Learn more about our policy experts.

Media Contacts

Angela Bradbery, Director of Communications
w. (202) 588-7741
c. (202) 503-6768
abradbery@citizen.org, Twitter

Barbara Holzer, Broadcast Manager
w. (202) 588-7716
bholzer@citizen.org

Karilyn Gower, Press Officer
w. (202) 588-7779
kgower@citizen.org

Symone Sanders, Communications Officer, Global Trade Watch division
w. (202) 454-5108
ssanders@citizen.org

Other Important Links

Press Release Database
Citizen Vox blog
Texas Vox blog
Consumer Law and Policy blog
Energy Vox blog
Eyes on Trade blog
Facebook/publiccitizen

Follow us on Twitter

 

FDA’s Rejection of Public Citizen’s Petition to Ban Avandia Translates to More Harm to Patients

Statement of Dr. Sidney Wolfe, Director, Public Citizen’s Health Research Group

Late yesterday, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) faxed Public Citizen its letter rejecting our Oct. 30, 2008, petition in which we asked the FDA to ban the diabetes drug Avandia (rosiglitazone) because its benefits were greatly outweighed by its multiple risks, including increased heart attacks, heart failure, fractures, vision-threatening macular edema and other serious problems. In September 2010, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) announced a ban of the drug because of its decision that Avandia’s benefits were clearly outweighed by its risks and that additional restrictions to reduce risk could not be identified.* Subsequently, it also has been banned in New Zealand, India and other countries.

In the year since the EMA announcement, according to health-care analytics experts IMS, there have been approximately 1.1 million prescriptions for Avandia-containing drugs filled in the U.S., thereby ensuring the occurrence of hundreds or more patients suffering heart attacks and cases of severe heart failure – including many deaths and hospitalizations. All of this from a drug deemed too dangerous to stay on the market in all of Europe and in an increasing number of other countries.

The FDA’s decision not to ban the drug but to limit prescriptions for the drug, so that patients will have allegedly tried other treatments first, is a dangerous and reckless refutation of the precautionary principle that is supposed to guide decisions involving public health. The evidence shows the drug has no unique clinical benefits but unique risks. Unless the FDA can provide evidence that Americans are more resistant to the life-threatening adverse effects of Avandia than people in Europe and the other countries that have banned the drug, this decision, unlike the wise decision last week concerning Avastin, cannot be described as science-based or rational.

The FDA’s rejection of our petition closely follows the announcement by the manufacturer of rosiglitazone, GSK, that it has agreed to pay $3 billion in civil and criminal penalties including the illegal marketing of this drug.

*From the EMA press release announcing the ban:

“The availability of recent studies has added to the knowledge about rosiglitazone and overall, the accumulated data support an increased cardiovascular risk of rosiglitazone. In view of the restrictions already in place on the use of rosiglitazone, the Committee could not identify additional measures that would reduce the cardiovascular risk.  The Committee therefore concluded that the benefits of rosiglitazone no longer outweigh its risks and recommended the suspension of the marketing authorisation of the medicines.” 

###

Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit www.citizen.org.

Copyright © 2014 Public Citizen. Some rights reserved. Non-commercial use of text and images in which Public Citizen holds the copyright is permitted, with attribution, under the terms and conditions of a Creative Commons License. This Web site is shared by Public Citizen Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation. Learn More about the distinction between these two components of Public Citizen.


Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation

 

Together, two separate corporate entities called Public Citizen, Inc. and Public Citizen Foundation, Inc., form Public Citizen. Both entities are part of the same overall organization, and this Web site refers to the two organizations collectively as Public Citizen.

Although the work of the two components overlaps, some activities are done by one component and not the other. The primary distinction is with respect to lobbying activity. Public Citizen, Inc., an IRS § 501(c)(4) entity, lobbies Congress to advance Public Citizen’s mission of protecting public health and safety, advancing government transparency, and urging corporate accountability. Public Citizen Foundation, however, is an IRS § 501(c)(3) organization. Accordingly, its ability to engage in lobbying is limited by federal law, but it may receive donations that are tax-deductible by the contributor. Public Citizen Inc. does most of the lobbying activity discussed on the Public Citizen Web site. Public Citizen Foundation performs most of the litigation and education activities discussed on the Web site.

You may make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., Public Citizen Foundation, or both. Contributions to both organizations are used to support our public interest work. However, each Public Citizen component will use only the funds contributed directly to it to carry out the activities it conducts as part of Public Citizen’s mission. Only gifts to the Foundation are tax-deductible. Individuals who want to join Public Citizen should make a contribution to Public Citizen, Inc., which will not be tax deductible.

 

To become a member of Public Citizen, click here.
To become a member and make an additional tax-deductible donation to Public Citizen Foundation, click here.