Pradaxa Marketing
Pradaxa gained momentum as the result of a “RE-LY Clinical trial” (Randomized Evaluation of Long-term anticoagulant therapy) sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals. The RE-LY trial concluded that vitamin K antagonists such as warfarin are cumbersome to use, because of their multiple interactions with food and drugs, and they require frequent laboratory monitoring. Oral Vitamin K antagonists, such as warfarin, have been used in various indications for more than 50 years.
The RE-LY Clinical trial, sponsored by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, went on to suggest that there was a need for new anticoagulant agents that are effective, safe, and convenient to use. The marketing materials suggested that Pradaxa represented a therapeutic simplification and therapeutic progress because they did not require patients to undergo periodic monitoring with blood tests.
Boehringer Ingelheim’s marketing strategy RE-LYs very heavily relied on the findings of their clinical trial and it has paid off – Pradaxa was predicted to become one of the leading therapies in the atrial fibrillation drug market.
Pradaxa Risks Discovered
But, one year after its FDA approval, Boehringer Ingelheim acknowledged 260 deaths associated with the use of Pradaxa.
Unfortunately, there are too many instances where products prove to be more dangerous than the company-sponsored studies indicated. Further, history is filled with examples of companies responding improperly when negative safety information comes to light about potential blockbuster products. It is inherently difficult for companies to make the right decision when profits can be so marginalized by disclosure of safety risks.
Unfortunately, as of November 14, 2014, 35,549 reports of a serious adverse event identified Pradaxa as the primary suspect drug causing the event.
According to voluntary reports to the FDA from health professionals and consumers, in 2011, Pradaxa surpassed all other monitored drugs in several categories, including the overall number of reports (3,781), deaths (542), hemorrhage (2,367), acute renal failure (291) and stroke (644).
In October 2015, the FDA approved an antibody, Praxbind (idarucizumab), which has been shown to reduce the anticoagulation effects of Pradaxa.
Pradaxa FDA Approval
Pradaxa, Boehringer Ingelheim’s (“BI”) competition to warfarin (brand name: Coumadin) in the anti-coagulation market, was approved for use to reduce the risk of stroke in patients who have non-valvular atrial fibrillation, a heart rhythm disorder. The FDA approved Pradaxa (dabigatran) based on BI’s RE-LY study, an open-label clinical trial that studied more than 18,000 patients. According to BI, the benefits of Pradaxa are a 35% reduced risk of stroke, as compared to warfarin, and greater convenience, in that Pradaxa does not require the blood tests or dietary restrictions that accompany warfarin therapy, all in the context of safety comparable to warfarin. Further study of the RE-LY data, however, calls these claimed benefits into question.
Here’s the rest of the story:
Pradaxa No More Effective in a Well-Controlled Patient Population
To begin, BI’s claimed context of safety appears to be inaccurate. RE-LY data shows that patients on Pradaxa are more likely to suffer severe bleeds; often, these have occurred as GI bleeds. Further, unlike warfarin, Pradaxa has no reversal agent, meaning that doctors cannot administer a drug to reverse Pradaxa’s effects. In the event a Pradaxa patient experiences a bleed, a traumatic injury, or the need for emergency surgery, doctors must often delay treatment (especially surgery) until Pradaxa has been eliminated from the patient’s body. Compromised kidney function increases the risk further. Pradaxa, unlike warfarin, is eliminated through the kidneys. Compromised kidney function slows the body’s availability to eliminate Pradaxa, meaning that needed treatment may be delayed even further. In some cases, delayed treatment has led to death. In other cases, treatment could not be delayed and patients bled to death because doctors could not reverse Pradaxa’s effects. Given the increased risk of bleeds and the increased difficulty in reversing Pradaxa’s effects, one might question whether Pradaxa really is as safe as warfarin. Even if Pradaxa is not as safe, a patient might still choose to use it if Pradaxa provides a benefit that outweighs the increased risk.
BI touts Pradaxa as being 35% more effective than warfarin. A full reading of the RE-LY data reveals that the 35% reduction in stroke risk applies only to patients who were poorly controlled. If a patient is poorly controlled on anticoagulation therapy, the blood may be too thin, leading to an increased risk of severe bleeding, or too thick, leading to an increased risk of stroke. Among RE-LY patients who were well-controlled on warfarin, Pradaxa was no more effective at preventing stroke. If Pradaxa is no more effective at preventing stroke in a well-controlled warfarin patient, why should the patient switch to Pradaxa?
Pradaxa No More Convenient Than Warfarin
Pradaxa is more convenient than warfarin, according to BI’s promotional material. This is, BI says because patients on Pradaxa need not undergo regular blood tests to determine whether they are well–controlled, while warfarin patients must be regularly tested so doses can be adjusted to keep the blood properly thinned. Warfarin also requires certain dietary restrictions. Certain foods, including green vegetables, contain vitamin K, which counteracts the effects of warfarin. Pradaxa carries no dietary restriction. Are these tests and dietary restrictions such an inconvenience that patients should switch to Pradaxa? Not according to the RE-LY data. According to a recent evaluation of RE-LY data (“Assessing the Impact of Dabigatran and Warfarin on Health-Related Quality of Life: Results from a RE-LY Sub-study” published in the International Journal of Cardiology on May 10, 2013):
“Anticoagulated patients without outcome events (e.g. strokes or major bleedings) had stable [health related quality of life]. Scores between dabigatran and warfarin were comparable, which was unexpected given the known complexities of warfarin treatment.”
According to BI’s own data, excluding those patients who are successfully treated (meaning the treatment didn’t fail, resulting in a stroke, or cause a bleed) with these two anticoagulants, there is no difference in the quality of life as related to health and medical treatment. That is to say, according to the patients successfully treated, using Pradaxa is no more inconvenient than using warfarin. It should also be noted that this data was gathered at a time when BI did not recommend any testing for patients on Pradaxa. BI now recommends that Pradaxa patients undergo kidney function testing.
We’ve asked before, and we ask again: why should a patient who is well-controlled on warfarin switch to Pradaxa? In such a patient, according to the available data, Pradaxa is no more effective, no more convenient, more likely to cause a bleed, and harder to reverse in an emergency. While Pradaxa may be appropriate for patients poorly-controlled with warfarin, the data seems to suggest that, among those well-controlled with warfarin, Pradaxa provides no clinical benefit.
Why Didn’t Boehringer Ingelheim Release All of this information in the 2010 RE-LY Study?
Here’s another question: why did BI not release all of this information when it released Pradaxa in 2010? RE-LY, the source of all of this data, was completed long before Pradaxa hit the market. BI had the data and certainly could have – almost certainly should have – publicized this data. What could BI have to lose by keeping this data to themselves for years?
Have questions? Contact TorHoerman Law’s Pradaxa lawyers.
Chicago
Edwardsville
St. Louis
Other Illinois Locations
Other Missouri Locations
