Evidence of meeting #9 for Health in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was drug.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Meena Ballantyne  Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health
David Lee  Director, Office of Patented Medicines and Liaison, Therapeutic Products Directorate, Department of Health
Chris Turner  Director General, Marketed Health Products Directorate, Department of Health
Michael Vandergrift  Director General, Policy, Planning and International Affairs Directorate, Department of Health
Diana Dowthwaite  Director General, Health Products and Food Branch Inspectorate, Department of Health

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. If we can all take our places so we could get started, I would really appreciate it. It is about seven minutes after 11 o'clock. I was a few minutes late because I was speaking in the House, so my apologies.

Having said that, I am pleased to announce that pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted on Tuesday, December 11, 2007, the committee is beginning its study on post-market surveillance of pharmaceutical products, prescription and non-prescription.

I would like to welcome the officials from Health Canada who are here with us today. Welcome. We're so glad you could join us.

I would ask the assistant deputy minister, Ms. Meena Ballantyne, to introduce her colleagues before she begins her presentation.

11:10 a.m.

Meena Ballantyne Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll start with the introductions. We have Diana Dowthwaite, who's our director general of the health products and food branch inspectorate; Dr. Chris Turner, who's the director general of marketed health products; Mr. David Lee, who is the director of the office of patented medicines and liaison in the therapeutic products directorate of the health products and food branch; and Mr. Michael Vandergrift, who's the director general of the policy, planning and international affairs directorate in HPFB.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Thank you for those introductions.

I would remind members that the first round is seven minutes, in the following order: first of all the Liberal members, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP, and then the Conservative Party. For the subsequent rounds, members are given five minutes for questions, alternating between the opposition and government members.

Ms. Ballantyne, if you would like to give your presentation, then we will start with the questions directly following that. I will recognize the people before they speak, because that keeps order--hopefully.

11:10 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health

Meena Ballantyne

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

It's a pleasure to be here today before this committee to provide an overview of Canada's post-market activities for pharmaceuticals. In my opening remarks I will provide an overview of the main components of our program, the measures the department has recently implemented to enhance it, and the new strategies being considered to strengthen our safety system.

As the federal authority responsible for regulating health products and food, Health Canada plays a key role in protecting and improving the health and safety of Canadians.

Let me provide you with an overview of how we are regulating pharmaceutical products, which is the focus of the committee study.

I'll begin with the federal-provincial-territorial roles in pharmaceuticals.

As you know, all levels of government have a clear mutual interest in ensuring the safe and effective use of pharmaceutical products. The federal government is responsible for the regulatory oversight of the safety of pharmaceutical products made available to Canadians, and all governments also provide drug plan benefits to Canadians. In the case of the federal government, it's through the first nations and Inuit health branch for our first nations communities.

Before a pharmaceutical product is authorized for sale in Canada, the manufacturer must provide the department with scientific evidence of its safety, efficacy, and quality. Scientists then review the evidence to determine whether the risks associated with the product are acceptable in light of its potential benefits.

When the product is approved for sale, Health Canada conducts a number of important post-market activities, which this committee has identified in the terms of reference for the study. These include post-market surveillance and compliance and enforcement, as well as risk management activities and risk communication.

Post-market surveillance is the process of tracking pharmaceutical and other health products already approved on the market to access signals and safety trends once these products are in use by a wider population. It is the responsibility of the manufacturer to report serious adverse reactions.

Health Canada also encourages reporting from health care professionals and patients. Health Canada assesses the data and takes appropriate action if a serious health risk is identified or if the risks associated with the product outweigh its benefits. Such actions can range from issuing warnings to the public and the health care community to cancelling the market authorization of a product.

Regulators worldwide face new challenges in the regulation of health products, driven by changing trade patterns, increased globalization of the industry, rapidly evolving science, increased complexity of regulated products, and greater expectations from the public. Steps have been taken over the past several years to address some of the pressures and challenges facing our regulatory system. Through investments in the past, the efficiency and responsiveness of the drug review system has been substantially improved. Health Canada has cleared its submission backlogs and is now meeting internationally benchmarked performance targets for review of new drug submissions for pharmaceutical and biologic products without compromising its high standards of safety.

Following the high-profile safety issues related to COX-2 drugs and building on the recommendations made by the Standing Committee on Health in 2004, targeted measures have been implemented to strengthen the safety of pharmaceuticals and other health products through significantly enhanced funding.

I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Health for its past work on issues related to health products, particularly the 2004 “Opening the Medicine Cabinet” report, which helped guide our most recent work on strengthening and modernizing Canada's safety system for pharmaceuticals.

