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.

Norbert Bischofberger. Kronos

Backed by some of the biggest names in biotech, Nor­bert Bischof­berg­er gets his megaround for plat­form tech out of MIT

A little over a year ago when I reported on Norbert Bischofberger’s jump from the CSO job at giant Gilead to a tiny upstart called Kronos, I noted that with his connections in biotech finance, that $18 million launch round he was starting off with could just as easily have been $100 million or more.

With his first anniversary now behind him, Bischofberger has that mega-round in the bank.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Francesco De Rubertis

Medicxi is rolling out its biggest fund ever to back Eu­rope's top 'sci­en­tists with strange ideas'

Francesco De Rubertis built Medicxi to be the kind of biotech venture player he would have liked to have known back when he was a full time scientist.

“When I was a scientist 20 years ago I would have loved Medicxi,’ the co-founder tells me. It’s the kind of place run by and for investigators, what the Medicxi partner calls “scientists with strange ideas — a platform for the drug hunter and scientific entrepreneur. That’s what I wanted when I was a scientist.”

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Af­ter a decade, Vi­iV CSO John Pot­tage says it's time to step down — and he's hand­ing the job to long­time col­league Kim Smith

ViiV Healthcare has always been something unique in the global drug industry.

Owned by GlaxoSmithKline and Pfizer — with GSK in the lead as majority owner — it was created 10 years ago in a time of deep turmoil for the field as something independent of the pharma giants, but with access to lots of infrastructural support on demand. While R&D at the mother ship inside GSK was souring, a razor-focused ViiV provided a rare bright spot, challenging Gilead on a lucrative front in delivering new combinations that require fewer therapies with a more easily tolerated regimen.

They kept a massive number of people alive who would otherwise have been facing a death sentence. And they made money.

And throughout, John Pottage has been the chief scientific and chief medical officer.

Until now.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Chas­ing Roche's ag­ing block­buster fran­chise, Am­gen/Al­ler­gan roll out Avastin, Her­ceptin knock­offs at dis­count

Let the long battle for biosimilars in the cancer space begin.

Amgen has launched its Avastin and Herceptin copycats — licensed from the predecessors of Allergan — almost two years after the FDA had stamped its approval on Mvasi (bevacizumab-awwb) and three months after the Kanjinti OK (trastuzumab-anns). While the biotech had been fielding biosimilars in Europe, this marks their first foray in the US — and the first oncology biosimilars in the country.

Seer adds ex-FDA chief Mark Mc­Clel­lan to the board; Her­cules Cap­i­tal makes it of­fi­cial for new CEO Scott Bluestein

→ On the same day it announced a $17.5 million Series C, life sciences and health data company Seer unveiled that it had lured former FDA commissioner and ex-CMS administrator Mark McClellan on to its board. “Mark’s deep understanding of the health care ecosystem and visionary insights on policy reform will be crucial in informing our thinking as we work to bring our liquid biopsy and life sciences products to market,” said Seer chief and founder Omid Farokhzad in a statement.

Daniel O'Day

No­var­tis hands off 3 pre­clin­i­cal pro­grams to the an­tivi­ral R&D mas­ters at Gilead

Gilead CEO Daniel O’Day’s new task hunting up a CSO for the company isn’t stopping the industry’s dominant antiviral player from doing pipeline deals.

The big biotech today snapped up 3 preclinical antiviral programs from pharma giant Novartis, with drugs promising to treat human rhinovirus, influenza and herpes viruses. We don’t know what the upfront is, but the back end has $291 million in milestones baked in.

Vas Narasimhan, AP Images

On a hot streak, No­var­tis ex­ecs run the odds on their two most im­por­tant PhI­II read­outs. Which is 0.01% more like­ly to suc­ceed?

Novartis CEO Vas Narasimhan is living in the sweet spot right now.

The numbers are running a bit better than expected, the pipeline — which he assembled as development chief — is performing and the stock popped more than 4% on Thursday as the executive team ran through their assessment of Q2 performance.

Year-to-date the stock is up 28%, so the investors will be beaming. Anyone looking for chinks in their armor — and there are plenty giving it a shot — right now focus on payer acceptance of their $2.1 million gene therapy Zolgensma, where it’s early days. And CAR-T continues to underperform, but Novartis doesn’t appear to be suffering from it.

So what could go wrong?

Actually, not much. But Tim Anderson at Wolfe pressed Narasimhan and his development chief John Tsai to pick which of two looming Phase III readouts with blockbuster implication had the better odds of success.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

On a glob­al romp, Boehringer BD team picks up its third R&D al­liance for Ju­ly — this time fo­cused on IPF with $50M up­front

Boehringer Ingelheim’s BD team is on a global deal spree. The German pharma company just wrapped its third deal in 3 weeks, going back to Korea for its latest pipeline pact — this time focused on idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

They’re handing over $50 million to get their hands on BBT-877, an ATX inhibitor from Korea’s Bridge Biotherapeutics that was on display at a science conference in Dallas recently. There’s not a whole lot of data to evaluate the prospects here.

Endpoints News

Basic subscription required

Unlock this story instantly and join 55,100+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Servi­er scoots out of an­oth­er col­lab­o­ra­tion with Macro­Gen­ics, writ­ing off their $40M

Servier is walking out on a partnership with MacroGenics $MGNX — for the second time.

After the market closed on Wednesday MacroGenics put out word that Servier is severing a deal — inked close to 7 years ago — to collaborate on the development of flotetuzumab and other Dual-Affinity Re-Targeting (DART) drugs in its pipeline.

MacroGenics CEO Scott Koenig shrugged off the departure of Servier, which paid $20 million to kick off the alliance and $20 million to option flotetuzumab — putting a heavily back-ended $1 billion-plus in additional biobuck money on the table for the anti-CD123/CD3 bispecific and its companion therapies.