Study accuses manufacturers of chasing profits not clinical benefits

Business The authors of a BMJ article have called on governments to stop funding new drugs with little therapeutic benefit, saying manufacturers' research...
Forgotten your password?
The page you are looking for is only available to logged in members of Chemist+Druggist.
Not a member yet?
Register now
If you are not a registered user, then please sign up here. Registering is free and takes just seconds. It gives you access to up-to-the minute news alerts and analysis, all our top bloggers.
If you experience any difficulties logging in or registering, or have any other questions, please contact Chemist+Druggist at haveyoursay@chemistanddruggist.co.uk
Comment on this article
You are not currently logged in. Login or register
Your Comments
A A, Community pharmacist
Posted on 9 August 2012.
How much did it cost AZ to develop Nexium which was ready when the patent for Omeprazole ran out. Other examples come to mind, Citalopram - Escitalopram; Cetirizine - Levocetirizine; Loratidine - Desloratidine; Terfenadine - Fexofenadine. Need I go on.

Call me cynical, but other than trying to squeeze as much money out of health services around the world with inferior products (the jury is still out on whether Nexium is superior to Losec), why else would the manufacturers wait until patent life expiry before launching their superior products (in terms of benefits outcomes and reduced side-effect profiles) when some of them could probably have been brought to market sooner.
Top
Naresh Chauhan, Community pharmacist
Posted on 10 August 2012.
Don't see what the fuss is all about. Prescribers do not have to prescribe the new meds if they don't see advantages over existing ones. Without the Pharma industry most prescribers would still be using Mag Trisil or Ipecac et morph! The current stance towards the pharma industry has led to thousands of job losses too. The industry is not run on a charity model.
PS: I do not have any shares in any pharma company
Top
A A, Community pharmacist
Posted on 10/08/12 12:17 in reply to Naresh Chauhan.
If you are contributing to a pension fund you will be holding shares indirectly in lots of pharma companies.

Do you truly think, hand on heart, Orlistat has any therapuetic value?
Top
Lance Roth, Community pharmacist
Posted on 11 August 2012.
None of this comes as a surprise! They have only published in blck and white what we all have known to be true for some time. The real surprise is that we as the public has allowed this to carry on for so long!
And yes, Pharma is not a carity, much as pharm retail is not either, but that does not mean they have the right to 'milk' the system. Looking at the salaries their top brass earns, conjures up uncomfortable similarities with the banking industry.

For my penny's worth, I would say that the greatest health advances today can be made through the following:
1. Assisting the public to take real responsibility for their health and not leave it with the doctors and pharmacists, and
2. Educating the public about their health conditions and lifestyles.

It is therefore important that we embrace and expand services such as MURs and NMSs. If the DoH and PSNC would just sort out their houses!

But as with regards to big Pharma, I truely believe that they will cause their own demise and hopefully like a phoenix, something good and worthy will rise from the ashes.
Top

Please note You must be a registered user of Chemist+Druggist and logged in to add comments. Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect those of Chemist+Druggist. Comments are considered in the public domain and may be used in future Chemist+Druggist coverage. We accept no responsibility, legal or otherwise, for the accuracy or the content of member comments. However, any comments deemed to be libellous will be removed

Job of the week

Commercial Services Manager

Runcorn, Cheshire
£competitive

Follow C+D Jobs on

 
Should pharmacists be involved in the MMR catch-up programme?