Doubts over diabetes drug scare

Thu, 14 Jun 2007
Dissenting voices indicate that the furore over Avandia, and the subsequent investigation by Rep. Henry Waxman, may be overblown and focusing on the wrong field.

Experts who disagree with the controversy created by a New England Journal of Medicine study in which Avandia was accused of giving rise to a greatly increased risk of heart attack have begun to pick holes in the enquiry.

The voices of disagreement indicate that the New England Journal of Medicine study is probably not meaningful, and that heart attacks in the study had unknown causes. The statistics are refereed to as unreliable, with a huge margin of error. Claims are that the authors didn't observe Avandia users directly, instead using meta-analysis.

Meta-analysis is one form of research open to criticism. The opposition argue that there was very little in the way of statistically significant evidence linking Avandia with heart attack.

Experts go further, asking who the study that led to the New England journal report is actually funded by, and whether this all stems from drug industry competition . One thing is for sure, the average diabetic is now in a state of confusion on account of the different opinions being bandied around.
Leave a Comment
Login via Facebook, Yahoo! and Hotmail
Have your full say in the Diabetes Forum
Your comments may be moderated. Please report any spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts.