New study looks at FDA's use of so­cial me­dia to com­mu­ni­cate on drug safe­ty

A new study look­ing at the FDA use of so­cial me­dia to com­mu­ni­cate about drug safe­ty finds that the agency could im­prove its im­pact by de­vel­op­ing so­cial me­dia strate­gies and tak­ing a more ac­tive role on web plat­forms.

The study, con­duct­ed by re­searchers at Har­vard Med­ical School, North­east­ern Uni­ver­si­ty, Boston Chil­dren’s Hos­pi­tal and The Ohio State Uni­ver­si­ty, and fund­ed by FDA’s Cen­ter for Drug Eval­u­a­tion and Re­search, looks specif­i­cal­ly at FDA’s use of so­cial me­dia fol­low­ing two drug safe­ty com­mu­ni­ca­tions (DSCs) for drugs con­tain­ing zolpi­dem, the ac­tive in­gre­di­ent in Am­bi­en.

In 2013, FDA is­sued two DSCs re­lat­ed to zolpi­dem, the first in Jan­u­ary warn­ing of the risk of next-day im­pair­ment af­ter tak­ing in­som­nia drugs and re­quir­ing low­er rec­om­mend­ed dos­es for drugs con­tain­ing zolpi­dem, and the sec­ond no­ti­fy­ing the pub­lic that the agency had ap­proved those la­bel­ing changes.

In ad­di­tion to pub­lish­ing the DSCs to its web­site, FDA made posts re­lat­ed to the DSCs on its var­i­ous so­cial me­dia ac­counts, in­clud­ing its Face­book page and three of its Twit­ter ac­counts (@US_FDA@FDA_Drug_In­fo and @FDAMed­Watch).

For the first DSC, FDA post­ed once to its Face­book ac­count, get­ting 61 shares, and tweet­ed six times across its three ac­counts, for a to­tal of 111 retweets.

To mea­sure the im­pact of FDA’s posts, the au­thors iden­ti­fied some 174,000 tweets and 59,000 Face­book posts ref­er­enc­ing zolpi­dem be­tween 1 Oc­to­ber 2012 and 31 Au­gust 2013. Of those, rough­ly 9% of the tweets were tagged as ad­verse events (AEs), 74% were tagged as men­tions and 17% were con­sid­ered junk. For the Face­book posts, 5% were iden­ti­fied as AEs, 69% as men­tions and 26% as junk.

How­ev­er, for the sec­ond DSC, FDA did not post to Face­book and on­ly tweet­ed about the DSC for its@FDA_Drug_In­fo ac­count (3 tweets, 37 retweets), though the agency al­so tweet­ed gen­er­al­ly about a group of re­cent pre­scrib­ing changes, in­clud­ing for zolpi­dem, from its@FDAMed­Watch ac­count.

The au­thors ob­served a greater so­cial me­dia re­sponse from both Twit­ter and Face­book users fol­low­ing the first DSC, but did not no­tice an in­crease in so­cial ac­tiv­i­ty re­lat­ed to zolpi­dem fol­low­ing the sec­ond com­mu­ni­ca­tion.

The au­thors say that the dif­fer­ence in so­cial me­dia re­sponse to the two safe­ty com­mu­ni­ca­tions can be ex­plained by the dif­fer­ence in how FDA is­sued the com­mu­ni­ca­tions. In ad­di­tion to post­ing about the first DSC more fre­quent­ly and to more of its ac­counts, the first DSC was al­so is­sued with an ac­com­pa­ny­ing press re­lease.

Rec­om­men­da­tions

To make bet­ter use of its so­cial me­dia pres­ence in the fu­ture, the au­thors rec­om­mend that FDA de­vel­op strate­gies for how and how of­ten to post dif­fer­ent types of mes­sages.

“Since there can be a lot of ques­tion­able in­for­ma­tion shared on so­cial me­dia, the FDA should be able to lever­age its in­de­pen­dent ex­per­tise and po­si­tion as a wide­ly trust­ed source of in­for­ma­tion to help pro­mote ac­cu­rate and in­for­ma­tive mes­sages. In the case of the zolpi­dem safe­ty alerts, the FDA took some steps to do that, but could cre­ate more out­reach and dis­sem­i­nate its ma­te­ri­als more fre­quent­ly via var­ied plat­forms,” Michael Sin­ha, a post­doc­tor­al fel­low at Har­vard and lead au­thor on the pa­per told Fo­cus.

