhosis, liver failure, liver cancer, or death due to hepatitis C, and their long-term safety is unclear.  Similar points have been made by rigorous reviews in Germany, in the US, and now in France.  Yet the antiviral spin continues without regard to evidence, or the lack thereof, from good clinical research.  I would like to hope that each new added bit of skepticism, now including the Prescrire International review, will have some effect.  But that may be wishful thinking, since most of what goes on in the health care "industry" now seems less than fully reality based.

Summary

As we said before,  the Sovaldi (and now Harvoni, Viekira Pak, etc) case is a signal example of how our health care system is awash in marketing hype and public relations buzz that has swamped rational skeptical thinking about logic and evidence.  That marketing and PR is ever enriching managers while it will send the rest of us, health care professionals included, to the poor house.  And all the money we spend will likely not buy us the promised miracles and triumphs.

It is disappointing that so many physicians and other health professionals have been caught up in this hype and spin, probably abetted by their wishful thinking about cures of hepatitis C, and perhaps also abetted by financial conflicts of interest.  Yet to protect the best interests of their patients, they should be rigorously skeptical of illogical or evidence-free arguments made to further vested financial interests.

As we have said until blue in the face, true health care reform would bring some skeptical thinking and regard for evidence and logic into the health policy discussion.

References

1.  Afdhal N, Reddy KR, Nelson DR et al.  Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for previously treated HCV genotype 1 infection.  N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1483-98.  Link here.
2.  Afdhal N, Zeuzern S, Kwo P et al.  Lepipasvir and sofosbuvir for untreated HCV genotype 1 infection.  N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1889-98.  Link here.
3.  Kowdley KV, Gordon SC, Reddy KR et al.  Ledipasvir and sofosbuvir for 8 or 12 weeks for chronic HCV without cirrhosis.  N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 1879 - 1888.  Link here.
4.  Liu S, Watcha A, Holodniy M et al.  Sofosbuvir-based treatment regimens for chronic genotype 1 hepatitis C virus infection in the U.S. incarcerated populations: a cost-effectiveness analysis.  Ann Intern Med 2014; 161: 546 - 553.  Link here.
5.  Chavez-Tapia NC, Barrientos-Gutierrez TB, Uribe M. Assessment of outcomes of hepatitis C treatment.  JAMA 2014; 312: 2570-2571.  Link here. 
6.  Ferenci P, Bernstein D, Lalezari J et al. ABT-450/r–Ombitasvir and Dasabuvir with or without Ribavirin for HCV. N Engl J Med 2014; 370:1983-1992. Link here.  
7.  Sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), active against hepatitis C virus, but evaluation is incomplete.  Prescrire Int 2015; 24: 5- 10.  Link here.

Sovaldi, a Quantum Leap... Backwards to the Days Before Randomized Controlled Trials?

The Sovaldi (sofosbuvir - Gilead) media circus is continuing.  The New York Times just reported that sales of the new drug for hepatitis C were about $3.5 billion for the last quarter, which should intensify the kerfuffle over its US price ($1000 per pill, $84,000 for a 12 week course of medication).

Meanwhile, reports of its wondrous properties continue to appear in medical journals.

The latest was announced this way in Bloomberg,

Gilead Science Inc Solvadi, controversial because of its price, helps cure hepatitis C in people with HIV, according to researchers who say the drug has the potential to limit a top cause of death in these patients.

In a study of 223 HIV-infected patients, Solvadi combined with ribavirin cleared the most common US strain of hepatitis C in 76 percent of newly treated patients over 24 weeks. Only seven participants stopped treatment because of side effects and there were no adverse effects on HIV treatment, according to a report in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Not unexpectedly, the study investigators were thrilled,

This is 'the first clinical trial to demonstrate that we can cure hepatitis C in patients with HIV co-infection without the use of interferon,' said Mark Sulkowski, the study author and medical director of the John Hopkins Infectious Disease Center for Viral Hepatitis in Baltimore. 'It represents a transformative step in our approach to this therapeutic area.'

Furthermore, as noted in a Medscape report,

In an accompanying editorial,(1) Michael Saag, MD, also of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, said the finding is a 'quantum leap' forward for people coping with both viruses.

