http://blogcritics.org/ A sinister cabal of superior bloggers on music, books, film, popular culture, politics, and technology - updated continuously. en Copyright 2005-2007 by the authors Tue, 1 May 2007 21:07:34 EDT http://backend.userland.com/rss Blogcritics.org custom software http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/04/30/061804.php#comment-584845 Rick, In your article you wrote, "It is also unclear how long prior to the February 2005 inspection that these deficiencies existed." Is it possible that this "problem" had always existed and was never raised as an issue during previous FDA inspections? Could it also be possible that this was not due to an oversight by the FDA, but rather a difference in interpretation by FDA inspectors? This is a common obstacle faced by the pharmaceutical manufacturing industry. You can read the regulations as many times as you like, but you are never able to anticipate the differing opinions of individual inspectors. In fact, some inspectors will actually contradict the findings from a previous inspection. The best you can do is use your best judgment, error on the side of caution whenever possible, and try to keep abreast of the current regulatory environment. It is not as black and white as you try to make it appear. The regulations are often vague, contain numerous updates, and require a great deal of interpretation. This is the reason that most pharmaceutical companies employ so many people in their regulatory affairs departments. This is also part of the reason that the FDA allows time for manufacturers to respond to a 483 or warning letter. 584845@blogcritics.org Tue, 1 May 2007 21:07:34 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/04/30/061804.php#comment-584728 Rick, can you please make the url in the comments window complete by sticking http:// at the beginning. The site sends people to an error page otherwise. Thanks. 584728@blogcritics.org Tue, 1 May 2007 12:50:20 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/04/30/061804.php#comment-584675 Stanley, Thanks for the comments. I enjoy the discussion. Unfortunately, you defeat your own arguments. If there are procedures for altering the production, you cannot unilaterally sidestep the process because of the perceived greater good. That's untenable. As for Merck, I didn't make them an easy target. They put that on their back on their own. I am just reporting what I see. All the technical information was provided via public record; either the FDA, the SEC or Merck/Ovation themselves. Rick Vassar 584675@blogcritics.org Tue, 1 May 2007 10:36:35 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/04/30/061804.php#comment-584652 I almost forgot. The writer also got the mechanism of action of asparaginase completely wrong. Asparaginase is NOT a protein that resembles nutrients cancer cells need to grow and it does NOT thwart cancer growth because cells absorb the drug instead of nutrients. Asparaginase is simply an enzyme that breaks down extracellular asparagine, an amino acid necessary for normal cellular function. Cancer cells typically rely on exogenous sources of asparagine for survival because they lack the cellular machinery to manufacture asparagine internally. Normal cells retain the ability to manufacture asparagine internally. By denying the cancer cells the extracellular asparagine that they need for survival, the cancer cells are destroyed while sparing most normal cells. Since this article is listed under the heading of "News", it is incumbent upon the author to present accurate information. Another point that the author fails to mention is that asparaginase is considered an orphan drug. This means that the patient population for this drug is very limited and the manufacturer produces it mainly for humanitarian, not financial, reasons. If you were to examine Merck's annual report you will probably not find asparaginase anywhere in Merck's sales figures. To insinuate that any process improvements were made for financial reasons is ludicrous. 584652@blogcritics.org Tue, 1 May 2007 08:13:45 EDT http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/04/30/061804.php#comment-584483 I think the writer of this article selected a very poor example of the FDA's enforcement oversight. If anything the FDA was a bit overzealous in this case. Elspar is produced by a submerged fermentation process using a strain of E. coli with a mutation that causes it to produce more asparaginase (an enzyme) than the wild type of E. coli. The mutation is naturally occurring and over time the culture will start to revert back to the wild type and make less asparaginase. It is a routine process in microbiology to re-isolate the organism and re-select the mutant strain at periodic intervals. This re-isolation is what was cited by the FDA. What the FDA interpreted as a "change in the production process" was actually a routine practice that is performed in fermentation facilities every day. It should also be noted that it is not as easy as to shut down a process every time the manufacturer and the FDA disagree. Elspar is a life-saving chemotherapy agent that has a very short shelf-life. Shutting down the process would deny patients access to this drug while Merck and the FDA argue semantics. If the FDA believes that an issue is serious enough, they have no problem stepping in and shutting down a facility. This was not the case in the example given. There are plenty of warning letters on the FDA website that the writer could have chosen to use as examples in his essay. Of course, most of them do not involve companies which have high profile litigation problems stemming from a completely unrelated issue. Merck is an easy target right now; Mr. Vassar could have spent a little more time searching for a more deserving victim. 584483@blogcritics.org Mon, 30 Apr 2007 19:54:50 EDT