|
This is an archive page. The links are no longer being updated.
Testimony for the Record on Securing the Health of the American
People
Submitted to the House Commerce Subcommittee on Health
and the Environment
September 13, 2000
The Administration is pleased to have the opportunity to
provide testimony for the record of the hearing by the House
Subcommittee on Health and the Environment concerning the
following bills:
- HR 2399, the National Commission for the New National
Goal: The Advancement of Global Health Act;
- HR 4242, the Orphan Drug Innovation Act;
- HR 762, the Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1999;
- HR 3677, the Thomas Navarro FDA Patient Rights Act; and
- HR 1795, the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging
and Engineering Establishment Act.
The Administration has not had the opportunity to review
the House Resolution recognizing the importance of researching
childhood cancers, and therefore, has no comment.
HR 2399 the National Commission for the New National Goal:
The Advancement of the Global Health Act
In today=s world
of increasing globalization, the United States continually
faces new challenges and opportunities in public health. Transportation
and population shifts make it possible for new and emerging
diseases to travel swiftly across continents and around the
world. In addition, disparities in health status have widened
between developed and developing nations. In 1997, an Institute
of Medicine (IOM) report concluded that active engagement
in global health is a Avital
interest@ of the
United States, recommending that the country Aexert
greater leadership in global health by taking full advantage
of its strength in science and technology.@
The IOM determined that such action is necessary because of
the need to protect the health of the US public, the anticipated
benefits such engagement will yield for the US economy, and
the importance of US leadership in science and technology.
Facing these challenges requires even closer cooperation with
our global partners in using science and sound policy to promote
public health globally.
The Advancement of Global Health Act sets up a commission
to recommend a strategy for the global eradication of disease
and focuses primarily upon the global control of infectious
diseases through the development of vaccines and the sharing
of the health research information on the Internet. The bill
would establish a structure duplicating the responsibilities
of existing programs. There is already in existence the National
Vaccine Advisory Committee (NVAC), which is a forum to address
these issues. The purpose of NVAC is to advise and make recommendations
to the Director of the National Vaccine Program (NVP) in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health on matters related
to the vaccine program=s
responsibilities. Staff support for NVAC is provided by the
National Vaccine Program Office (NVPO) at the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). The NVAC recommends
ways to achieve optimal prevention of human infectious diseases
through vaccine research and development, provides direction
to achieve optimal prevention of adverse reactions to vaccines,
and identifies areas of government and non-government cooperation
to ensure the availability, distribution, and use of safe
and effective vaccines. The ex-officio members of NVAC include
representatives from the Department of Defense, the Food and
Drug Administration, the Health Care Financing Administration,
the Health Resources and Services Administration, the National
Institutes of Health, and the HHS Office of General Counsel.
In addition, the Director, National Immunization Program,
CDC serves as a liaison representative on NVAC. It is unlikely
that this new commission would bring added value to the effort
to eradicate disease.
Other potential problems with the commission established
by the bill are the lack of attention to the several critical
issues to the eradication of diseases, including issues of
vaccine availability and delivery, the role of non-vaccine
interventions, and the opportunities for impacting non-infectious
diseases such as those stemming from poor nutrition, vitamin
deficiencies, and others.
Finally, if such a commission were established, it is not
clear why the NVPO and the CDC are not mentioned in the membership
of the proposed commission. NVPO is charged with coordinating
vaccine policy and decision making across the federal government.
CDC is the lead agency for disease eradication globally, including
polio, guinea worm, lymphatic filariasis, and measles. CDC
already plays a coordinating role for numerous vaccine related
issues and has the necessary contacts and mechanisms in place
with key international partners. If this commission is formed,
CDC and NVPO should be included in the composition of the
commission=s membership.
The FDA, as the agency overseeing vaccine safety and the approval
of new vaccines, should also have a role if this bill is enacted.
HR 4242 the Orphan Drug Innovation Act
The Administration is currently developing a position on
this bill.