Sin­ha al­so em­pha­sized that the so­cial me­dia land­scape is sub­stan­tial­ly dif­fer­ent now than in 2013 when these safe­ty com­mu­ni­ca­tions were is­sued.

“So­cial me­dia like Twit­ter was seen as more of a recre­ation­al tool in 2013, but now many pro­fes­sion­als, aca­d­e­m­ic in­sti­tu­tions and com­pa­nies have vi­brant so­cial me­dia pres­ences. In­creased health pro­fes­sion­al en­gage­ment on so­cial me­dia in­creas­es the like­li­hood that FDA con­tent on these plat­forms would be more wide­ly dis­sem­i­nat­ed and have a greater im­pact,” he said.

The pa­per al­so rec­om­mends that FDA de­vel­op a greater un­der­stand­ing of so­cial me­dia plat­form fea­tures and user pref­er­ences to de­vel­op its ap­proach to post­ing.

“FDA should try to stay on top of the ever-evolv­ing strate­gies be­ing de­vel­oped on so­cial me­dia to am­pli­fy mes­sages—such as use of han­dles or hash­tags on Twit­ter—that can bring at­ten­tion to im­por­tant drug safe­ty con­tent dis­sem­i­nat­ed by the agency,” Sin­ha said.

The au­thors al­so sug­gest that FDA should take mat­ters in­to its own hands when it comes to up­dat­ing in­for­ma­tion about drugs on Wikipedia.

De­spite mul­ti­ple ed­its to the Wikipedia page cor­re­spond­ing to both com­mu­ni­ca­tions, the pages con­tained in­com­plete in­for­ma­tion and did not cite the DSCs them­selves.

“Giv­en that in­for­ma­tion­al sites like Wikipedia are com­mon­ly ac­cessed by the lay pub­lic for in­for­ma­tion on drugs and that any­one can ed­it the con­tent, the FDA should con­sid­er a plan to for­mal­ly up­date the pages for ap­pro­pri­ate con­tent at the time a DSC is re­leased and to en­sure con­tin­ued ac­cu­ra­cy of the in­for­ma­tion over time,” the au­thors write.


First pub­lished here. Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus is the flag­ship on­line pub­li­ca­tion of the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety (RAPS), the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care and re­lat­ed prod­ucts, in­clud­ing med­ical de­vices, phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals, bi­o­log­ics and nu­tri­tion­al prod­ucts. Email news@raps.org for more in­for­ma­tion.

Andre Kalil, AP Images

A 9/11-era Om­a­ha fa­cil­i­ty, an old Ebo­la drug, and the ubiq­ui­tous Dr. Fau­ci: In­side the first US nov­el coro­n­avirus tri­al

The first 11 coronavirus patients who arrived in Omaha last week, airlifted across the globe after two weeks quarantined on a cruise ship, showed only minor symptoms or none at all. And then one of them — or one of the couple of Americans who arrived later — got worse. He developed pneumonia, a life-threatening complication for coronavirus patients.

In a biocontainment room at the University of Nebraska Medical Center on Friday, doctors infused him with an experimental Gilead drug once developed for Ebola, called remdesivir. Or they gave him a placebo. For the first time in the US, neither he nor the doctors knew.

The first US novel coronavirus trial was underway and with it, a mad dash for an answer. Sponsored by the NIH, the study marked a critical point in the epidemic. Since the start of the outbreak, the agency had helped lead a global effort to contain the virus. Now, as it spread worldwide and the CDC issued warnings the US could see a major internal outbreak, they were looking at home.

“We don’t have too much time,” Andre Kalil, the trial’s lead investigator, told Endpoints News. “Everything’s moving really fast.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 73,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Grow­ing ac­cep­tance of ac­cel­er­at­ed path­ways for nov­el treat­ments: but does reg­u­la­to­ry ap­proval lead to com­mer­cial suc­cess?