What Clinical Trial?

I have posted previously about the controversy over the high price of Sovaldi.  I noted that most of the arguments, even from people most incensed about paying $1000 per pill, assumed that the drug was nearly miraculous, e.g., "a triumph," or "a revolution" in medicine.  Yet my reading suggested that the published evidence from clinical studies of the drug was in fact weak.  Critical reviews of the evidence from groups in the US, the UK, and Germany (look here, here, and here) also questioned the evidence backing Sovaldi.  Yet doubts about the drug's benefits versus harms have yet to influence the public discussion, which is focused on whether $1000 a pill is too much to charge for a miracle drug.

So I thought that "quantum leap" demonstrated in the latest trial(2) would bear further scrutiny.

The most important feature of the "trial" is how its design is described,

In this multicenter, open-label, nonrandomized, uncontrolled phase 3 trial, all patients received 400 mg of sofosbuvir (Gilead Sciences) administered orally once daily along with ribavirin (Ribasphere, Kadmon) administered orally twice daily, with doses determined according to body weight....

Let me make very clear, in this "trial," all patients got the same therapy.  There was no comparison group.  The study description is therefore inherently self-contradictory.  In fact, this study was a case-series, not a clinical trial.  It had no control group.

The classic Users Guides to the Medical Literature suggests that the first question a critical reviewer should ask about a study to assess a treatment is "was the assignment of patients to treatment randomized?"(3) The rationale was that studies of patients for whom clinicians made treatment decisions could easily be confounded by the reasons clinicians used to make these decisions.  Clinicians are trained to individual treatment decisions, and thus patients prescribed a treatment are likely to greatly differ from those not assigned that treatment.  The ways they differ could have as much, or more effect on their outcomes than the treatments themselves.  Although complex statistical adjustment methods could be used to try to compensate for these differences, it is rarely possible to be assured that all important differences have been taken into account. 

However, this still assumes a comparison between patients getting different treatments, or treatment versus no treatment.  In the case-series of sofosbuvir, there were no patients getting alternative treatments.  Thus the study itself could not be used to make comparative assessments of sofosbuvir.  

Of course, one could imply comparisons with the results of other studies.  However, such comparisons would not only be susceptible to confounding by reasons for treatment decisions as above, but to bias due to  differences between the current case series and previous studies, e.g., in characteristics of patients recruited, details of treatments given, study settings, and changes in patients, diseases, and treatments over time.   

Thus, a very basic rule in critical review is thou shalt not draw any conclusions about therapy from case-series unless the results are truly extraordinary, i.e., patients clearly doomed to die suddenly become completely well.  There were no such extraordinary results in the case-series of patients with HIV treated with Sovaldi for hepatitis C. 

The latest study of Sovaldi for patients with HIV and hepatitis C is virtually useless to assess whether Sovaldi might be the preferred therapy for such patients.   

Comparable Results?

Yet in an accompanying editorial(1), Dr Michael S Saag asserted that this non-trial 

demonstrates the efficacy of the all-oral regiment of the directly acting agent sofosbuvir plus ribavirin in patients with HCV who are coninfected with HIV

To demonstrate efficacy means to show that the treatment caused good effects.  But without a control group, it is not possible to assess causation.

Also,

The PHOTON-1 trial demonstrates that the all-oral combination of sofosbuvir plus ribavirin yielded results comparable with those of standard pegylated-interferon-ribavirin-vased regimens for each of the genotypic groups, thereby demonstrating that an all-oral combination could achieve similar outcomes as those derived from an injectable therapy.

However, this case-series could not assess comparability, because it included no comparison.


There Goes the Neighborhood - Throwing Out Skeptical Evaluation in the Rush to Promote "Innovation"

For years, the randomized, and usually double-blind, controlled trial has been considered the scientific cornerstone of the evaluation of new treatments.  Yet in the rush to bring new "innovative" treatments to market, presaging often tremendous revenues for their manufacturers, suddenly the randomized controlled trial does not seem so necessary.  In the US, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) no longer seems to require randomized controlled trials to demonstrate efficacy of new drugs deemed to be "breakthroughs."   As noted by Steinbrook and Redberg in the July, 2014, issue of JAMA Internal Medicine(4)

these drugs [for hepatitis C] were approved quickly based on the surrogate endpoint of sustained viral response rate; they were studied in limited populations without long-term follow-up.  Under the US Food and Drug Administration's breakthrough therapy designation, the marketing for sofosbuvir did not include requirements for randomized clinical trials.

