BY JACQUELINE STRAX
PSA Rising, Nov. 10, 2004. Following Merck's withdrawal of the COX-2 inhibitor rofecoxib (Vioxx™) September 30 and a report November 4 in a Canadian newspaper, law suits have been launched in Canada against Pfizer, maker of Celebrex and Bextra.
New York Daily News reported October 11 that a New York man aged 61 filed a law suit in October against Pfizer alleging "irregular heartbeat" after taking Celebrex.
CNN reported from Ottawa November 5, "A Canadian class-action lawsuit has been launched against Pfizer Inc . alleging that its arthritis drug Celebrex caused cardiovascular side effects, the law firm launching the suit said Friday." The Saskatchewan-based Merchant Law Group included Pfizer's Bextra in its suit and also named Boehringer Ingelheim, Germany's largest pharmaceutical firm, for its Mobicox, in the same class of drugs.
Merck withdrew Vioxx after
an outside research panel monitoring Merck's clinical trial of 2,600 patients testing Vioxx shut down the trial to protect those patients. The panel concluded that Vioxx patients were about twice as likely to suffer a stroke or heart attack as the patients taking a placebo.
For cancer patients a key fact of interest is that those people in that clinical trial has a family history of intestinal polyps. While Vioxx and other coxib drugs including Celebrex were developed and have been marketed worldwide as easy-on the-stomach treatments for joint pain in people with arthritis, these drugs have even greater promise against cancer.
Vioxx and Celebrex belong to a class of drugs called COX-2 inhibitors, which control pain without causing gastric irritation. In addition, evidence suggests that this class of drugs can prevent and slow growth of certain cancerous tumors. People with a family history of certain cancers; or with early signs of such cancers; or with early, "biochemical" recurrence after primary treatment all have an interest in this class of drugs for possible anti-tumor control. So do some cancer patients who have exhausted most conventional treatments for controlling their type of cancer.
Coxib Feeding Frenzy
What effect will the the Vioxx withdrawal and, now, law suits against Pfizer have on cancer patients who already rely on off-label use of COX-2 inhibitors, primarily Celebrex, to help control their disease? What effect will it have on ongoing research into the value of these drugs for fighting cancer?
Jim Jubak at MSN Money cast a chill this week, when he wrote: "I've concluded that the withdrawal of Vioxx from the market isn't enough to make me want to buy shares in Pfizer without talking about the elephant in the room. The elephant? The possibility that all COX-2 inhibitors, including Pfizer's Celebrex, present higher risks of heart attacks or strokes."
At the the National Cancer Institute (NCI) the Division of Cancer Prevention had planned a lung cancer prevention trial using rofecoxib, but has abandoned that plan following the withdrawal of rofecoxib. This week NCI let it be known that many other clinical trials involving Celebrex in particular are at stake.
The good news is, a number of second and third generation coxib drugs are in development and some are already on the market -- according to Jubak, "Arcoxia, the Vioxx replacement already launched in 40 countries, could win FDA approval as early as the end of 2004."
Information about Arcoxia (etoricoxib) is available from Electronic Medicines Compendium in the UK.
Merck's Role and the cost of secrecy
Fawn Vrazo in the Philadelphia Inquirer reported October 28, "Merck & Co. Inc's withdrawal of the pain drug Vioxx a month ago left many arthritis patients without their favorite medicine. But scientists are now worried about the potential harm the drug's removal could have on cancer research." (posted at Breast Cancer Action, Nova Scotia)
The situation is complicated by what looks like cover-up of evidence of increased rate of heart attacks in people taking Vioxx. The US Food and Drug Administration, which oversees clinical trials involving new drugs, may have ignored evidence.
Science commentator Jonathan Gitlin (Ars Technica, Oct 17) says, "Data suggesting the possible cardiovascular side effects of Vioxx, and coxibs as a class of drug, have been in the public domain for several years, yet at no point did the FDA ask for clinical trials to elucidate the matter."
According to NZZ Online and the Seattle Times November 5, Swiss researchers say Vioxx should have been pulled off the market four years ago.