H.R. 762 the Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1999
H.R. 762, the "Lupus Research and Care Amendments of 1999,
" would require the NIH to expand and intensify research with
respect to lupus; coordinate similar activities with other
HHS components that have responsibilities related to lupus;
and to conduct or support research to expand the understanding
of the causes of, and to find a cure for, lupus. The bill
would designate specific areas of research to be addressed
such as determination of the reasons underlying elevated prevalence
of lupus in women, especially African-American women; basic
research concerning the etiology and causes of the disease;
epidemiological studies on the natural history of the disease
and population and ethnic differences; development of improved
screening techniques; clinical research for the development
and evaluation of new treatments; and information and education
programs for health care professionals and the public. The
bill would authorize $75 million for FY 2000, and "such sums
as may be necessary for each of the fiscal years 2001 and
2002."
What is Lupus?
Systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE),
or lupus is an autoimmune disease that can affect many parts
of the body, including the joints, skin, kidneys, heart, lungs,
blood vessels, and brain; it is a serious public health problem
that mainly affects young women. The disease often starts
between the ages of 15 and 44. Nine times more women than
men have the disease. It is also three times more common in
African-American women than in Caucasian women, and is more
common in women of Hispanic, Asian, and Native American descent.
African-American women tend to develop the disease at a younger
age than Caucasian women and to develop more serious complications.
What Is NIH Doing to Address This
Disease?
The primary reason for the optimism
for the future of lupus patients comes from seminal studies
from the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal
and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) Intramural Research Program that
determined that treatment with immunosuppressive drugs (cyclophosphamide
and prednisone) can prevent or delay kidney failure due to
nephritis, one of the most serious common complication of
this disease. NIAMS clinical investigators continue to study
and refine treatment regimens for lupus nephritis.
Basic Research
A number of NIH institutes and offices
support research and research training efforts related to
lupus, and lupus is one of many diseases covered by the NIH
Autoimmune Diseases Coordinating Committee. Although the cause
of lupus is unknown, applied genetics have dramatically improved
the pace of research by NIAMS-supported investigators for
discovering the genes that contribute to lupus susceptibility,
severity, and mortality. Using experimental animal models
of lupus, investigators are uncovering the genetic factors
involved. NIAMS-supported researchers identified, in mouse
models of lupus, 7 to 10 gene regions that are linked to the
disease. Some features of human lupus are readily apparent
in these animal models. Recently, researchers have found an
association between lupus and a region on chromosome 1. Fine
mapping of this region has identified another candidate gene
involved in immune function, specifically in the processes
of DNA repair and cell death-both of which have been reported
to be abnormal in lupus. The results to date suggest that
lupus susceptibility genes are very similar in mice and humans,
and that these same genes may be important in all racial groups.
In addition, the identification of genetic risk factors in
lupus could indicate which patients may potentially develop
severe disease and therefore merit early, aggressive treatment.
Recent studies yielded two such risk factors--absence of the
C4a gene and changes in the Fc receptor gene. C4a and the
Fc receptor are involved in the removal of proteins known
as immune complexes, which, if not removed, stay in the body
and cause tissue injury.
Clinical Research
In other approaches to lupus, the NIAMS,
the NIH Office of Research on Women's Health, and the NIH
Office of Research on Minority Health are co-funding the first
clinical trial on the safety of estrogens for women with lupus.
At the present time, women with lupus are usually advised
not to take any medications that contain estrogen in the belief
that it will worsen their disease or cause problems with blood
clotting. This leaves women limited options for contraception
during child-bearing years and for hormone replacement therapy
during postmenopausal years. These studies will focus on the
effects of oral contraceptives on disease activity in women
with lupus and on the effects of hormone replacement therapy
with estrogen and cyclic low-dose progestins in postmenopausal
women with lupus. Many of the patients recruited for this
trial are minority women. The outcomes of this trial are expected
to have a major impact on the treatment options, health, and
quality of life for patients with lupus.
Centers
NIAMS is committed to enhancing basic,
clinical, and translational research through a variety of
mechanisms. Currently, the Institute is supporting two specialized
centers of research in SLE. The first, at the University of
Alabama in Birmingham, represents a unique consortium of research
organizations and is studying the disease's genetic aspects.
