<<<"The researchers did not compare the drug directly to Tysabri but based on existing data said they believe alemtuzumab is a more effective and safer treatment."
I suppose the NEJM authors compared data from Tysabri's
trials (such as SENTINEL) to Campath's and stated the above. We know the limitation of comparing different trials but I think we can agree that Campath appears to be a potent agent for MS and the issue is side effects. I think that if there's even one ITP related death in Campath's Phase III trials, it would end its chance to compete in the MS market.>>>
A balanced article? Okay, if you ignore all scientific method, and avoid the fact that the statement is put out their purposely as a marketing statement that the drug is better than tysabri.
Campath has some very good efficacy, at least in the context that Bayer lets us know about. But what about the limited duration of efficacy that was reported in the NEJM? One might have thought that important. What about the need to catch the very early stage of MS for efficacy? That would have been very valuable to know. Heck, since MS is generally such a slow moving disease, it is quite possible that much of the great efficacy is simply due to the natural course of MS taking its time to move forward. Although I doubt that is the case, it is possible.
The authors also very much downplay the adverse events.
This might as well have been the New York Times discussing Palin's wardrobe (no political opinion meant by this, just explaining what the biasness of the report appears to me).
If the article had stuck to the great results of campath, then dang, more power to Bayer for getting some good PR interest in the drug. But push it so far as to say it is better than tysabri in such a clear cut statement, and fail to articulate those extremely material missing bits of information, then you might as well describe tysabri as an utterly and completely safe drug, omitting of course people on combination treatment or with deprived immune system in making that statement.
It reminds me very much of Schering Ploughs "objective" news story that Dew posted about 6 months ago or so which cited an "internist" that telaprevir needed to back and re-do the phase II and making it sound dire for telaprevir. No, that also was nothing but a fluff piece.
Good, unbiased business journalism is tough to find these days, and the naked short issues and the rise of hedge funds has made it even harder.
Tinker
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
