On a Fast Track to Nowhere?

by on December 12, 2007 at 7:25 am in Economics, Medicine | Permalink

Periodically when the FDA is criticized for slowing the approval of new drugs they announce a new policy like Fast Track.  I’m skeptical of these announcements since they are inconsistent with the FDA’s incentives.  A recent investigative report in the Cleveland Plain Dealer seems to suggest that I am right to be skeptical but in the end makes me wonder whether Fast Track may be useful after all.  Here’s the part that supports my skepticism.

A decade ago, the Food and Drug Administration introduced a Fast
Track designation for drugs in development that was intended to speed
the availability of medical treatments for serious diseases.

However, a seven-month investigation by The Plain Dealer shows that
this government blessing has not increased the number of drugs approved
or moved them to market faster.

…Dr. John Jenkins, director of the FDA’s Office of New Drugs,
acknowledged that the Fast Track designation only gives companies the
same access to FDA programs that was already in place when they lobbied
Congress for the provision in 1997.

       "There’s really not much other, if any, benefit for Fast Track," he said.

The report, however, makes a big deal of the fact that stock prices do respond positively to Fast Track designation.  The report spins this as pump and dump with the FDA in effect doing the pumping and insiders and hedge funds doing the dumping. 

…frenzied trading occurs regularly when companies announce Fast Track
status. The number of shares bought and sold more than doubled on 49
percent of days that companies announced Fast Track designations.
Trading was 10 times higher than the day before in 22 percent of
instances….hedge funds and others who [short the stock] bet that the price of a
stock will fall – and it often does after the initial jump a company
receives from Fast Track designation.

But I’m also skeptical of stories that suggest markets are systematically fooled by non-events and the numbers presented do not seem wildly inconsistent with a modest but real positive signal from being listed as Fast Track.

Stock prices of companies that trade on the New York Stock Exchange
rose just 1 percent after Fast Track announcements… Excluding these companies, most of which are major
pharmaceutical firms, Fast Track announcements boosted stock prices
11.5 percent.

I’ll call this one a draw until further information arrives.  What wisdom does the crowd offer?

Hat tip to Mike Giberson at Knowledge Problem.

Ironman December 12, 2007 at 7:48 am

It looks like the Fast Track designation is the equivalent to being one of Jim Cramer’s stock picks – good for a quick spike, particularly with a lower market cap company, but one that falls away, only staying positive if there is a compelling reason for it to do so (that “real positive signal.”)

Or as the Freakonomics guys would put it: “How is the FDA like Mad Money’s Jim Cramer?”

Bruce G Charlton December 12, 2007 at 11:38 am

In a classic article, MIT’s Richard Wurtman described how a cure for AIDS (triple therapy) was found remarkably quickly – but only after the AIDS lobbyists had forced the FDA to drop their delaying and cost-inflating practices –

http://wurtmanlab.mit.edu/publications/pdf/937.pdf.

In another classic paper Wurtman described how reglators like the FDA have helped slowed-up medical discovery since the mid-nineteen-sixties –

http://wurtmanlab.mit.edu/publications/pdf/914.pdf

BK December 12, 2007 at 1:40 pm

bruce,

i wouldn’t trust someone who claims we’ve cured AIDS…because we haven’t.

无缝钢管 December 13, 2007 at 1:57 am

Hi Allow me to offer my heartiest wishes. I would like to know more about this I’m an chinese writer who love to read international literature.feel free to contact by sdggc and bjseek-无缝管|无缝钢管|数据恢复|RAID数据恢复

Serg December 16, 2007 at 7:22 am

In men for whom sexual activity is not recommended because of their underlying cardiovascular status, any treatment for erectile dysfunction, including Levitra,
generally should not be used. In patients taking certain CYP3A4 inhibitors (eg, ritonavir, indinavir, saquinavir, atazanavir, ketoconazole, itraconazole, erythromycin, and clarithromycin), lower doses of Levitra are recommended, and time between doses of Levitra may need to be extended. See prescribing information for Levitra for dosing guidance.In clinical trials, the most commonly reported adverse events with Levitra were headache, flushing, and rhinitis. Adverse events were generally transient.

Serg December 16, 2007 at 7:24 am

The recommended starting dose of Levitra is 10 mg. Titrate up to 20 mg or down to 5 mg based on efficacy and side effects. The maximum recommended dosing frequency is once daily. Levitra is available in 2.5-mg, 5-mg, 10-mg and 20-mg tablets. For Prescribing Information please visit New Online Pharmacy

Serg December 16, 2007 at 7:32 am

Nonarteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy (NAION) has been reported rarely postmarketing in temporal relationship with the use of PDE5 inhibitors, including Levitra. Sudden loss of hearing, sometimes with tinnitus and dizziness,also has been reported rarely in temporal association with the use of PDE5 inhibitors, including Levitra. It is not possible to determine if these events are related to PDE5 inhibitors or to other factors. Physicians should advise patients to stop use of PDE5 inhibitors, including Levitra, and seek prompt
medical attention in the event of sudden loss of vision or hearing.

RAID数据恢复 December 16, 2007 at 7:53 pm

Hi Allow me to offer my heartiest wishes. I would like to know more about this I’m an chinese writer who love to read international literature.feel free to contact by sdggc and bjseek-无缝管|无缝钢管|数据恢复|RAID数据恢复

Alii April 3, 2008 at 10:54 pm
花蓮租車旅遊資訊 August 8, 2009 at 3:48 am

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: