Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Marketing trials - should we be surprised?

So, Novartis is going after AZ by setting up an open label breast cancer trial and the news is all over the WSJ and on-line news sheets. Is this such a surprise, and aren't we always hearing that trials are much better when they are a direct comparison rather than simply placebo-based?

I think that we are going to see many more of this type of trial, both open and closed label, so that a true understanding of the comparison of leading compounds can be assessed. Of course, the real problem is that the company conducting the trial has a very clear interest in the results, and so comparisons will likely only be started when they know the result is going to come out in their favour. This also would explain pre-emptive negative comments (like those already made by AZ in this case).

But do these trials really help the cause of improving medicine delivery? If so, shouldn't the regulatory authorities (or reimbursement bodies) be insisting on more of this kind of thing? If it is just a marketing ploy (not that I'm against that in principle), is there not a danger of yet more misinformation getting into the public domain, further damaging the reputation and standing of our battered industry?

My sense is that brand-on-brand comparisons are here in a small way and will become a bigger and bigger feature of post-marketing activity. The stakes are so high and rewards so great that the company with the better product will move on this as fast as they can and we shall see many more. I just hope they are handled properly, and well communicated when completed - or we could all be in for another wave of bad press and possibly yet more regulation.

1 Comments:

At 8:59 PM, Blogger btey said...

Insightful comments.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home