The second, at the University of Virginia in Charlottesville,
is addressing genetic and immune mechanisms that underlie
SLE flare-ups and organ damage. In addition, the Institute
continues to fund the Lupus in Minorities (LUMINA) study,
an effort designed to examine the relationship of socioeconomic,
demographic, cultural, immunogenetic and clinical variables
to presentation and early outcome in Hispanic, African American
and Caucasian SLE patients.
Workshops
NIAMS recently hosted two scientific
workshops on SLE in collaboration with other NIH components;
namely, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and
Stroke and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
The first meeting focused on central nervous system involvement
in the disease and was designed to promote new scientific
collaborations between neuroscientists and lupus researchers.
The second workshop addressed heart disease and SLE, as premature
cardiovascular disease in women with lupus has been underestimated
in the past, although it is a major cause of morbidity and
mortality. Both of these sessions identified gaps in SLE research
and provided recommendations for future initiatives.
Health Education
With respect to health education for
patients with lupus and their care providers, the Institute
is pleased to report that the recently published "Lupus: A
Patient Care Guide for Nurses and Other Health Professionals"
has been in steady demand. This resource guide represents
a partnership between Federal health agencies and SLE voluntary
organizations and provides a strong model for future information
dissemination efforts.
Concerns With the Legislation
NIH overall currently projects $52.4
million for research on lupus in FY2000, and estimates an
increase to $55.2 million in FY2001 under the President=s
budget. The bill would authorize a figure of $75 million for
FY2000, a figure in excess of what has been estimated to be
provided in the FY2000 budget. The NIH lupus efforts are already
considerable and currently address the areas of research highlighted
in the legislation. The NIAMS and other NIH components will
continue to fund the necessary research to understand the
causes and search for better treatments and screening methods
within the context of the NIH budget.
Title II of this bill mandates grants
for the establishment, operation, and coordination of effective
and cost-efficient systems for the delivery of essential services
to individuals with lupus and their families. It limits the
charges imposed by grantees on services recipients; authorizes
technical assistance, and includes an appropriation authorization
level of $75 million.
The health centers eligible for these
grants by law must offer a discounted fee schedule with only
a nominal fee for patients at or below 100% federal poverty
level, and a sliding scale for those between 100 and 200%.
The fee structure already in place at health centers could
be used for this program as well. While the bill addresses
several services associated with the treatment of lupus, given
the chronic nature of the disease, greater emphasis should
be placed upon case management services, training of health
center staff and other services to support the treatment of
this condition.
HR 3677 the Thomas Navarro FDA Patient
Rights Act
Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
(FDC) Act and related statutes, the Government has a vitally
important role in helping to ensure that the medical products
upon which patients and their health care practitioners rely
are both safe and effective. These safeguards are particularly
important for our most vulnerable citizens, those who are
desperately ill. We believe the existing programs under which
patients can obtain access to experimental therapies, and
those under which we expedite approval of such therapies,
establish the appropriate framework for achieving our mutual
goal of providing patients with serious and life-threatening
diseases the earliest reasonable access to promising therapies.
H.R. 3677, the AThomas
Navarro FDA Patient Rights Act," amends the FD&C Act to
restrict the authority of the Food and Drug Administration
(FDA or Agency) to issue clinical holds regarding investigational
drugs or to deny patients expanded access to such drugs under
single patient INDs. FDA believes this bill would undermine
FDA's ability to help assure reasonable safety and effectiveness
of subjects in clinical trials and informed consent for patients
given access to experimental therapies.
H.R. 3677 restricts FDA=s
authority to place an Investigational New Drug application
(IND) on clinical hold when there is a comparable or satisfactory
alternative therapy. A clinical hold is designed to allow
FDA to stop an investigator from administering an experimental
therapy to patients where participation represents an unreasonable
risk to potential patients. The reasonableness of the risk
may depend on a number of factors including whether participation
in the clinical trial would require the patient to forego
a proven effective therapy.
