Create Account | Sign In: Author or Forum

 
News  |  Journals  |  Conferences  |  Opinion  |  Articles  |  Forums  |  Twitter    
 
Category: Cardiology | Dermatology | Endocrinology | Family Medicine | Gastroenterology | Gynecology | Infections | AIDS | Internal Medicine | Allergy | Critical Care | Emergency Medicine | Nephrology | Neurology | Nursing | Oncology | Ophthalmology | Orthopedics | ENT | Pathology | Pediatrics | Psychiatry | Pulmonology | Radiology | Rheumatology | Surgery | Urology | Journal

Back to Journal Articles

Changes Needed in New-Drug Evaluation Process

Last Updated: April 01, 2009.

 

Patients get 'poor return on investment'; independent evaluation and transparency needed

Share |

Comments: (0)

Tell-a-Friend

 

  Related
 
The evaluation process for new drugs is overdue for an overhaul, which could provide benefits for the public and the pharmaceutical industry, according to a point-counterpoint commentary published online March 31 in BMJ.

WEDNESDAY, April 1 (HealthDay News) -- The evaluation process for new drugs is overdue for an overhaul, which could provide benefits for the public and the pharmaceutical industry, according to a point-counterpoint commentary published online March 31 in BMJ.

Silvio Garattini, M.D., of the Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological Research in Milan, Italy, and a colleague write that a variety of factors have diminished the reputation of the drug industry, including suboptimal trial designs and outcome measures, and biased reporting of findings. Steps that could lead to a better return for the public's support of the drug industry include greater transparency in drug evaluation and requiring proof of added value from new drugs. A new Italian law that requires financial support from drug companies for independent clinical research may hold promise.

However, writes Michael Tremblay, Ph.D., of Tremblay Consulting in Kent, U.K., the Italian setup -- which draws money from a tax on companies' advertising budgets -- fails to acknowledge the bigger picture in which the industry operates, and doesn't encompass the industry's relationships with government and universities. Funding more independent trials doesn't solve the problem of bias and poor design on its own, he writes.

"Apparently, the Italian government did not feel compelled to view funding clinical trials as a priority for general taxation. By creating a hypothecated (dedicated) tax, however, the policy is based on weak legs: AIFA's [The Italian Agency for Drugs] ability to fund independent clinical trials now depends on a compulsory tax on discretionary advertising budgets, which can of course go down," Tremblay writes.

Abstract - Garattini
Full Text (subscription or payment may be required)
Abstract - Tremblay
Full Text (subscription or payment may be required)

Copyright © 2009 ScoutNews, LLC. All rights reserved.


Previous: Adult Spinal Stem Cells Reverse Paralysis in Rats Next: Rebleeding Risk Low for Treated Intracranial Aneurysm

Reader comments on this article are listed below. Review our comments policy.


Submit your opinion:

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

advertisement.gif (61x7 -- 0 bytes)
 

Are you a Doctor, Pharmacist, PA or a Nurse?

Join the Doctors Lounge online medical community

  • Editorial activities: Publish, peer review, edit online articles.

Doctors Lounge Membership Application

 
     

 advertisement.gif (61x7 -- 0 bytes)

 

 

Useful Sites
MediLexicon
  Tools & Services: Follow DoctorsLounge on Twitter Follow us on Twitter | RSS News | Newsletter | Contact us
Copyright © 2001-2014
Doctors Lounge.
All rights reserved.

Medical Reference:
Diseases | Symptoms
Drugs | Labs | Procedures
Software | Tutorials

Advertising
Links | Humor
Forum Archive
CME | Conferences

Privacy Statement
Terms & Conditions
Editorial Board
About us | Email

This website is certified by Health On the Net Foundation. Click to verify. This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information:
verify here.