Even more worrisome, medical experts point out
that the studies analyzed in the NEJM report- – some lasting
as little as 24 weeks – were not designed to look for heart
risks and it may be that higher risks will appear after a longer
term of use. Dr. David Nathan, Chief of Diabetes Care at Massachusetts
General Hospital, who reviewed the paper for the NEJM, told the
Associated Press, “This analysis is just scratching the surface
of what may be there.”
Avandia (rosiglitazone) was approved by the FDA in 1999 for the
treatment of Type 2 diabetes, a disease that affects between 18
to 20 million Americans. Following regulatory approval Avandia
was promoted as being safer than Rezulin, a diabetes drug removed
from the market in 2000 after patients taking the drug developed
liver damage.
Avandia is currently the top-selling diabetes
drug with total US sales of $2.2 billion in 2006, according to
IMS Health, a healthcare tracking information firm. A one-month
supply sells for between $90 and $170, the Associated Press reported
on May 23, 2007.
In an editorial accompanying the NEJM study,
Dr. Bruce Psaty of the University of Washington and Dr. Furberg
of Wake Forest University wrote that the drug “…represents
a major failure of the drug-use and drug-approval processes in
the United States.” They also state, “…the rationale
for prescribing rosiglitazone at this time is unclear,” because
when the drug was approved its benefits were “at best mixed.”
Documents dating back 7 years show that the FDA knew about the
risks associated with Avandia yet did little to protect consumers.
The day after the new study appeared online, on May 23, 2007,
Dr. Sidney Wolfe, director of Public Citizen, a non-profit health
research group, sent a letter to FDA Commissioner Andrew von
Eschenbach, which described a July 16, 2002 FDA memo that showed
FDA scientists had recommended that the label for Avandia be
amended to include post-marketing reports of heart failure among
patients taking the drug.
“The failure of the FDA to act on the recommendations
made almost five years ago by its Division of Drug Risk Evaluation
is yet another case in which the conclusions of scientists who
are engaged in post-market drug safety review are not taken seriously
enough or addressed soon enough,” Dr. Wolfe said in a press
release.
“As a result,” he stated further, “millions
of people – to the detriment of their health – are
prescribed drugs whose risks are dangerously understated, instead
of being prescribed safer, equally, or more effective alternative
drugs.”
Following the NEJM paper a new
study has revealed additional details on the side effects
of Avandia indicating that the drug causes 50% greater weight gain
than similar medications while doubling the risk of dangerous fluid
retention in the body.
In the new study, a team of researchers led by
Bernd Richter at Heinrich Heine University in Dusseldorf, Germany,
reviewed 18 previous studies involving 8,000 patients. They found
the risk of dangerous fluid retention in the body – edema – doubled
in those taking the Avandia, compared with patients on other diabetes
medications. The diabetics taking Avandia had a 7% risk of edema – five
times higher than those taking placebos.
Edema is characterized by swelling of the ankles
and legs, but can lead to more than just discomfort. Richter explains
that the extra fluid in the body can create more work for the heart,
causing a shortness of breath and possibly heart failure.
His team’s analysis also showed that patients
receiving Avandia gained 50% more weight, on average, than their
counterparts on other diabetes medications (2.1 kilograms compared
with 1.4 kg).
These new findings, added to the earlier results
suggesting the increased risk of heart attack and bone fractures
with Avandia, should be a matter of concern, says Richter, adding
that it is unclear exactly why the drug would cause complications
such as edema: “Nobody knows exactly why this happens.” Richter
believes that the short-term results he analyzed in his review
offer enough reason to reduce the widespread use of Avandia. “We
don’t have long-term data, and in the meantime the public
takes part in a large-scale experiment.”
References
1. Philip D. Home, D.M., D.Phil., Stuart J. Pocock, Ph.D., et.al,
for the RECORD Study Group. Rosiglitazone
Evaluated for Cardiovascular Outcomes - An Interim Analysis.
N EnglJ Med 2007;357 Vol 357:28-38.
2. Richter B, Bandeira-Echtler E, Bergerhoff
K, Clar C, Ebrahim SH. Rosiglitazone
for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews 2006, Issue 2. Art. No.: CD006063. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD006063.
pub2. First published online: April 19. 2006.