DJ, ive messaged you with the video link, can you add it please as im having problems
Thanks freewheeler, I've added it to your original post
I just watched the video. There was some interesting stuff they talked about which I even talked about before. I understand that the FDA is there for a reason but there is lots of room for improvement.
Post by freewheeler on Jan 13, 2014 23:54:37 GMT -8
DJ, yes you are right, im sure they do good work but as you say there is room for improvement.
Lαrα that was my sentiment also, i will question new drugs with my doctor about the known side effects and if he/she cant answer they i wont accept them. It is much safer to wait for that say,7 year period so the effects of a new drug becomes known
For me when the FDA's own reviewer gives such a negative conclusion and yet it gets approved, it sure makes me wonder. It's the design of the trial that got it approved not the efficacy and it put close to if not more than 3/4 of a $billion$ into Acorda
The sponsor showed Timed Walk Responder rates were higher with fampridine treatment compared to placebo in both pivotal trials, yet the clinical meaningfulness of the benefit remains unclear. Though more patients on fampridine appear to walk faster, the magnitude of the improvement in walking speed suggests the improvement lacks clinical significance. The responder variable is limited by its ignoring the importance of the extent of improvement in walking speed. So, a small benefit in many patients given the treatment can result in a positive trial even in the absence of a clinically meaningful benefit. Though there is a change in walking speed from baseline with fampridine treatment, the magnitude of the change was not large enough for the average walking speed during treatment to differ from placebo. This suggests the sponsor’s responder analysis may not be sensitive enough to determine the clinical usefulness of the treatment.