Have you ever tried having a discussion of the evidence for Tamiflu with your doctor? (A physician-reader of our work has reminded me to use generic names whenever possible. The generic name for Tamiflu is oseltamivir.)
Is this one of the top medical marketing success stories after, say, Lamisil (terbinafine) for toenail fungus?
On Forbes.com, Yale’s Harlan Krumholz delivers the kind of education you might not get from your own doc. You should read the entire piece, but here are the 5 things he felt readers should know:
1. The manufacturer of the drug sponsored all the trials and the reviewers found evidence of publication and reporting biases.
2. The studies did not show that Tamiflu (oseltamivir) reduced the risk of hospitalization.
3. The studies were inadequate to determine the effect of Tamiflu (oseltamivir) on complications.oseltamivir
4. The studies were inadequate to determine if Tamiflu (oseltamivir) reduced transmission of the virus.
5. The use of Tamiflu (oseltamivir) did reduce the duration of symptoms by about a day.
He concludes:
“…reviewers felt that they needed access to more information to make firm conclusions about the drug. They asked Roche for full clinical study reports, with study protocols, the reporting analysis plan, the statistical analysis plan and individual patient data so that all they could more fully determine what could be concluded from the studies. Unfortunately, Roche has not complied.
People face decisions every day about this drug – and more than ever this season – so it would seem reasonable that the company would share all that they know about the drug.
Unfortunately the company has not complied. There remains substantial uncertainty about whether this drug is worth taking. Meanwhile, it is worth asking – why are they unwilling to share the information they have? And should doctors keep prescribing medicines when some potentially vital information is being kept out of view?“
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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