April 12, 2011
New questions about treatments for spinal fusion, Alzheimer’s
The New York Times reports, “Medtronic Bone-Growth Product Scrutinized.” Excerpt:
“One of Medtronic’s most profitable divisions — selling bone growth products used in spinal fusion procedures — faces growing pressure amid a widening criminal investigation into the company’s marketing of one product and a rejection by federal regulators of another one.
Recently, the Food and Drug Administration turned down the company’s application to sell a new spinal fusion device that is essentially a high-strength version of an approved one called Infuse. An agency review of clinical studies raised questions about a higher rate of cancers in patients treated with the new product, which is called Amplify, compared with those who did not get it.
Meanwhile, a long-running investigation by the Justice Department into the marketing of Infuse is apparently widening.”
Questions of a different sort – basic questions of efficacy – were raised in a study of memantine (brand name Namenda) for Alzheimer’s disease, published in the Archives of Neurology. The Los Angeles Times reported that the drug “won’t delay the loss of memory and cognitive function that comes in the early stages of the disease, a new study concludes.” It also reports:
“The authors suggested that clinical trials conducted by the manufacturer of the drug drew conclusions about its usefulness that were not warranted by the number of patients with mild Alzheimer’s who participated in the studies. They added that clinicians and researchers began aggressive prescribing of the drug without having turned those studies inside out for stronger evidence of effectiveness.”
Some journalists may complain about how we scrutinize stories about early, exuberant claims made about new products. These are good examples of why we do.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like