Three Part Series On Pharmaceutical Marketing Coming Soon
I attended an interesting teleconference yesterday sponsored by the Prescription Access Litigation Project (PAL). This group is working to draw attention to what they believe are inappropriate pharmaceutical company marketing practices.
I am currently planning to write a three-part series on the subject of pharmaceutical marketing that will appear on this blog.
Part I will focus on the economic and social forces that have led to current pharmaceutical marketing practices.
Part II will provide an overview of what the pharma industry and its critics (i.e., PAL) say about drug marketing
In part III, I will offer my perspective on this issue.
Look for this series during the first two weeks of May.
Study Finds No Link Between Industry Ties & FDA Panel Decisions
I came across an interesting study recently indicating that industry ties have no influence on the decisions members of FDA advisory panels make. The study indicates that if panel members with conflicts of interest were excluded, it would have not changed the advisory board's decision. However, in many cases, there would have been fewer favorable votes for a medication. Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen conducted the study.
(As many readers may be aware, the FDA asks distinguished scientists and physicians to serve on panels in different therapeutic categories and advise the agency on whether it should approve medications.)
Some believe that physicians that declare any financial interest in a company should recuse themselves entirely from any decisions they make about a drug The FDA sees it differently, saying: [FDA] carefully weighs any potential financial interest with the essential need for world-class scientific expertise . . . only in this way can the agency protect and advance the highest standards of public health. No one participates in an advisory board capacity until they have been fully vetted by FDA staff, and we are convinced they will make an unbiased, productive contribution to the scientific process."
Click here to view the abstract of this study.
I attended an interesting teleconference yesterday sponsored by the Prescription Access Litigation Project (PAL). This group is working to draw attention to what they believe are inappropriate pharmaceutical company marketing practices.
I am currently planning to write a three-part series on the subject of pharmaceutical marketing that will appear on this blog.
Part I will focus on the economic and social forces that have led to current pharmaceutical marketing practices.
Part II will provide an overview of what the pharma industry and its critics (i.e., PAL) say about drug marketing
In part III, I will offer my perspective on this issue.
Look for this series during the first two weeks of May.
Study Finds No Link Between Industry Ties & FDA Panel Decisions
I came across an interesting study recently indicating that industry ties have no influence on the decisions members of FDA advisory panels make. The study indicates that if panel members with conflicts of interest were excluded, it would have not changed the advisory board's decision. However, in many cases, there would have been fewer favorable votes for a medication. Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen conducted the study.
(As many readers may be aware, the FDA asks distinguished scientists and physicians to serve on panels in different therapeutic categories and advise the agency on whether it should approve medications.)
Some believe that physicians that declare any financial interest in a company should recuse themselves entirely from any decisions they make about a drug The FDA sees it differently, saying: [FDA] carefully weighs any potential financial interest with the essential need for world-class scientific expertise . . . only in this way can the agency protect and advance the highest standards of public health. No one participates in an advisory board capacity until they have been fully vetted by FDA staff, and we are convinced they will make an unbiased, productive contribution to the scientific process."
Click here to view the abstract of this study.