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.
Published 31 March 2009, doi:10.1136/bmj.b1107
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b1107
Michael Tremblay, partner
1 Tremblay Consulting, Brabourne Lees, Ashford, Kent TN25 6RJ
mike@tremblay-consulting.biz
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Garattini and Chalmers (doi:10.1136/bmj.b1025) make four suggestions to improve the evaluation of drugs—involve patients in establishing research priorities, improve the transparency of drug evaluations and studies, fund independent drug evaluations, and require evidence that new drugs have added clinical value. Although controversial, many of their proposals would benefit patients. However, their suggestion to follow the Italian approach to funding independent clinical trials is unlikely to be a good idea.
In 2003, Italy decided to establish a tax on the drug industry of 5% of their medicines advertising budget. This money is used by the state medicines agency, AIFA, to fund clinical research on the efficacy of orphan drugs, comparisons of drugs for the same indication, observational outcome studies, and pharmacovigilance.1 2
We know that there are real problems with clinical trials as currently conducted, such as the use of surrogate end points, weak information on long term efficacy, and
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?
Read all Rapid Responses