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: 13486

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

Lenzer J.
Longer, better studies of coronary stents are needed, FDA tells industry
BMJ 2008 Apr 5; 336:(7647):743
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/336/7647/743


Abstract:

After a year of controversy over the relative safety of drug eluting stents and bare metal stents, the US Food and Drug Administration has issued guidance to the industry on the development and testing of stents.

It recommends that all clinical trials should have a follow-up period of 12 months, instead of the current nine months, and that a data monitoring committee should continuously review all studies of drug eluting stents. The agency, which issued the guidance last week, will accept public comments on the recommendations for 120 days before it issues its final guidance.

Daniel Schultz, director of the agency’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health, said that the draft guidance “is part of FDA’s ongoing effort to provide regulated industry with recommendations on measures that can minimise the risks while preserving for patients the benefits of drug eluting stents.”

The guidance comes in response to a fractious debate . . .

 

  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