Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2003;327:105 (12 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.327.7406.105-b
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORPerhaps the BMJ would consider publishing PROSE as well as POEMs: pharmaceutical-driven research offering specious evidence.1
Preventing and treating influenza with "amivirs" would be an example.
Since these drugs are the subject of guidance from NICE in 1999 and 2000, as well as an editorial based on a NICE commissioned study, both in the BMJ of 7 June,2 3 patients and doctors might be forgiven for thinking they are helpful. Their proved benefit amounts to one day less (out of an average of six) of feeling unwell from flu when used as treatment and a reduced odds ratio for healthy subjects of getting flu when used as prevention: no fewer complications, no fewer deaths.
How were these clinically irrelevant results ever graced with NICE guidance? And how did the drugs attract the epithet of clinically effective based on these outcomes? This is the exact opposite of evidence that matters.
Nick C Bradley, general practitioner
Ide Lane Surgey, Exeter EX2 8UP nickbradley@eclipse.co.uk
Read all Rapid Responses