Yet without such trials, how could one ever determine if the drug is really so efficacious as to constitute a "breakthrough?"  


As we noted earlier, the two real randomized controlled trials of sofosbuvir did not assess its effects long term, even though it is a drug meant to treat a chronic disease, and particularly did not assess whether it affect clinical outcomes, that is, reduce rates of cirrhosis, liver failure, or liver cancer.  In fact, there has never been a controlled trial meant to assess whether any treatment of hepatitis C affects these outcomes.  Furthermore, while the first author of the case-series above, and many others have claimed the Sovaldi cures hepatitis C, it has never been shown that SVR equals cure.  As Gluud et al wrote in a letter to Lancet,(5)

The claim of cure rests solely on sustained virological response (SVR).  Since some patients who achieve SVRs still go on to develop end-stage liver disease and might die from the interventions, this concept is not correct and might even be wrong in principle.

However, despite all the words written, the concernthat Sovaldi (and possibly other new drugs for hepatitis C) might not be wondrous quantum leaps, because there is really no good evidence to that effect, has remained anechoic.  Not only does the evidence about the benefits and harms of this new drug need to be part of the discussion whether its price is excessive, there needs to be a larger discussion of whether in our rush for "innovation," we will throw out the baby of scientifically valid assessment of new therapies with the bathwater.

Finally,  the Sovaldi case is a signal example of how our health care system is awash in marketing hype and public relations buzz that has swamped rational skeptical thinking about logic and evidence.  That marketing and PR is ever enriching managers while it will send the rest of us, health care professionals included, to the poor house.  And all the money we spend will not buy us the promised miracles and triumphs.

As we have said until blue in the face, true health care reform would bring some skeptical thinking and regard for evidence and logic into the health policy discussion.  

 References

1. Saag MS. Quantum leaps, microeconomics, and the treatment of patients with hepatitis C and HIV coinfection. JAMA 2014; 312: 347. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.7735.  Link here.

2. Sulkowski MS et al.  Sofosbuvir and ribavirin for hepatitis C for patients with HIV coninfection.  JAMA 2014; 312: 353.  doi:10.1001/jama.2014.7734.  Link here.
3. Guyatt GH, Sackett DL, Cook DJ et al. Users' Guides to the Medical Literature: II. How to Use an Article About Therapy or Prevention A. Are the Results of the Study Valid? JAMA. 1993; 270(21): 2598-2601. doi:10.1001/jama.1993.03510210084032. Link here.
4.  Steinbrook R, Redberg R. The high price of the new hepatitis c virus drugs.  JAMA Int Med 2014; 174: 1172.  Link here. 
5.  Gluud C, Koretz R, Gurusamy K. Hepatitis C: a new direction, but an old story? Lancet 2014; 383: 2122-2123.  Link here.

Fourth Time is the (Anti)Charm? - UK NICE Highlights "Uncertainties in the Evidence Base" About Sovaldi

As we have discussed, (here, here and here), while anger continues to build about the $1000/ pill price sought by Gilead for its new antiviral drug for hepatitis C, Sovaldi (sofosbuvir), almost all public discussion still treats the drug as miraculous.  However, my reading of some key trials, and reviews by three groups of evidence-based medicine experts, suggested that the evidence supporting the drug is actually weak and unclear, and hardly suggests it is miraculous.

