Roches’ Tamiflu May Not Be So Useful, After All
5 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // December 9th, 2009 // 8:51 am
How so? The antiviral may not prevent complications from influenza in healthy adults, according to a review by an independent research group that reversed its previous findings that Tamiflu defended against and other deadly conditions linked to the disease.
An analysis of 20 studies by the Cochrane Collaboration showed Tamiflu offered mild benefits for healthy adults and found no clear evidence it prevented lower respiratory tract infections or complications of influenza. The group concluded that Tamiflu “should not be used in routine control of seasonal influenza” and urged that independent randomized trials should be conducted to resolve the “uncertainties.”
The review, which was published in the British Medical Journal (see here) and updated a 2005 analysis, excluded eight studies funded by Roche that haven’t been published and whose full data wasn’t given to the researchers to verify independently. The exclusion reversed the group’s earlier finding that Tamiflu protects against complications.
In an editorial, Fiona Godlee, BMJ’s editor, notes that governments around the world “have spent billions of pounds on a drug that the scientific community now finds itself unable to judge”.
Accompanying all this is a remarkable play-by-play account of how the lead researcher on the 2005 analysis attempted to verify the original report, but ran into a stonewalling Roche. The episode “exposed a complex interplay between politics, public health planning, availability of trial data, publishing, and drug regulation,” writes BMJ’s Deborah Cohen. This is must reading - look here. And Roche offered responses to the Cochrane group and BMJ here and here.
patrons99
It’s not just efficacy that’s at issue with the neuraminidase inhibitors. There have been a fairly large number of associated neuropsychiatric side effects reported, including amnesia. I don’t believe that safety in pregnancy has been established. Let’s pray it doesn’t prove to be teratogenic.
harpy
This story seems to go right to the heart of the debate over company-funded studies and registering clinical trials. Very informative.
Evelyn Pringle
A story I read by Bloomberg said Roche expected to make over $2 billion this year off Tamiflu.
It also mentioned that less than 9,000 people worldwide had died from the swine flu since April.
Considering that the world population is about 6.7 billion, I’d say we got bilked big time by the vaccine makers via the swine flu profiteering scheme but not without the helping hand of our government officials.
harpy
Will we still believe them when the wolf is really at the door?
patrons99
Maybe the wolf is at the door…the hemorhagic pneumonic plague in the Ukraine. You wouldn’t know it from the mainstream media, CDC, WHO, EMEA, and FDA, however. Over a million infected. About 500 deaths. See also David Phillips BNET article of December 16th, titled “Efficacy of Roche’s Flu Drug Tamiflu in Doubt”.
http://industry.bnet.com/pharma/10005827/efficacy-of-roches-flu-drug-tamiflu-in-doubt/
Here’s another recent article that may be of interest to your readers and might bear on the efficacy (or lack of efficacy) of Roche’s Tamiflu.
From where did the 2009 ’swine-origin’ influenza A virus (H1N1) emerge?
Virology Journal 2009, 6:207 doi:10.1186/1743-422X-6-207
Adrian J Gibbs (adrian_j_gibbs@hotmail.com)
John S Armstrong (j_s_armstrong@hotmail.com)
Jean C Downie (jean.downie@bigpond.com.au)
Publication date 24 November 2009
Article URL http://www.virologyj.com/content/6/1/207
“The possibility that human activity may have had some role in its (the swine flu virus)
origins should not be dismissed without a dispassionate analysis of all available
evidence,” the paper states.