corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 11258

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

White C.
NICE delays decision on drugs for macular degeneration
BMJ 2007 Aug 18; 335:(7615):319
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7615/319-a


Abstract:

The National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has had to delay its final decision on two drugs for age related macular degeneration after mounting pressure from charities and healthcare professionals.

NICE, which advises health authorities in England and Wales on the treatments to use on the NHS, issued preliminary guidance in June on the use of ranibizumab (marketed as Lucentis) and pegaptanib (Macugen) for the treatment of the disease. Both drugs are already available in Scotland.

It argued that pegaptanib should not be used at all and that ranibizumab should be prescribed only to the one in five people with the neovascular or “wet” form of the disease and only where both eyes were affected and in the better seeing eye only.

Both drugs target vascular endothelial growth factor, high concentrations of which can prompt excess blood vessel formation and fluid leakage in the eye.

Around 26 000 . . .

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963