NICE Weighs In

Now, as first noted by the indomitable Ed Silverman in his revived PharmaLot blog, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the UK is also skeptical.   

the U.K.’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, otherwise known as NICE, has declined to endorse the use of Sovaldi, at least for now, until Gilead supplies further evidence of the medication works in certain subgroups of patients. In announcing the move, NICE officials wrote there are 'substantial uncertainties' in the evidence from the drug maker. In a statement issued about a draft guidance, NICE wrote that the agency 'is minded not to recommend' that the U.K.’s National Health Service cover the cost of Sovaldi,

The actual statement said,

 The available evidence shows that sofosbuvir is an effective treatment for chronic hepatitis C in certain patients. However, evidence is lacking for some subgroups of patients with chronic hepatitis C, and there are also substantial uncertainties in the evidence base presented by the manufacturer. The Committee has therefore requested further information from the manufacturer before it can decide whether sofosbuvir is a cost-effective use of NHS resources.

In the US, the only other news source that covered the NICE statement was Bloomberg.

The Problems with the Evidence

As we discussed in our previous posts, the problems with the evidence underlying Sovaldi include:
- Lack of a randomized controlled trial comparing Sovaldi to the previously most recommended treatment regimen
- The only trial trial to compare an antiviral regimen containing Sovaldi to one without it  (Sovaldi plus ribavirn versus peg-interferon plus ribavirin) used a lower dose of ribavirin in the comparator regimen, seemingly handicapping it; had a highly selected patient population whose results would be unlikely to generalize to many patients in the real world; had issues with randomization of patients; only assessed short-term "sustained" virologic response, but not any clinical outcomes; even so, did not show that the sofosbuvir containing regimen produced a better SVR than did the comparator; and appeared to show that the sofosbuvir containing regimen produced more severe adverse effects, and perhaps a higher death rate than the comparator regimen
-  So far, the other published trials included one versus placebo, and multiple trials that compared only sofosbuvir containing regimens to each other, and hence were effectively just case series of patients receiving sofosbuvir.  These case-series all had highly selected patient populations results from whom would be unlikely to generalize to real world patients.

The severe problems with the evidence have now also been noted by
-  the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare (IQWiG)
-  the US Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (look here)
-  the US Center for Evidence-Based Policy (look here)
-  the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE)

Summary - Why Does the Evidence, or Lack Thereof, Remain Anechoic?

Yet none of these reviews have gotten any significant attention in the US media or medical and health care literature, and the idea that Sovaldi has hardly been proven to be a miracle drug, or even better than older drugs for hepatitis C has not informed the US debate and the US outrage about its price.  Examples of the most recent outrage include this in Forbes,

A cure for hepatitis C is within reach for 170 million people around the world — thanks to the charitable efforts of poor and sick Americans who are picking up the tab by paying outrageous prices for their own treatment. It’s like Robin Hood in reverse.

Also,

It also took a complete lack of self-awareness — and unmitigated gall — to price Sovaldi the way Gilead has.

Furthermore, Democrats in the US House of Representatives are calling for an investigation (which their Republican "colleagues" will doubtless block), according to Bloomberg,

The company 'did not provide a compelling justification for the high price they are charging for most patients,' Waxman and DeGette wrote 

If the price is outrageous for a miracle drug, it would be even more outrageous for a drug that has not been proven to be better than previously available treatments.

The fact that skepticism about all the hype for Sovaldi has hardly touched the public discussion in the US is a prime example that the anechoic effect lives.  (The only skepticism from an expert could [probably only] be found again in PharmaLot, and came from one of the authors of the Center for Evidence Based Policy report [see above]). 

'For most patients with hepatitis C, they have time to make those decisions,' Valerie King, one of the physicians at the center who worked on the Sovaldi review, tells OregonLive. 'I’m certainly not saying that this is a bad drug. I’m just saying that we don’t know that it is a good drug.' [UPDATE: King later called us to say that 'the research hasn't been extensive enough or transparent enough to tell us it is a good drug or bad drug, or has limited application.' This was based solely on assessing clinical research, not cost issue.]

We have endlessly discussed the anechoic effect, that information and ideas that challenge the powers that be in health care, and particularly that challenge the ability of health care leaders and well-connected insiders to personally profit, often to a tremendous extent - the CEO of Gilead, John Martin, was listed by FiercePharma as the eighth highest paid biotech CEO in 2013, with total compensation of $15.45 million, before sales of Sovaldi really increased -  are considered recent unpleasantness that are just not to be discussed.  However, without open honest discussion of truths, however inconvenient or unpleasant, and the ideas that they suggest, health care will continue to degenerate into a plutocratically run, often corrupt swamp with ever increasing costs, and ever worsening access and quality, causing increasing suffering of patients and worsening of public health.