Some of the additional reasons that
a clinical trial may be placed on clinical hold include the
following:
- human subjects are or would be exposed
to an unreasonable and significant risk of illness or injury;
- the clinical investigators named
in the IND are not qualified by reason of their scientific
training and experience to conduct the investigation described
in the IND;
- the investigator brochure is misleading,
erroneous, or materially incomplete;
- the IND does not contain sufficient
information required to assess the risks to subjects of
the proposed studies; or,
- another drug under investigation
or approved for the same indication and available to the
same patient population has demonstrated a better potential
benefit/risk balance.
Unless a patient is aware of all the
factors that may impact the risk/benefit analysis, a patient
cannot be truly aware of the risk involved in receiving a
particular investigational drug. Thus, requiring a simple
declaration in writing that a person is aware of the risks
may not provide acceptable patient protection and should not
be substituted for the current human subject protections in
place.
While this bill relies on patients
waiving their rights to be protected from dangerous therapies,
the bill does not preclude practitioners from either unknowingly
or intentionally misleading patients with little or inadequate
information and thus subjecting human patients to unorthodox
testing of new medical treatments without adequate protections
or information.
For a single-patient IND, we believe
that the independent scientific consideration provided by
the Agency is critical and is an essential component of patient
protection, when one is considering drugs about which relatively
little is often known. In the typical single patient IND situation,
especially those involving emergency IND requests, the patient=s
physician generally has only very limited information about
the investigational therapy being requested.
The Agency=s
primary responsibility in deciding whether to allow a single
patient IND to proceed is to determine whether use of the
therapy in the particular patient involved would be reasonable
or safe. In oncology, for example, with respect to patients
for whom no curative treatments exist, our practice has been
to permit almost anything that is reasonably safe without
regard to efficacy or potential efficacy. There may be several
INDs for the same product with each sponsor working confidentially
and in ignorance of what others are doing and of their results.
FDA is often the only party that has all of the information
and is therefore in a unique position to assess the results.
Indirectly harmful products are those
that do not themselves cause injury, but may lead people to
delay or reject proven remedies, possibly worsening their
condition. For example, if cancer patients reject curative
drug therapies in favor of unproven therapies and the unproven
therapies turn out not to work, their disease may advance
beyond the point where proven curative therapies can help.
As long as a curative treatment for a disease is available,
FDA cannot permit the use of an unproven product if such use
requires that patients forgo proven treatments for one whose
efficacy is unknown.
H.R. 1795, the National Institute
of Biomedical Imaging and Engineering Establishment Act
The bill would create at NIH the National
Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Engineering, a separate
Institute at NIH for imaging and engineering, and would fund
it for fiscal year (FY) 2000 by authorizing an amount for
the new Institute equal to (plus inflation) what is currently
spent by NIH Institutes for imaging and engineering programs.
The bill would authorize the Director, NIH, to transfer appropriate
personnel to the new entity. The authorization for FY 2000
would be Aequal
to the amount obligated by NIH in FY 1999@
for biomedical imaging and engineering, adjusted for any necessary
offsets occurring after October 1, 1998. For FYs 2001 and
2002, authorizations would be for the amount determined for
FY 2000 adjusted for the fiscal year involved to offset inflation
occurring after October 1, 1999. In establishing the Institute,
the Director, NIH, would be authorized to transfer personnel,
use appropriate facilities to house the new Institute, and
obtain administrative support from other agencies of NIH.
The Institute would be expected to have a 12-member advisory
council, prepare a plan for submission to address the consolidation
of the activities of the NIH biomedical imaging and engineering
programs and the coordination of programs at NIH and with
related activities of other Federal agencies.
NIH Investment in Bioimaging and
Bioengineering
The National Institutes of Health (NIH)
invests significantly in research in bioimaging and bioengineering.
In fiscal year 1997, NIH spent approximately $325 million
in bioimaging research: $217 million was for basic research
in bioimaging, and $108 million was for using imaging as a
tool to conduct medical research. In fiscal year 1998, the
bioimaging total had risen to approximately $339 million.
