There has been continued focus today in the healthcare news media, on health blogs and Twitter on the US Senate Finance Committee's report regarding GSK and our diabetes medicine Avandia. Patients, doctors, media and others are asking questions about our company and the safety of our medicine. Looking at a lot of the content and commentary, it is clear that many people are only getting part of the story--or worse, the wrong message entirely.
In particular, misleading headlines stating that "FDA Report Advises Avandia be Pulled from the Market," were re-Tweeted dozens of times; other commentary we found to be more balanced including this piece in Forbes gained less attention. According to their own statement this afternoon, "FDA is now reviewing the primary data from the completed RECORD study, conducting follow-up audits, and reviewing additional studies. This work is ongoing and no new conclusions or recommendations about the use of rosiglitazone in the treatment of type 2 diabetes have been made at this time." FDA further advised doctors:
When prescribing rosiglitazone, healthcare professionals should follow the recommendations in the drug label. Patients should continue taking rosiglitazone unless told by their healthcare professional to stop. Patients who are concerned about the possible risks associated with using rosiglitazone should talk to their healthcare professional.
FDA has called for a public advisory panel meeting this July and we look forward to working with FDA and the panel to provide any further information they request.
In addition to the FDA's advice patients and their doctors may be interested in the perspective of organizations including the Endocrine Society and the American Heart Association.
We will continue to post new information and clarifications regarding this issue as we believe necessary, but hope to get back to using this space to focus on "More than Medicine."
Pharmacies and drug manufactures agree to a certain code of ethics that must be met in order to avoid a disastrous environment for the consumer.
I am less and less inclined to believe what Twitter and blogs have to say about medicine. I still feel like trusting a doctor or medical expert who is human is the way to go, though I enjoy what I read on blogs and then discuss it with my doctor.
Should pharmaceutical companies conduct their audits and establish weakness in the given therapy then consumers and their providers should be advised of the identified concerns. I am not certain that any therapy is without risk or problems that may manifest in other illness. This is the nature of medicine.
Hmm, congratulations on the company defending its product and for the media responding. This is good news and research that allows for a positive result one way or the other. Far too often early journalism was sensor ed and consumers left blinded by what the media presented. Now there is a critical review, ok not always right, but at least there is a consensus and meaningful discussion.
Any preventative medicine has its risks and although at times some unknown risks present themselves once released to the market, the overall health benefits are undeniable. Should pharmaceutical companies conduct their audits and establish weakness in the given therapy then consumers and their providers should be advised of the identified concerns. I am not certain that any therapy is without risk or problems that may manifest in other illness. This is the nature of medicine. One just must have faith that the manufacturers do in fact conduct themselves with unshakable integrity and with the best interests of people and the communities that they serve. Yes we may experience criminal or neglect, this is not limited to the health system; however, it is a minority. I would like to focus on the benefits and the fantastic work that is consistently, undertaken, in order for the majority of patients to lead healthy long lives.
It is a fair point. When this post went up last night at 6:15pm Dr. Mintz had clearly disclosed his relationship with GSK at the top of the article. However, we should have also indicated that he had worked with our company in the body of the post itself. FYI: A complete list of all fees paid by our company to health care professionals (updated as of Q2 2009) can be found here: http://us.gsk.com/docs-pdf/responsibility/hcp-fee-disclosure-2q2009.pdf
Don't you think it will be hard to believe that Dr. Mintz offers a "more balanced" commentary when he was paid as a consultant/speaker by GSK? See http://bit.ly/bhsBu2
"...other commentary we found to be more balanced including this piece in Forbes gained less attention."
Could the reason that you find it to be more balanced is that Dr. Mintz has received consulting fees from GSK? The lack of disclosure on the part of Dr. Mintz is appalling. It does nothing more than create the impression that Dr. Mintz is a "hired gun" blogging to protect GSK and his income stream. Why did it take complaints from Sen. Grassley's staffers to Forbes in order for Dr. Mintz to declare his ties to GSK? http://bit.ly/9G5nEQ There was a clear conflict of interest and a lack of disclosure.