A good place to start true health care reform might be honest discussion of the evidence about sofosbuvir.   

Sovaldi - a "Revolution" in Clinical Care, or in Marketing and Public Relations?

The continuing public discussion of the sky high price Gilead has set for Sovaldi (sofosbuvir,) its new antiviral drug for hepatitis C, continues to avoid considering the lack of good evidence that the drug is as safe and effective as its proponents claim.

We first posted about the Sovaldi debate on March 27, 2014, and its focus on price rather than the quality of the evidence underlying loud claims about the miraculous qualities of the drug.  We suggested that there is no good evidence supporting claims that most hepatitis C patients have very bad outcomes if untreated, treatment prevents most bad outcomes, Sovaldi cures nearly all patients, and Sovaldi has very few side effects.

In a subsequent post we wrote that initially, "no one but your humble blogger seemed to be publicly skeptical about published assertions that the drug was some sort of modern miracle, and a triumph of medical science."

On May 7, we noted an assessment by the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) of information submitted by "industry" (presumably Gilead) to the German government.  This assessment found multiple problems with the evidence, including limited generalizability, problems with randomization, lack of information about important outcomes, and lack of ability to quantify benefit.   Also  the US based Institute for Clinical and Economic Review noted that there was little evidence that compared to previous treatments, Sovaldi is better, and no evidence that Sovaldi produces cures in the long term.

Nonetheless, the notions that the evidence supporting Sovaldi (and perhaps other similar drugs) is weak, and that the drugs therefore should not yet be considered miracle cures have not seemingly affected the public discussion. 

Examples of the Latest Discussion

Washington Post/ Kaiser Health News


On May 12, 2014, in an article on the dilemma the drug's US price of $1000/ pill presents to Medicare, Richard Knox wrote this about a patient with the infection:

Previous drug treatments didn't clear the virus from Bianco's system. But it's almost certain that potent new drugs for hep-C could cure him.

In other words, the article asserted that Sovaldi and similar drugs cure nearly everyone with hepatitis C, even those not cured by previous treatment.

 Reuters

On May 20, 2014, in an article about how US health insurers are balking at the price of Sovaldi, was this statement by the main trade organization for US for-profit health care insurers, America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP),

Sovaldi has shown tremendous results, and it's the kind of medical innovation we need to sustain. 

In the article's text was the assertion,

The new drug has demonstrated an ability to cure well over 90 percent of patients in just 12 weeks or less with few side effects.

Prior to the Sovaldi approval, hepatitis C treatments took 24 or 48 weeks, cured about 75 percent of patients and involved many more pills as well as injectable interferon that causes flu-like symptoms and other side effects that led many people to avoid or discontinue treatment.

In other words, the article asserted that Sovaldi can cure over 90% of patients compared to the cure rate of 75% provided by previously available treatments, and implied Sovaldi has fewer side effects.

CNBC

On May 22, 2014, in an article on the high costs of new drugs, a quote from Dr Douglas Dieterich, "a liver disease specialist at Mount Sinai Hospital," who "has consulted for pharmaceutical companies, including Gilead," appeared,

I don’t think there’s any question that treating patients with hepatitis C will lower overall health-care costs in the coming 20 years,...

If we could get rid of the liver disease in these patients with hepatitis C, prevent them from dying of liver cancer, cirrhosis and liver failure, then there’s no question the cost will be less.

The implication was that the new drugs can get rid of the disease, that is, cure it, and in doing so prevent early mortality, cirrhosis, and liver failure.

CTV

The discussion of Sovaldi in Canada seems similar. On May 25, 2014, an article on the high cost of hepatitis C drugs in Canada from CTV, "Canada's largest private broadcaster," (look here) quoted a Canadian physician,

 Dr. Curtis Cooper, director of the viral hepatitis program at the Ottawa Hospital, said the drugs Sovaldi and Galexos offer a revolution for patients with the hepatitis C virus (HCV).

