Updated Review: Tamiflu Is a Bust

tmonster

Superstar
Joined
Nov 26, 2013
Messages
17,900
Reputation
3,205
Daps
31,790
Updated Review: Tamiflu Is a Bust
After finally getting their hands on full clinical study reports, independent reviewers say the antiviral drug is ineffective.

By Kerry Grens | April 10, 2014


    • tamiflu%20full.jpg
    • WIKIMEDIA, ANDREW WALESGovernments have spent billions of dollars stockpiling the antiviral medication Tamiflu. Earlier reviews of the drug called into question just how effective it was, and the latest analysis, published today (April 10) in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), concludes that the money has been going “down the drain.”

      An international team found that while Tamiflu might reduce the duration of flu symptoms by half a day, there’s no evidence that it reduces hospital admissions or complications of an infection. On top of that, the antiviral’s side effects include nausea and vomiting. “There is no credible way these drugs could prevent a pandemic,” Carl Heneghan, one of authors of the review and a professor at Oxford University, told reporters.

      The data for this most recent review came from full study reports—data generated by clinical trials that are usually not open for scrutiny by independent researchers. Efforts by the BMJ and the research team convinced drugmaker Roche, which markets Tamiflu, to release the reports.

      Fiona Godlee, an editor at BMJ, said that the picture of Tamiflu was previously much more positive than after the full study reports were disclosed. “Why did no one else demand this level of scrutiny before spending such huge sums on one drug?” :mjpls:she said at a press briefing. “The whole story gives an extraordinary picture of the entrenched flaws in the current system of drug regulation and drug evaluation.”

      Roche stands by the utility of Tamiflu. “We fundamentally disagree with the overall conclusions” :ohhh:of the review, the company told MedPage Today. And others have said that the results don’t necessitate an end to stockpiling the drug.:comeon: Sabrina Spinosa of the European Medicines Agency (EMA), which approved the use of Tamiflu in 2002, told Nature that the agency had reviewed the same clinical trial reports. “The review does not raise any new concerns,” she said, adding that the EMA maintains its position on the risks and benefits of Tamiflu.
 

Suicide King

#OldBlack
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
4,902
Reputation
745
Daps
7,317
:what: These guys admit to not being proficient in meta-analysis.

The main limitation of our study is our relative inexperience in dealing with large quantities of information and our lack of familiarity with certain trial documents such as blank case report forms. A further limitation of our review is that the methods we have developed to assess and summarise information from clinical study reports may not apply to non-industry trials (which may not be reported in clinical study reports). In addition, incomplete reporting of viral resistance and viral nasal voidance meant that we could not analyse these outcomes.

Oseltamivir for influenza in adults and children: systematic review of clinical study reports and summary of regulatory comments | BMJ
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-160
Daps
65,110
Reppin
NULL

Suicide King

#OldBlack
Joined
May 13, 2012
Messages
4,902
Reputation
745
Daps
7,317
But this is how they pass their studies off to the public, so the public doesn't question it. All you need is a medical journal to do a shytting clinical test and boom on the sales.


Medical Journals do not do Random Multi-Center Clinical Trials.

And this is hardly a review or a clinical trial.

This is a meta-analysis, which can be tricky and the authors admitted meta-analysis are not their strengths. I would have to look at the study closer, but I see no beta (β).
 
Joined
Jun 24, 2012
Messages
39,797
Reputation
-160
Daps
65,110
Reppin
NULL
Medical Journals do not do Random Multi-Center Clinical Trials.

And this is hardly a review or a clinical trial.

This is a meta-analysis, which can be tricky and the authors admitted meta-analysis are not their strengths. I would have to look at the study closer, but I see no beta (β).

Well they claimed clinical trials of the drug.
 
Top