By Mwango Kashoki, MD, MPH, Vice President-Technical, and Richard Macaulay, Senior Director, of Parexel Regulatory & Access

In recent years, we’ve seen a significant uptake in the use of regulatory options by companies looking to accelerate the journey of life-saving drugs to market. In 2018, 73% of the novel drugs approved by the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA) were designated under one or more expedited development program categories (Fast Track, Breakthrough Therapy, Priority Review, and Accelerated Approval).ᶦ

Olivier Brandicourt (AP Images)

Ex-Sanofi chief Olivi­er Brandi­court, cur­rent Black­stone ad­vi­sor, jumps on Al­ny­lam board

Former Sanofi chief Olivier Brandicourt, who departed his post with an unexpected early retirement last year, has made his move — as most C-suite executives inevitably do — to become a director on the board of a biopharma company.

RNAi player Alnylam is Brandicourt’s destination. Meanwhile, the Cambridge, Massachusetts-based drugmaker — which pioneered the first approval in the field — also disclosed the retirement of Alnylam co-founder Dr. Paul Schimmel from its board.

Jim Wilson's gene ther­a­py start­up Pas­sage Bio bucks mar­ket sen­ti­ments, rais­ing up­sized $216M IPO

A coronavirus fear-induced bloodbath on the Nasdaq has not stopped Passage Bio from making a public debut — and an exuberant one.

By pricing an upsized offering at $18, the top of the range, the gene therapy biotech bagged $216 million from its IPO, 72% more than it’s originally penciled in.

The proceeds likely reflected confidence in Jim Wilson, who gathered all the tools he’s built over decades of gene therapy research to assemble the startup and teamed up with Frazier and OrbiMed to hone its focus on rare, monogenic disorders of the central nervous system. Just before the IPO, Deerfield partner Bruce Goldsmith took over from OrbiMed’s Stephen Squinto as CEO.

Dan O'Day (AP Images)

UP­DAT­ED: A name emerges out of the Gilead M&A ru­mor mill, and it’s a can­cer biotech

After months of questions and speculation about when and if Gilead will make a major acquisition, a name has emerged.

The California-based drugmaker has approached Forty Seven Inc, a cancer biotech, with a takeover offer, Bloomberg News reports. With Forty Seven’s market cap at $2.3 billion, an acquisition would likely be Gilead’s largest since they acquired Kite Pharma for $11.9 billion in 2017.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 73,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Biogen head of R&D Al Sandrock, Sangamo CEO Sandy Macrae

UP­DAT­ED: Bio­gen makes an­oth­er bold Alzheimer’s bet, drop­ping $350M up­front to part­ner with genome-edit­ing fo­cused Sang­amo

While the fate of Biogen’s resurrected Alzheimer’s drug aducanumab remains uncertain, the Cambridge, MA-based drugmaker is joining forces with genome editing company Sangamo Therapeutics to develop therapies for neurological conditions.

Sangamo is set to receive a meaty $350 million upfront in cash and stock and is eligible to receive up to $2.37 billion in milestone payments, in addition to royalties. In return, Biogen gets the rights to two Sangamo preclinical compounds: ST-501 (for use in tauopathies including Alzheimer’s disease) and ST-502 (for synucleinopathies including Parkinson’s disease).

“The partnership represents a lower-cost way to expand its work in neurologic disease,” Credit Suisse’s Evan Seigerman said in a note, referring to Biogen.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 73,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Spark los­es an­oth­er top ex­ec in the wake of $4.3B takeover by Roche — re­port

Days after bidding farewell to co-founder Kathy High, Spark Therapeutics — now operating under Roche — has one more opening on its C-suite.

Kathy Reape

Kathy Reape, who joined the Philadelphia-based biotech in 2016 as head of clinical R&D and became chief medical officer in 2018, is reportedly set to leave.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 73,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Take­da swoops in to buy lit­tle biotech part­ner and its celi­ac drug poised to 'change stan­dard of care'

Having spent three years carefully grooming PvP Biologics and its drug for celiac disease, Takeda is happy enough with the proof-of-concept data to buy it all.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 73,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

'The head­lines are the head­lines, but': Bio­Marin talks up po­ten­tial sav­ings as he­mo­phil­ia gene ther­a­py launch looms

BioMarin execs are still staying tight-lipped about their pricing plans for what is poised to be the world’s first hemophilia gene therapy. But as the company enters the final regulatory stretch and approaches a potential launch this summer, they are also dropping more hints to get investors ready.

First thing to know: They really, really don’t expect an advisory committee to be convened for valrox, which is under priority review, to pop up before its PDUFA date on August 21.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 73,300+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.