'It only requires 12 weeks of treatment and (they) are producing cure rates of 90 to even 100 per cent,' he told CTV News.

And later, addressing the treatment of a particular patient,

We're talking about curative therapies, which could potentially save her from liver failure, save her from liver cancer

Again, the assertions were that the drug cures 90%, maybe 100% if patients, and that cure will prevent liver failure and cancer.

Is There Any Good Evidence?

Again, while there is much discussion, and some outrage over the $1000 per pill price of Sovaldi in the US (in Canada, a bargain at Canadian $650 per pill), all the discussion seems to assume that the pill is really a "revolution" (as per CTV), that provides

- cure rates of 90 - 100%, much better than previously available treatments

- lower adverse effect rates than than those caused by previously available treatments

-  prevention of complications of hepatitis C, including cirrhosis, liver failure, liver cancer, and early death.

I have found just one recent media article that throws a bit of evidence-based cold water on these claims, and refers to a new systematic review that should be generating a lot of interest, and provoking much more skepticism about the drug, but so far is not.

The Single Skeptical Article

On May 22, 2014, a MedPage Today article noted a new systematic review of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) that had a very different message from the articles above.  In summary,

The evidence base for one of the star hepatitis C drugs is poor and the guidelines for its use are flawed, according to a report obtained by the National Association of Medicaid Directors.

According to the report, studies of sofosbuvir (Sovaldi) are generally of poor quality, mostly directed by the drug's maker, and don't answer key questions, including whether the drug is better and safer than the current standard of care.

The only available guidelines for its use -- guidelines created by the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the Infectious Diseases Society of America -- are 'methodologically flawed,' according to the report, which was prepared by the Center for Evidence-Based Policy at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland (OHSU).

In addition, their authors and sponsors had 'multiple and significant conflicts of interest,' the report argued.

The Report from the Center for Evidence-Based Policy

The report is now public, and directly addresses all four of the major claims made about Sovaldi that we discussed in our first post n the topic.

- Most hepatitis C patients have very bad outcomes if untreated


The report cited the best data about outcome prevalence,

approximately 15% to 25% of people infected with HCV will clear the virus during the acute stage without treatment.  Seventy-five to 85% of infected individuals will develop a chronic HCV infection, and 60% to 70% of patients with chronic infection will develop chronic liver disease.  Over 20 to 30 years, 5% to 20% of infected patients will develop cirrhosis and 1% to 5% will die of cirrhosis or liver cancer.

Although a majority of chronically infected patients will develop some liver disease, only a minority will develop cirrhosis or liver cancer.

- Treatment prevents most bad outcomes


The report stated,

Because of the slow progression of the disease, clinical trials have not evaluated these patient-important conditions [cirrhosis, hepatocellular carcinoma, decompensated liver disease, liver transplant, or death] as trial outcomes.  Instead a surrogate endpoint of sustained virologic response (SVR) has been used to measure success of treatment.  The SVR is defined as undetectable HCV-ribonucleic acid (RNA) levels.  The standard measure of treatment success has been SVR at 24 weeks post treatment (SVR24).

Several long-term studies of patients with chronic HCV infection have shown an association between achieving SVR24 and patient-important clinical outcomes.

So there is no direct evidence that treatment prevents any of the bad outcomes.  There is only indirect evidence that treatment may reduce the rate of some bad outcomes.  For example,

A 2014 observational study of a VA population found that ... the 5180 (4%) of patients who were able to achieve an undetectable viral load with interferon-based treatment had a 45% reduction in the risk of death ... and 27% reduction in the composite clinical endpoint ... of newly diagnosed cirrhosis, HCC [hepatocellular carcinoma], or liver related hospitalization.

However, at best, based on an observational analysis that could have been biased, treatment only may have prevented a minority of bad outcomes.

- Sovaldi cures nearly all patients

As we noted earlier, there have been only two randomized controlled trials published that compared sofosbuvir with anything else.  One compared it to placebo, and one was the trial we discussed earlier that compared it sofosbuvir with ribavirin to pegylated interferon with ribavirin.  (Look here.)  

