Press Release – August 19, 2011

2011 September 20
by Jason Yeh

Although the FDA approved the Melanoma drug PLX 4032 (Zelboraf) on Wednesday (August 17, 2011), what is not in the news is that the FDA is responsible for lives lost by not allowing access two years or more ago to this drug for people who were fighting for their lives and could not get into clinical trials for this efficacious drug.  This is nothing less than another clear avoidable FDA tragedy.

The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs first started pushing for earlier access to PLX 4032 two years ago.  The Abigail Alliance keeps working to gain wider attention to the clear proof of the lifesaving and life-extending need for earlier access to promising developmental drugs.

This is the profound proof.  Every drug for cancer and other serious life-threatening illnesses that the Abigail Alliance has pushed for earlier access to in our ten-year history is now approved by the FDA! There is not one drug that we pushed for earlier access to that did not make it through the clinical trial process.

The current count is 19 drugs and vaccines! EVEN the FDA’s own Science and Technology Board in their late 2007 report recommended there be a provisional approval mechanism for promising new drugs.


-Frank Burroughs, Founder and Steve Walker, Cofounder
Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs

From the Wall Street Journal – “The FDA and Slower Cures”

2011 March 3
by Jason Yeh

Last week, the Wall Street Journal published an article on the FDA which our President Frank Burroughs felt inclined to comment on.  View the full article here “The FDA and Slower Cures” and read Frank’s reaction below.

From Frank:

The excellent Wall Street Editorial ‘The FDA and Slower Cures’ brings out some very important life saving and life-extending points, particularly the vital need to save patients’ lives as was done with AIDS drugs, the destruction of the accelerated approval process by Dr. Richard Pazdur along with his hand picked advisors, and the FDA’s unnecessary and deadly adversarial posture towards our innovative pharmaceutical industry.

The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs has been addressing this FDA tragedy foralmost ten years. Here is something that is very profound. Every drug for cancer and other serious life-threatening illnesses that the Abigail Alliance has pushed for earlier access to in our nine and half yearhistory is now approved by the FDA! There is not one drug that we pushed for earlier access to that didnot make it through the clinical trial process. Many lives could have been saved or extended, if there had been earlier access to these drugs! The current count is 17 drugs and vaccines! EVEN the FDA’s own Science and Technology Advisory Board in their late 2007 report recommended there be a provisional approval mechanism for promising new drugs.

Press Release – Expanded Access Program

2010 December 23
by Jason Yeh

The Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs is happy to announce that there is now an expanded access program for the efficacious developmental metastatic melanoma drug PLX4032 (also known as RG7204 and RO5185426).   Information regarding the program can be found on at: , or by going to and searching for RO5185426.

The Abigail Alliance commends the sponsors Hoffmann-La Roche, its subsidiary Genentech, and Plexxikon for providing access to their breakthrough drug for the thousands of people diagnosed with metastatic melanoma who are, at this moment, fighting for their lives.

The Abigail Alliance has been communicating with the FDA and the sponsors with regard to this drug on behalf of patients.  Among our several recommendations, we have pressed both organizations to open an expanded access program for PLX4032 as soon as possible.  Please visit our website to learn more about our efforts to help people with metastatic melanoma gain access to PLX4032.

It should be noted that an unethical randomized trial that subjects terminal melanoma cancer patients to treatment with an old toxic drug in the control arm of a randomized trial (BRIM3 trial) is ongoing.  The Abigail Alliance continues to urge the FDA and the sponsors to find an alternative to  placing dying patients into a meaningless randomized trial control arm for no  other purpose than to satisfy a rigid and ill-fitting regulatory policy, and  move this drug toward approval as quickly as possible.  This drug already solidly meets the Congressional and FDA standards for Accelerated Approval. The patients enrolled in the control arm of the trial are being denied their chance to benefit from this new breakthrough drug, and under the rules of the trial, will be allowed to die without ever being offered this breakthrough drug.  The trial should be immediately stopped, and the control arm patients offered the new drug.