For your information, we've provided a kit with all the various reports that built on the work of the Standing Committee on Health over the past few years, which has more details about some of the information we're going to talk about this morning.

Improvements made in the past few years to strengthen post-market surveillance, which is of most interest to this committee, include enhanced clinical trial oversight, strengthened assessment and surveillance of marketed products, and strengthened compliance and enforcement.

We have increased our capacity to collect more and better information about the safety of products currently on the market, as well as our capacity to assess the information and to communicate the risk. For example, we have launched the MedEffect Canada website as a single window for timely safety information about health products. There are 17,000 subscribers to the MedEffect e-notice at this point. We are also distributing the Canadian Adverse Reaction Newsletter to approximately 67,000 physicians through the Canadian Medical Association Journal and to 25,000 pharmacists across Canada.

We have also opened two new regional adverse reaction offices, for a total of seven across the country, and have seen a 50% increase in the number of adverse reaction reports submitted to Health Canada since 2006.

While these investments were necessary to address immediate gaps in Canada's current safety system, the view was that Health Canada needed to fundamentally change the way it regulates health products, which is widely shared by stakeholders.

In the fall of 2006, Health Canada launched a broad review of its legislative regulatory and policy frameworks for health products, known as Blueprint for renewal. It articulates a number of orientations to modernize the regulatory system, including proposed strategies to strengthen the safety of pharmaceutical products throughout their life cycle.

We held national consultations with over 150 stakeholders on the blueprint document that you have in your kit. Strong support was expressed during these consultations for the proposed approaches to modernizing our system.

The blueprint outlines a number of gaps in the regulatory system. For example, we have legislation, the current Food and Drugs Act, that is outdated and was designed to address the realities of the 1950s, as opposed to the year 2007. The system is reactive, not always focused on the greatest risks, and uses blunt instruments that often result in a one-size-fits-all approach to regulating products. It focuses on pre-market and point-in-time approaches to assessing the safety of products, rather than looking at risks and benefits continuously across the product life cycle. The experience with COX-2 drugs has demonstrated the need to address these gaps, particularly in post-market authorities and capacity, to help prevent similar incidents from happening in the future.

The proposed food and consumer safety action plan that was announced by the Prime Minister in December 2007 and the related discussion paper that was released and posted on our website in mid-January, a couple of weeks ago, would fundamentally change the regulatory system for regulating pharmaceuticals and other health products so that it can be more responsive to rapid changes in the regulatory environment and better protect the health and safety of Canadians. This shift would be achieved through the implementation of a life cycle approach, an approach that is consistent with other leading regulators, such as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency.

With the proposed life cycle approach, a number of actions could be taken more proactively to prevent safety incidents, strengthen targeted oversight activities, and respond rapidly to incidents when they do occur, which sets the international standard for vigilance activities.

The successful implementation of the action plan would require legislative amendments to the Food and Drugs Act. Specifically, authority would be required to implement life cycle approaches to regulating health products, thus shifting the focus from pre-market review to one that continuously assesses a product's risks and benefits, both before and after it reaches the market, by putting conditions on the licence. It would provide a more modern and effective compliance and enforcement regime, including modern fines and penalties and the power to remove unsafe health products from the market. It would enable the department, in cooperation with the provinces and territories, to make it mandatory for hospitals to report on serious adverse drug reactions. And it would enhance the openness and transparency of Health Canada's regulatory activities to support greater public involvement in regulatory decision-making.

The implementation of a life cycle approach to regulating health products will provide information about the risk-benefit profile of a drug, based on its use in the real world. It will allow Health Canada to better respond to safety issues when they arise, therefore reducing negative consequences on the health of Canadians related to the use of unsafe products.

This concludes my opening remarks. I have colleagues with me who can provide details on some of the issues we've talked about. I leave it up to you to ask questions, or we can provide the details now, as you like.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Before we go into the question period, is there anybody else, from the presenters here today, who would like to make comment? I will give you that opportunity now, if you'd like to briefly do that.

11:20 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health

Meena Ballantyne

No, I think we're fine. We'll just respond to the questions.

Thank you.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Very good.

We'll begin with Dr. Bennett.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Thank you very much.

Thank you for coming and thank you for the good beginning in changing this. I think most of us at this committee have felt that post-market surveillance could be Canada's gift to the world. With the single-payer system, there's no real reason why we couldn't be the best at this in the world.

Unless people know about it, we're not going to be very effective at it. I think your opening remarks say that there's still some disappointment in terms of the take-up on this and the actual reporting of adverse affects, both from stakeholders and from citizens.

