As he so often does, Merrill Goozner offers some important historical perspective to the news, as he headlined it: “Xigris Pulled – $1 Billion Later.” Excerpt:
“Another over-hyped and over-marketed drug bites the dust. Eli Lilly earlier this week pulled Xigris from the market after a clinical trial showed it provided no benefit for hospital patients with septic shock. From the start, critical clinicians questioned the efficacy of this drug, which is used to treat sepsis, a hospital-acquired systemic infection that often strikes the elderly in the wake of major operations. The Food and Drug Administration approved the drug in 2001 after a single, small trial showed a 28-day survival benefit. The FDA approval came despite half the members of an advisory panel voting against the drug.
Caution should have been the order of the day for physicians treating patients with this life-threatening condition. The company took an opposite path. It launched a “surviving sepsis” campaign that won endorsement from 11 professional societies (although the Infectious Disease Society of America did not join the campaign). Many of the docs who served on the guideline-writing panels for those professional societies earned consulting fees from Eli Lilly, according to a 2006 article in the New England Journal of Medicine questioning the ethics of the Lilly campaign. Sales of the biologic, which never reaching the blockbuster status hoped for by the company, soared to more than $200 million a year.”
Here’s my piece, “Eli Lilly not lily-white on Xigris promotion?” from almost exactly 5 years ago today.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
More for milk debates: "Switching to skim #milk may slow biological aging" https://upi.com/6975065t via @upi cc @garyschwitzer @joansalgeblake
"We can't say that this was caused by milk fat." As is often the case with nutrition studies: correlation ≠ causation.
#RelaxDammit
@HealthNewsRevu @mcjaklevic HealthNewsReview once again revealing hype that far outstrips reality. I suspect that one day, AI will meaningfully contribute to good patient care. Whether that's in 10 years or 100, I couldn't say. What is clear is that we ain't there yet.
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.
T. Johns RN
October 27, 2011 at 5:32 pmYour Xigris article hit the mark.
However, your definition of sepsis as “a hospital-acquired systemic infection” is incorrect. Sepsis is a systemic response to ANY infection that has “overwhelmed” the body’s immune system and caused SIRS (systemic inflammatory response) and organ failure. Yes, sepsis can develop from a surgical wound infection, but it can also develop from pneumonia developed after a bout with the flu or from a “simple” urinary tract infection.
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