Frank Burroughs, President              703-646-5306
Steve Walker, Cofounder                    813-340-3193

Abigail Alliance for Better Access to Developmental Drugs

Death by Wall Street (a book review)

2010 December 3
by Jason Yeh
Book Review by Frank Burroughs

I tend to like to read non-fiction rather than fiction, but I found Theodore J. Cohen’s fiction based on fact book ‘Death by Wall Street – Rampage of the Bulls’ an enjoyable short murder mystery that was hard to put down.
My work with the Abigail Alliance is very relevant to this compelling story. As part of the tragic ongoing FDA blocking of earlier access to promising lifesaving and life-extending drugs and vaccines, the sad saga of the long delayed access and delayed approval of the prostate vaccine Provenge is the bases for this chronicle.
Theodore J. Cohen’s knowledge of Wall Street, the human suffering of cancer patients, and his creativity combine to make this a well written novel. ‘Death by Wall Street – Rampage of the Bulls’ stirred my emotions, particularly anger. I am sure others will feel the pathos of this story. I highly recommend reading this book.

New York Times editorial on FDA’s Avastin Decision

2010 July 27
by Jason Yeh

On July 26th, the New York Times posted an editorial relating to the FDA’s decision on the drug Avastin.  Their summary entitled “When a Drug Fails” missed the mark on so many levels that even on vacation, our co-founder Steve Walker felt compelled to respond.

This editorial reflects a typical lack of understanding of why the FDA granted accelerated approval for Avastin as a first-line treatment for breast cancer in the first place. Because there are now multiple approved treatments for metastatic breast cancer, with most women going on to treatment with several of them after their first line treatment stops working, it has become impossible to measure a first line drug’s effect on overall survival (how long a patient lives) after beginning treatment. The first trial of Avastin in this setting (on which its accelerated approval was based) indicated a significant advantage in delaying progression of the disease. The problem is obvious. Given the uneven response of patients to various drugs, and the FDA’s crude clinical trial standards designed only to measure and compare the average response of populations (as opposed to how individual patients benefit or don’t benefit from a drug), the FDA made the right call with Avastin (by approving it) the first time around. Think about it. A patient is treated with Avastin and may, or may not, benefit individually in terms of delayed progression or extended life, because the trials are not designed to try to learn whether the individual patient benefited. The FDA’s statistical trials, by design (a problem that cannot be fixed – it is an inherent limitation of statistics-based trials) cannot measure individual benefit. It can only measure the time to progression and the time to death of an individual, which is then dumped into a pool of those measurements from hundreds of patients in each trial arm, and used to calculate an average time to progression and an average time to death for the two populations (those who got Avastin and those who didn’t). They then compare the average outcomes (actually the average patient in one arm to the average patient in the other arm). Seem simplistic? It is. Each patient then goes on to be treated with multiple other drugs (but each patient’s experience is unique – different drugs in different orders, with very variable outcomes, and mostly outside clinical trials where measurements relevant to the initial trial with Avastin may or may not be accurately measured recorded), then at some point, they die. The patient lives, say, 18 months after being treated with four different drugs. Why did she live that long? Which drugs worked to extend her life, which ones didn’t? The FDA’s statisticians have no idea because the trials they mandate are designed far too simplistically to measure it, and it is the FDA that makes and enforces the expectations for trial designs, despite their frequent assertions to the contrary. The media’s consistently incorrect take on this, including in this editorial, is not surprising only because the media almost always fails to properly explain what happened. The most recent trials of this drug actually confirmed that there is a progression-free survival advantage, just not as much of an advantage as the first trial indicated, which means the drug is having a positive effect – on average, and it is still impossible to statistically measure overall survival for a first-line breast cancer drug. If they ran another trial, the result would show yet another progression-free survival result. The real problem here is not that Avastin doesn’t work – it is that FDA has long refused (actually for about 50 years) to update its clinical trial and regulatory science. Randomized controlled trials and the simplistic statistics that drive them, invented in the 1950′s at the FDA and written into law by Congress in 1962, aren’t working anymore. Just a small amount of progress in a still incurable form of breast cancer makes them unworkable. It is very difficult to make progress against a disease when FDA’s regulation has become so obsolete, we can’t even measure progress. With so much in the balance – more than half a million lives a year in the US alone – can’t we do better? We actually can, but resistance to real change at FDA is so profound, even getting started is proving to be an epic struggle. They are not saints over there. They are government employees following very old rules and policies in very formulaic ways and failing on a grand scale. Maybe you should write an editorial about that.

