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 2008;336:1034 (10 May), doi:10.1136/bmj.39568.498125.80
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
I share Dr Patels concerns about doctors continuing education and the quality of hospital food.1 However, I disagree that "free" lunches are the best solution to either of these problems.
No clinician can be expected to follow the progress of experimental drugs in hundreds of journals. That is why we have independent sources of information about drugs—such as the Drug and Therapeutics Bulletin, NPS Radar, and Prescrire International—which aim to distil a complex evidence base into accessible guidance for busy clinicians. Prescrire International published a review of ivabradine last year, which deemed it "best avoided."2 According to the abstract, concerns include a lack of evidence of superiority to standard antianginal drugs and evidence of increased adverse cardiac events in patients taking ivabradine compared with those taking atenolol or amlodipine.2 Did Dr Patel hear these messages from his smiling drug representative? I found this information via a PubMed
Brett D Montgomery, clinical senior lecturer
1 Discipline of General Practice, School of Primary, Aboriginal and Rural Health Care (SPARHC) University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
brett@multiline.com.au