This would be my first question. There was a very popular website where all Canadians went for their information, called the Canadian Health Network. It was a place where Canadians could look for information on things. Why would you shut that down rather than use it to attain the goals that are in your blueprint here, where it talks about developing mechanisms to encourage participation...? I think, from the performance report the committee saw, this is a website that almost doubled its site visits in the previous year. Yet the minister had the audacity to tell us that it had outlived its usefulness.

So I just don't understand why you're rebuilding and starting from scratch again when there was something very useful there that could have been used. I don't understand.

11:20 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health

Meena Ballantyne

I would like to emphasize, Dr. Bennett, that you're absolutely right that we are increasing our efforts, making concerted efforts to get communications out to the public using a variety of sources. We have put into place mechanisms such as the MedEffect website that I talked about, and a lot of other risk communications that we target through the CMA, for example, to all the doctors in this country, and through direct mailings to all the doctors and pharmacists as well. So there's no question that we're trying to make sure we can get the information out as fast as possible, and the more information the better.

I'm not aware at this point...and I'll invite my colleagues to speak about this Canadian Health Network. But we do have the MedEffect website, which has been in place for the past five years.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Meena, maybe you could ask the department to give us a full report on why. In every consultation we have done, stickiness in traffic was found to be the most important thing to a website--how you get people to come, to see that they trust it, and then build the traffic. To start a new website is very difficult for people. So the decision of Health Canada to start myriad new websites when there was one that was already working just seems to fly in the face of what any communication consultant would ask you to do.

11:20 a.m.

David Lee Director, Office of Patented Medicines and Liaison, Therapeutic Products Directorate, Department of Health

Maybe I can give you some information, at least about the effectiveness of the MedEffect website.

We know that since it was implemented in 2005, as a result of therapeutics access strategy resourcing, there were over two million page views and web traffic of approximately 860,000 visits to that website in 2006. So we know from that statistic alone that there is significant interest in that website.

We also note from a survey we did in 2006, a public consultation on the MedEffect website and the online use of it, that there was significant awareness and trust in it, and that Canadians had faith in that vehicle to communicate.

I think part of our problem is that.... I don't want to say no two Canadians are alike, but obviously people have different preferences as to what site they would like to use in terms of the way it's configured. So probably a one-all solution isn't the best. We recognize, for example, that as Ms. Ballantyne said, the Canadian Medical Association and its daily infoPOEMs.... I am a physician and I get those daily, directly in my e-mail box, and I use them. Those are one method of communicating risk information. Other Canadians may prefer the MedEffect website, while others may prefer the Public Health Agency of Canada or other vehicles. We recognize that.

What I can tell you is that we have consulted with Canadians, and the majority of those consulted did have confidence in the MedEffect website as a reliable source of information.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Can you tell me how many went to the MedEffect website, and were sent there, and where they were sent from, using links from other websites such as the Canadian Health Network?

11:25 a.m.

Dr. Chris Turner Director General, Marketed Health Products Directorate, Department of Health

I doubt it. I am not the expert in IM/IT, but we can look into that for you and get back to you.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

I think the fight between the Canadian Health Portal and the Canadian Health Network is legendary. I would like to know how we could be more coherent, between the Public Health Agency and Health Canada, on communication strategies with Canadians.

Seeing as the current legislation is outdated in design, I want to know what you are doing now to get the legislation modernized in terms of real world experience. We know we are approving drugs with which we have had no experience in the real world, and we don't know if they'll fight with echinacea or grapefruit juice or other medications when we put them on the market.

11:25 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health

Meena Ballantyne

I'll invite my colleague Mr. Lee to respond to that.

11:25 a.m.

Director, Office of Patented Medicines and Liaison, Therapeutic Products Directorate, Department of Health

David Lee

There are a number of things we're actually doing to study, in very practical terms, how we need to modernize. We recognize there's a big gap sitting there. A lot of the machinery we work with now in the regulations is 40 years old.

What's missing, the big gap, is really in the post-market. So as you mentioned, when we look at something pre-market, we're really looking in very ideal conditions at how the drug is behaving in very selected patients. It's when it gets out into the market that people might have other diseases that will affect taking the drug. They might be taking other drugs. That's where a lot of our new scientists are actually gathering. We need to pay attention to what other regulators in the world are doing. There are a lot of very good instruments we're studying there and trying to pull into the Canadian discussion.

We're also learning from Canadian patients. The people who use drugs chronically need a lot more information because they're with the drugs everyday. We need to understand their information needs when there's a risk with a product we might all take for a week and no more.