Steven Walker
Abigail Alliance

Private Health Emergencies – an insightful article

2010 April 14
by Jason Yeh

Over at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights, Thomas A. Bowden published a very insightful article related to our struggle.

Bowden says:

Every life-threatening disease presents a health emergency to the individual patient. Morally, you have the right to seek the best treatment you can find. Yet our legal system denies you that right when it comes to private health emergencies.

The important point, as Frank Burroughs relayed in an email praising Bowden, is that tens of thousands of lives could and should be saved each year.

Hands off my meds – John Stossel

2010 February 27
by Jason Yeh

This Thursday, John Stossel’s show on Fox Business covered the question of whether or not the Government has the right to tell you what you can or can’t put into your body.  The show featured comments from many sources on the subject including Frank Burroughs from the Abigail Alliance.  John summarizes his thoughts on the matter on his site here.  An excerpt:

Bruce Tower has prostate cancer.  He wanted to take a drug that showed promise against his cancer, but the FDA would not allow it.  One bureaucrat told him the government was protecting him from dangerous side effects.  Tower’s outraged response was: “Side effects, who cares? Every treatment I’ve had I’ve suffered from side-effects. If I’m terminal it should be my option to endure any side-effects.”

Of course it should be his option.  Why, in our “free” country, do Americans meekly stand aside and let the state limit our choices, even when we are dying ?

When online video of the full show becomes available, we will share.

Provenge – unfairly restricted?

2010 February 19
by Jason Yeh

Over the past couple years, there has been a battle raging to help get the drug Provenge approved by the FDA. Many people have brought up conflicts of interests among FDA panelists as reasons that Provenge has not been made available to the public as of yet.

Last week, Jim Edwards who writes the Pharma Analysis blog over at wrote a piece titled SEC Probe Into Dendreon Cancer Drug “Conspiracy” Could Put Rumors to Rest. In the post, Jim writes:

The conspiracy theorists believe that the FDA was swayed by a “disparaging letter” about Provenge written by Scher to the FDA commissioner, and that coupled with his conflict of interest this maneuvering unfairly kept Provenge off the market — and doomed many men to die unnecessarily from prostate cancer.

On its face, it does look messy: It’s always bad to have people with conflicts of interest in positions of power.

But a closer look reveals that both Scher and Hussain’s conflicts were disclosed prior to their sitting on the panel, and Scher’s letter contains an entirely reasonable and highly persuasive argument for not approving Provenge at the time — the company didn’t have enough data.

In fact, Dendreon had only presented “secondary endpoint” results, not primary endpoints. In other words, they had cherry-picked their data from two studies in which Provenge failed to meet the primary endpoint goals.

Having read this, Frank Burroughs, President of the Abigail Alliance, felt compelled to respond to Jim in a note which I’ve included below.  The Alliance definitely feels like these issues are real and it is important that people understand this fight.

What your article most certainly should have included was the lopsided FDA Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) panel’s vote infavor of approving Provenge back in 2008.  The ODAC was convinced prostate cancer patients were being helped by Dendreon’s vaccine.

Sadly your article downplayed Drs.Scher and Hussain’s serious conflict of interest.  You should have been critical of the FDA for allowing them to be part of the Provenge review process in the first place.

Let me make one last note.  Even if the FDA wants more data for Provenge and other drugs and vaccines, what is so vitally needed for patients fighting for their lives, who have run out of options, and like so many cannot get into a clinical trial is early access to drugs and vaccines like Provenge, before the final FDA approval.  This is what the Compassionate Access Act will do that is close to being reintroduced in the U.S. Congress.

I think journalism gets measured by the quality of information it presents, not the drama or the pyrotechnics associated with us.         – Bob Woodward

Please respond in comments if you guys have thoughts on this issue.  We’d love to hear it!

Continuing our fight for the ACCESS Act!

2010 January 22
by Frank Burroughs

With my fingers crossed, it looks like we are close to getting the ACCESS Act reintroduced in Congress and having help getting more momentum for adding more cosponsors this time around.

