Is Vanda Pharmaceuticals (VNDA) barking up the wrong tree?

The drug maker filed a lawsuit against the Food and Drug Administration for placing a partial clinical hold on a stomach medicine it’s testing and requiring a nine-month study in dogs in order to provide dosing in humans for more than 12 weeks.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!

GET STARTED

What is it?

STAT Plus is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • Online intelligence briefings
  • Frequent opportunities to engage with veteran beat reporters and industry experts
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • Vanda is taking a huge risk. It is not clear why. The best outcome for them seems to be a one-year delay in introducing their product. If they lose in court, which seems likely to me, the cost would be a year of litigation (with its attendant costs) plus a year or so to conduct the nine-month study. It is fairly routine for the FDA to require one-year tests in two species, so it is not clear why the FDA would be satisfied with a 9-month study in dogs. The cost of such a study must have been considered in the decision to take the product into the clinic. Atopic dermatitis is not life-threatening, so it is reasonable to set a high safety bar.

  • If anyone thinks that this has anything to go with the dogs, your crazy, its all about the cost, they just don’t want to pay.

  • I am so glad to hear Vanda is taking a stand on this issue. There are other options which must be considered and utilized. This is a cruel practice and needs to end. Please follow through!

  • I’m glad Vanda is pushing back against these cruel tests. Not only does experimenting on animals cause massive suffering, it’s delaying cures for human diseases. Nine out of ten experimental drugs fail in human trials, according to the FDA, because experiments on animals cannot accurately predict how drugs will affect humans. While animals and humans are alike in our ability to feel pain and suffer, responses to drugs and diseases can differ vastly between species.

    Meanwhile, the number of advanced non-animal testing methods continues to grow—we now have everything from “organ-on-a-chip” technology, to cell-based tests and tissue models, to sophisticated computer modeling and QSAR techniques, and more. These methods are humane far more accurate than tests on animals.

Sign up for our Daily Recap newsletter

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy