 |
|
Pharmacoeconomic Considerations in Pharmaceutical Company Promotions-Reply
Richard Levy, PhD
National Pharmaceutical Council Inc Reston, Va
Arch Fam Med. 1994;3(12):1035.
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In reply
The most important error Deamer makes is his assertion that so-called me-too drugs are of little value. Me-too drugs often represent important improvements in efficacy, sideeffect profile, ease of compliance, or cost-effectiveness1; and the FDA's classification at the time of new drug approval was not designed to measure a drug's ultimate therapeutic value and is a poor predictor of it.2
Deamer also states that in the absence of industry "promeducation," alternate sources for the dissemination of information on new drugs would arise, such as The Medical Letter and on-line databases. But these resources are already available and are not widely used. In the real world of medical practice, education from industry sources apparently fills an important niche and has value over and above these publications and databases.
The pharmaceutical industry agrees with the endorsement by Chambliss of the important educational role of existing desk references. But the industry
. . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]
|