It's really an important study to us. We're trying to bring in as much as we can from the communities that use drugs, and make as few assumptions as possible. We've been conducting consultations for the last couple of years and really bringing people in at a very early stage to get a good solid evidence-based framework.

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

Could you table the consultation--

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

Madam Bennett, I'm sorry--

11:25 a.m.

Liberal

Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON

No, I just need him to table the consultations that have been done to date.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joy Smith

I'm sorry. We'll have to go on to the next person.

Madam Gagnon.

11:25 a.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Thank you for being with us today.

We are beginning our information sessions on the post-market surveillance of pharmaceutical products. We made this subject a priority because we read the newspapers and because quite a few citizens are expressing their concerns. There are products on the market that affect the lives and health of the population. Many people are wondering wether they should go on consuming certain pharmaceutical products or using certain cosmetics.

On page 2 of your presentation, Ms. Ballantyne, you say: “Through increased investments, the efficiency and responsiveness of the drug review system has been substantially improved [...]” And then you say that in 2004 “[...] targeted measures have been implemented to strengthen the safety of pharmaceuticals and other health products through funds provided by the 2005 Budget.”

If I remember correctly, the Auditor General had noted that the funding of the regulatory program supervised by Health Canada was on the increase, but that the basic funding, for medication, had decreased by 32% over three years, which means $7.1 million in 2003-2004 and $4.8 million in 2005-2006.

How come you did not mention this gap? You seem to be saying that the budget you have available will enable you to achieve the objectives of your reform. How do you explain that you did not mention anything about a lack of funding and resources? It seems that Health Canada, with the various branches in charge of drug safety, is unable to meet its obligations by supervising the entirety of the process up to the post-market stage of the products.

These are my first questions.

11:30 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health

Meena Ballantyne

I will begin my answer in French, but with your permission—

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

You could answer in English, we have interpretation. It will be easier for you.

11:30 a.m.

Assistant Deputy Minister, Health Products and Food Branch, Department of Health

Meena Ballantyne

All right. It is because I would like to give you an accurate answer.

We are presently looking at our resource base, further to the AG's report and further to the investments that have been made in the past. We're considering what resources we need to carry out our regulatory responsibilities in an effective and modernized way. That work and those discussions are ongoing at this moment.

There is no question that there is an issue of resources. We're looking at a variety of mechanisms to address that, because it is important for us to make sure we can carry out our work in a way that meets the expectations and needs of Canadians. So we're hoping in the next few weeks to come forward with a response to the public accounts committee. We've done a comprehensive review of our programs and services further to the AG's report. We have some consultations that have been under way on our cost recovery regime, which has also been outdated since the mid-1990s.

What we're suggesting is that there is a need to transform the way we regulate health products in this country, so that we can meet the needs of Canadians now and in the future and keep up with our international partners, because we are lagging behind our international partners. We need to do that in a responsible way and make sure there's sufficient attention focused not just on the pre-market but on the post-market.

In my view, this life cycle approach we're talking about is really transformative in terms of our taking a drug and not just being reactive and looking at it at one point in time, and then just putting it on the market and letting market forces, in this case Canadians, actually experience these adverse effects and bear the consequences of our decisions. So what we're saying is that with the life cycle approach we will be monitoring these drugs and health products throughout their life cycles, so that when these get out into the real world, they are past the clinical trial stage and there are people using them who are very young, very old, with a number of other health conditions, whom we can monitor, and so that we have the regulatory foresight. The latter is not a blunt instrument. Yes, we can always recall a product.... Actually, in this case, we can't, as we don't have the legislative authority to recall a health product in this country, which I personally find absolutely appalling.

So what we're saying at least is that instead of just using that, can we just calibrate what we need to do.

11:30 a.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

I know, but it is what you told us and that is what is written in your action plan. However, we know that the current mechanism for approving drugs does not enable us to detect most of the adverse side effects of the drugs. However, your plan and your strategy for the post-market analysis for 2007-2012, provides that Health Canada new plan is intended to modernize the system, as you said, of regulations in Canada. At the same time, you will be guided by, and you will even apply the standards set by the international conference on harmonization of technical requirements. We know very well that this plan, that you used as a model, will shorten the drug approval process by bringing the protection standards down to the lowest common denominator. Thus, you want to develop, as they did, a unique set of regulations for all clinical trials.

I was alarmed by the fact that the current drug approval mechanism does not enable us to detect most of the adverse side effects. However, if you want to take the ICH as a model, you will, just as it did and shorten the approval process for certain drugs. You know that the pharmaceutical companies would like to do all the marketing of certain drugs because it is more profitable for them. I do not think, therefore, that you are going in the right direction, if you use the ICH as a model.