In an article published online by the U. K. medical journal the Lancet, the Swiss researchers said evidence was clear and overwhelming in 2000 that Vioxx doubled the rate of heart attacks and the drug should have been withdrawn.
They based this conclusion on data obtained primarily from the FDA.
The Lancet editorial concludes: "The Vioxx story is one of blindly aggressive marketing by Merck mixed with repeated episodes of complacency by drug regulators."
Suits Against Pfizer's Celebrex
On November 4 the Canadian newspaper, the National Post, reported that
documents from Canadian health authorities linked Pfizer's Celebrex to the deaths of 14 people who took it over the past five years. According to the Post, Canadian health authorities have gathered more than 100 adverse-reaction reports on Celebrex over the past five years, including 19 cases of heart attack, cardiac arrest or heart failure and five strokes.
CNN reported that
Tony Merchant, head of the
Saskatchewan-based Merchant Law Group, told Reuters the Pfizer suit was launched in early October, soon after it had started a similar suit against Merck & Co. Inc. for its pain drug Vioxx.
Pfizer replied in a press release: "The news report, based on voluntary spontaneous event reporting to Canadian Health authorities, is misleading. The story is not supported by any clinical or epidemiological studies and has the potential to cause undue confusion among patients and physicians."
Health Canada said there was no proof those cases were caused by Celebrex. It gave Pfizer 30 days on Oct. 19 to provide data, clinical trials and reports from around the world on cardiovascular effects of Celebrex.
Pfizer took action November 8 to warn doctors and patients about a rare but devastating problem with another of its Cox-2 inhibitor painkillers, Bextra. Pfizer announced intention to put a "black-box" warning on the label of Bextra, because it sometimes leads to a severe immune reaction involving skins burns.
COXIB Potential for Slowing Cancer Progression
Just before the Vioxx recall,
Raj Pruthi, MD, FACS, assistant professor of surgery, University of North Carolina, presented results of a small one-year study of Celebrex at
the annual Clinical Congress of the American College of Surgeons. Pruthi said, "This is the first report of a Cox-2 inhibitor having a therapeutic effect in prostate cancer at any stage of the disease." He had shown that in 22 out of 24 men with biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer, 400 to 800 mg of Celebrex a day slowed the rise of prostate specific antigen (PSA), which, following primary treatment, is a marker of recurrent disease.
Pruthi's study of Celebrex ran for only 12 months (with Vioxx, cardiovascular problems appeared in patients who took the drug for 18 months or more).
The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is running scores of small studies and full scale clinical trials like Dr. Pruthi's. NCI is concerned about the impact of the Vioxx recall on research into this entire class of drugs, including Celebrex. In order for these studies to go forward with confidence, more, not less, openness and accountability will be required. Not just two drugs but generations of even more promising knock-offs are at stake.
The FDA approved Celebrex (celecoxib) in 1999 at the same time as Vioxx (rofecoxib). As the Lancet explains, "their debut was announced in 2000 in the medical literature with two landmark trials: VIGOR for rofecoxib, and CLASS for celecoxib. Subsequently, a number of second generation COX-2 inhibitors have been developed. These include valdecoxib, parecoxib, etoricoxib, and lumiracoxib. The indications for their use have remained largely unchanged and more 'me-too' COX-2 inhibitors are on the horizon."
Third generation versions are being tested. Last month Ohio researchers announced that a drug labeled
OSU03012, which they describe as "a bioavailable third generation celecoxib derivative
. . . that potently induces apoptosis in prostate cancer cell lines and is being developed as an anti-cancer therapy in the NCI Rapid Access to Interventional Therapy (RAID)," is cytotoxic against a type of leukemia (CLL) and type B lymphoma.
Action by Pfizer and NCI
The first obligation of companies that make these drugs under FDA licence is to protect patients who take them daily for approved uses, such as to treat arthritis pain. On October 18, Pfizer, Inc., announced a trial of Celebrex to run for two years to examine inflammation and cardiovascular events in osteoarthritis patients at high risk for heart disease. This trial will be conducted at major universities and hospitals around the world and is expected to start early in 2005, enrolling 4,000 patients who have had a recent heart attack and who also have a history of osteoarthritis.