All other studies were designed to refine drug dose, drug combination or duration of treatment.

Also,

All studies were rated as having a high risk of bias.  No study was judged to have good applicability....  The overall summary judgement for each of the published studies yielded a rating of poor.

Furthermore, the review found even more problems with the only study that compared sofosbuvir to active treatment (peg-interferon) than we did.  In particular, that study did not compare sofosbuvir with ribavirin to the current standard regimen of PEG plus weight-based ribavirin.  Instead, it compared it to a regimen that included low dose ribavirin.  By comparing sofosbuvir plus a higher dose or ribavirin, an active drug, to a peg-interferon plus a lower dose of ribavirin, the study design seemed designed to artificially enhance the efficacy of the sofosbuvir containing regimen.   Furthermore, the study did not assess the measure of sustained viral response at 24 weeks currently accepted as the best surrogate variable.  Instead it used SVR at 12 weeks, which may be correlated with SVR24 but is often higher. Thus this choice of endpoint seemed designed to increase the apparent efficacy of the regimens it evaluated. 

So sofosbuvir has so far been compared to another active anti-viral regimen against hepatitis C in only one study.  That study was poorly designed and implemented, and its problems seemed likely to enhance the apparent efficacy of sofosbuvir.  Nonetheless, that one study did not show that sofosbuvir was more efficiacious, or safer than peg-interferon.

- Sovaldi has very few side effects.

The review had this summary,

The FDA compiled reports of adverse events from four trials....  There were no treatment-related deaths reported [note that we found there were deaths in the one trial that compared sofosbuvir to PEG, look here].

Approximately 78% of patients receiving placebo, 88% of patients on SOF + RBV treatment and 95% of patients receiving PEG + SOF +RBV reported a side effect from treatment.  The most common side effects were fatigue, anemia, nausea, rash, headache, insomnia and pain....

Thus it seems likely that Sovaldi has a lot of side effects, and whether it has fewer than standard treatment is unclear.  Furthermore,

studies on sofosbuvir were small, included populations that were healthier than the general hepatitis C population, were of short duration and had limited follow-up.  In many of the studies, the manufacturer was responsible for recording and reporting adverse events.  In general, reporting of adverse events is often incomplete and discrepancies between clinical trial reports and publications are common....  All of these factors would lead to a bias in under-reporting the true nature of adverse events.

Thus there is no good evidence that sofosbuvir has few side effects, or is dramatically safer than older treatments.

Summary

While there continues to be concern, if not outrage, that the latest treatment for hepatitis C is priced at $1000 per pill, most of those expressing concern seem to assume that the pill is a wonder drug, promising nearly everyone a cure without major side effects.  However, as we first noted in March, 2014, there is no strong evidence to that effect.  In fact, now three skeptical looks at the evidence by people with more resources and perhaps more expertise than we possess have shown similar conclusions.

It is a tribute to the power of the anechoic effect that there has been almost no recognition by physicians and other health professionals, journalists, and most amazingly, insurance companies who stand to lose billions paying for Sovaldi, that there is little good evidence that Sovaldi works, much less is superior to previous treatments.  Instead, even America's Health Insurance Plans thought the drug had "tremendous results," not very different from the assertion by the drug's manufacturer that the drug provides "a finite cure," (as reported by Reuters).  One might think that the insurance companies have enough money to invest in some real evidence-based medicine experts who could provide a skeptical assessment of the pricy new drugs and devices for which these companies may pay.  Is it that the commercial insurers are so now so dominated by generic managers who know nothing about health care, medicine, or biomedical science, much less evidence-based medicine that they are unable to resist the marketing and public relations hype?

The Sovaldi case is a signal example of how our health care system is awash in marketing hype and public relations buzz that has swamped rational skeptical thinking about logic and evidence.  That marketing and PR is ever enriching managers while it will send the rest of us, health care professionals included, to the poor house.  And all the money we spend will not buy us the promised miracles and triumphs.

As we have said until blue in the face, true health care reform would bring some skeptical thinking and regard for evidence and logic into the health policy discussion.  

ADDENDUM (25 July, 2014) - Web link added for CEBP report.