There are comparable numbers for bioengineering. In fiscal
year1997, NIH spent $413 million on bioengineering research
and in fiscal year 1998, $501 million. (Bioimaging
data for 1999 is still being compiled. Final totals will be
available following review and concurrence by research institutes
and centers.) There are overlaps between
the bioimaging and bioengineering portfolio; and thus, approximately
half of the bioengineering awards can be attributed to bioimaging
research. These overlaps reflect the collaborative nature
of bioimaging and bioengineering research, both are rooted
in physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology, and the life
sciences. NIH is making a large and growing investment in
these fields and they are proving to be integral to the operations
of all of the present Institutes and Centers.
Bioimaging and Bioengineering,
An Integral Part of Each NIH Institute
Applying imaging techniques to scientific
questions about health and disease is part of the basic mission
of most of the institutes at the NIH. It is critical that
the individual institutes and centers maintain their support
for bioengineering projects that are informed by the compelling
biological questions. For example, imaging plays a critical
role in the objective evaluation of cognition in the National
Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), the
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and the National
Institute on Aging (NIA) programs using functional MRI and
PET imaging. Very active programs in data acquisition, image
processing and evaluation are integral portions of these institutes
and activities. In the cardiovascular area, cardiac magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound have recently improved
in the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) by
an intensive collaboration of physicists, cardiologists and
engineers in government and industry, resulting in new commercial
products that are currently being evaluated around the country.
In all of these programs, the close collaboration between
the engineers/physicists and the clinicians/biologists was
critical for the rapid and effective development of the technology.
The discovery of new imaging modalities and approaches is
also fostered in this environment, since the engineers and
physicists are constantly being challenged by their biology/clinician
colleagues to develop new approaches to studying the body.
A critical mass of engineers and physicists are present in
many of these programs, providing the necessary technical
and theoretical insight to develop these important steps in
the biological sciences. There are many examples in the various
institutes over the past several years in which significant
discovery has occurred because of collaborations between physical
scientists and biological scientists aimed at solving specific
biological questions.
It is clear that as bioimaging is integral
to so much of modern biology, the interest in imaging is found
throughout the NIH, although historically the NCI has had
the largest portfolio of bioimaging research. It is a challenge
to separate the use of imaging as a tool from research on
imaging because they are intertwined. The sense of where the
science would benefit from new imaging tools leads the science.
For example, to improve the diagnosis of a heart attack using
MRI, chemists have played an important role in developing
contrast agents to obtain a more vivid image of blood flow
through the heart, while engineers have modified the MRI scanner
to provide the necessary speed to freeze the motion of the
heart, and computer scientists have provided the visualization
tools to get the information to the clinician in a rapid and
informative fashion. In this example, all of these allied
scientists needed input and information from the biologists
and clinicians on the nature of coronary blood flow in coronary
artery disease on a day to day basis. Such cross-fertilization
of scientific fields is fostered through collaborations within
research groups with institutes and between different programs.
What Is NIH Doing to Specifically
Address This Issue?
NIH has long recognized the importance
of bioengineering and bioimaging. In February 1997 the Director
established the Bioengineering Consortium at the NIH to bring
all of the Institutes and Centers together to shape the future
directions of the NIH in these areas and address problems
raised by these scientific communities. This activity has
been successful and NIH is now formalizing an Office in the
Office of the Director to continue this work. In fact, this
has proven to be such an effective mechanism, that in deliberating
the strategies to support bioinformatics, it was recommended
that a parallel activity be formed on that topic.
In regard to the Office, while it was
originally established on April 5, 2000, the organization
package was then revised on May 25, 2000 to incorporate bioinformatics.
Hence, the Office of Bioengineering, Bioimaging, and Bioinformatices
(OB3) was established. The date of initial operation of the
OB3 depends on staff recruiting and hiring. A vacancy announcement
for the Director position was released in mid-June and closed
on September 7.