The Abigail Alliance has become part of a rare disease patient advocacy lobbying group put together by the Kakkis Foundation. This will help patients and help get more traction for the ACCESS Act.

Also recently, the Abigail Alliance has developed a closer relationship with BIO (Biotechnology Industry Organization). We are a significant and well received part of a project at BIO looking into ethical issues regarding earlier access to promising investigational drugs.

Yet another reason the FDA needs to modernize for the 21st century (Re: colon cancer)

2010 January 22
by Frank Burroughs

Mason Researchers Launch Innovative Clinical Trial for Colorectal Cancer

George Mason University Published January 19, 2010 By Marjorie Musick

Imagine if treatments for disease could be based not on patients’ diagnoses, but instead on the characteristics of their tissue. By identifying and decoding the cryptic messages hidden deep inside the human proteome, scientists and physicians who study personalized medicine are seeking more effective treatments and disease management for patients.

Lance Liotta and Emanuel Petricoin III, professors of life sciences and co-directors of Mason’s Center for Applied Proteomics and Molecular Medicine (CAPMM), are pioneers in the field of patient-tailored research and personalized medicine. The two study biomarkers (indicators of disease in tissue and bodily fluids) related to cancer, heart disease, liver disease and obesity.

They recently launched a unique clinical trial in partnership with oncologists and co-principal investigators Kirstin Edmiston, medical director of cancer services at Inova Health System, and Alexander I. Spira, director of Fairfax Northern Virginia Hematology Oncology Research Program, to treat patients with late-stage colorectal cancer, a fatal cancer that starts in either the colon or the rectum.

Striking more than 150,000 American men and women each year, colorectal cancer is the nation’s third most commonly diagnosed cancer and third leading cause of cancer death, according to the American Cancer Society.

The three-year trial will accommodate up to 50 men and women who have late-stage colorectal cancer that has spread to the liver.

“Traditionally, all colon cancers have been lumped together and given similar treatments. The novelty about this is that we can, in a very minimally invasive way, start to treat the metastatic tumor based on its unique protein makeup,” says Edmiston.

“If we’re going to be successful in treating the metastatic disease, which is what kills people, then we need to focus on using therapies targeted toward the individuality of a patient’s disease state. This clinical trial is the first step toward doing that.”

Trial participants will be treated with standard metastatic colon cancer therapy and will test the addition of Gleevec, a medicine that is typically prescribed for certain forms of leukemia and gastrointestinal tumors. Gleevec targets disease pathways in tumor cells that previous CAPMM research revealed were among those found in typically fatal liver metastasis in colorectal cancer patients.
Because the primary tumors in the colon are removed in most colorectal cancer patients as soon as they are diagnosed, this study will focus on treating the often fatal secondary tumors or metastatic lesions that appear when the disease spreads to the liver, causing death through destruction of that organ.
To sample these lesions, CAPMM’s scientists developed a new drug target mapping technology called “reverse phase protein microarray.” This allows the researchers to create a unique molecular profile or “fingerprint” that shows which protein pathways or drug targets are activated in the lesion. This process will allow the researchers to determine whether specific drugs such as Gleevec might be an effective treatment for a particular patient before it is even administered.

By monitoring the drug target activity in trial participants’ tumors and basing their treatment on those characteristics, the researchers are hopeful that the clinical trial will lead to more effective and individualized treatment for patients suffering from this devastating disease.

“The exciting aspect of this trial is that an established drug is being considered for a new indication, and that’s one of the promises of personalized therapy — that a patient’s molecular portrait would be considered as the rationale for choice of therapy rather than based on the site or the kind of cancer alone,” says Petricoin.

“Until now, the most cutting-edge clinical trials utilize genomic profiling of the tumor to select patients. This is the first trial that uses a direct proteomic approach that maps the drug target activation networks that are in use in each patients’ tumor — just technologically being able to do this in a real clinical trial is a first.”

Patients interested in participating in the clinical trial should contact Stacey Banks, Inova’s clinical research coordinator, at 703-776-3565.
Financial support for the study is being provided by Novartis, which developed and manufactures Gleevec.