Meanwhile, cancer researchers are anxious. Ernest Hawk, the NCI's chief of gastrointestinal research, told Fawn Vazo at the Philadelphia Inquirer that researchers had begun calling him to ask what the Vioxx withdrawal "'implied for our trials.'"
"In response, the NCI sent letters to its researchers confirming that 'it did not see a significant safety concern' with Celebrex, Hawk said. As an added precaution, the NCI selected an independent panel of cardiologists to keep an 'over-the-shoulder' look at the cardiovascular health of about 2,000 patients who are taking Celebrex to see if it reduces their risk for colon cancer."
How the drugs work against cancer
All NSAIDs (nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) block cyclooxygenase enzymes, produced by the body when there is inflammation and also produced by precancerous tissues. Common NSAIDs, such as
aspirin, ibuprofen (Advil®, Motrin®, Nuprin®, etc), and naproxen (Aleve®, etc) block two types of these enzymes, COX-1 and COX-2. This is overkill, since blocking COX-1 tends over time to cause gastric irritation and stomach bleeding, serious problems for people who depend on these drugs to control chronic pain.
A great advantage and selling point of Vioxx, Celebrex and newer drugs in the coxib class is that they block COX-2 while not blocking COX-1. For people with arthritis and similar conditions these drugs provide significant pain relief without stomach upset and risk of ulcers and bleeding.
Unfortunately, blocking COX-2, while it controls pain and also may prevent some tumor growth, also has a downside. As Gitlin says: "COX-2 isn't just bad. In addition to its role in inflammation, it also plays an important part in controlling the cardiovascular system  stopping platelets from forming thrombi, preventing damage to vessels, that kind of thing."
This is one place cancer patients start figuring trade-offs. For a cancer patient, "that kind of thing" may have a different value than it does for the average, healthy person or even a person with arthritis. Some cancer patients cope with serious side effects every day.
Drugs that damage cells or interfere with wound healing may extend the lives of people with cancer. Angiogenesis inhibitors (drugs that interfere with the formation of new blood vessels, which are used by tumors) can help slow progression of cancer. Some drugs used against advanced breast cancer weaken heart muscle; some used against advanced prostate cancer are bad for the cardiovascular system and tend to cause blood clots. Cancer patients - facing a known risk of dying from their disease - may be willing to deal with side effects by taking other drugs (for example, blood thinner to counter the effect of a clot-causing anti-cancer drug).
The key concern for cancer patients is for known risks to be openly declared, not hidden. Unfortunately in the real world this essential concern may clash with a drug company's aggressive, costly marketing agenda.
NCI says that "over a decade of scientific work has suggested the potential of COX-2 inhibitors to prevent and treat cancer." As of last month, NCI's Division of Cancer Prevention (DCP) was sponsoring more than 40 clinical trials involving Celebrex. Of these, 23 trials of varying sizes are to test the potential of celecoxib to prevent cancer in a number of organ sites. These trials range in size from under 10 participants to more than 2,000 and aim to prevent bladder, breast, cervical, colorectal, esophageal, head and neck, skin, lung, oral, and prostate cancers, as well as multiple myeloma. Most of these trials are in collaboration with Pfizer, Inc.
In addition, almost 20 trials of varying sizes are testing celecoxib as a cancer treatment. Most of these studies are small phase I or II clinical trials in cancers such as pancreatic, breast, ovarian, non-small cell lung, and solid tumors.
An example of a small study of Celebrex for prostate cancer treatment is Clinical trial, Phase II, "Celecoxib [Celebrex] in Treating Patients With Relapsed Prostate Cancer Following Radiation Therapy or Radical Prostatectomy UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center; NCI.
This page reported by J. Strax, November 8, 2004
About Us | Content Policy/Disclaimer | Your Privacy © 1997-2004 PSA Rising