The mission of the OB3 is
to provide a focus for biomedical engineering, bioimaging,
and biomedical computing issues among the institutes and centers
at the NIH and with other Federal agencies. The OB3
will conduct activities aimed at fostering new basic understandings
and collaborations among the biological, medical, engineering,
physical, and computational sciences. These activities include
coordinating trans-NIH research programs, developing transdisciplinary
training and career development opportunities between the
technological and biomedical communities, and conducting symposia
and technical meetings to facilitate communication and dissemination
of information among different technical disciplines. The
OB3 will not have nor seek to have grant-making
authority or programmatic funds to support research. The Aoffice@
status will provide a dedicated infrastructure for coordinating
bioengineering, imaging, and informatics issues and initiatives
at the NIH while maintaining the trans-institute participation
and communication that have been successful in the past. This
is an efficient and effective strategy for enhancing the support
for bioengineering, bioimaging, and bioinformatics while still
retaining their close linkage with the individual research
Institutes and Centers.
Concerns
Biomedical engineering and imaging
are multi-disciplinary fields that benefit all NIH research
institutes and centers in their missions to improve the quality
of the nation=s
health. Bioengineering/bioimaging research is highly important
to the NIH and to the future of biomedicine and is supported
across all of the NIH ICs. Recognizing the trans-institute
applicability and value of bioengineering (and bioimaging),
the Bioengineering Consortium (BECON) was established in 1997
to provide a focus for bioengineering activities at the NIH,
a mechanism for problem solving and a way to launch initiatives
that were broader than one or two Institutes. The BECON consists
of staff from all NIH research institutes and centers plus
representatives of other Federal agencies concerned with biomedical
research and development. Since its establishment, the BECON
has coordinated research and training opportunities in biomedical
engineering; sponsored major annual symposia aimed at fostering
communication between the engineering/physical science and
biomedical communities; and conducted monthly meetings open
to the public to identify and discuss issues related to bioengineering
including imaging, informatics, biomaterials, and bioprocesses.
The research initiatives have been hugely successful resulting
in far greater support for initiatives than originally envisioned.
The symposia have brought in record audiences and service
to provide direction to the Institutes and to the NIH as a
whole.
In mid-2000, the BECON will transition into the OB3 within
the Office of the Director. OB3 will then serve as a focus
for bioengineering efforts at the NIH institutes and centers
and provide a vehicle for enhanced interagency activities.
This will also provide sufficient staffing to support additional
activities with the NIH intramural program. Tthe OB3 will
not have nor seek to have
grant-making authority or programmatic funds to support research
and will serve as a focus for bioengineering activities at
the NIH. This "office" status will provide a dedicated infrastructure
for coordinating bioengineering issues and initiatives at
the NIH while maintaining the trans-institute participation
and communication that has produced success in past endeavors.
Moreover, as part of the Office of the Director, it will enhance
the visibility of NIH=s
programs and activities in bioengineering.
Bioengineering and bioimaging are a rapidly developing field
with multi-institute applications. Establishment of a separate
institute to coordinate communication, management, prioritization,
and accountability is premature at this time. Furthermore,
removing the bioengineering and bioimaging initiatives from
the institutes in which they are currently located could have
the unintended consequence of reducing the ability of Institutes
and Centers, over the long term, to support the very research
that this legislation is deigned to promote. Experience with
the OB3 will contribute to the evaluation of the need for
a separate institute for bioengineering and bioimaging at
the NIH.
HHS Home (www.hhs.gov) |
Topics (www.hhs.gov/SiteMap.html) |
What's New (www.hhs.gov/about/index.html#topiclist) |
For Kids (www.hhs.gov/kids/) |
FAQs (answers.hhs.gov) |
Site Info (www.hhs.gov/SiteMap.html) |
Disclaimers (www.hhs.gov/Disclaimer.html) |
Privacy Notice (www.hhs.gov/Privacy.html) |
FOIA (www.hhs.gov/foia/) |
Accessibility (www.hhs.gov/Accessibility.html) |
Contact Us (www.hhs.gov/ContactUs.html)
|