> > http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=73
> Phase 4 trials are done after a drug has been shown to work and has been
> granted a license. So they are looking at drugs that are already available for
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> * How well the drug works when its used more widely than in clinical
> trials[...]
Okay, so this is what Steph said in relation to the above website
"Phase 2 trials, by the way, are really more about investigating the toxicity,
rather than effectiveness. "
> A couple of questions
> Does all of that apply to the USA as it does to the UK?
> What incentive does pharma have to do phase 4 since they are now making money
Well, it looks to me (and don't quote me) that the pharmaceutical are still
concerned about getting it right (about side effects and risks/benefits. In the
meantime, the medicine can get fast-tracked by the FDA based on Phase III trials,
which I think is what happened with Vioxx. By the way, as far as I know, Vioxx
has not been pulled from Canada. Too few incidences to blame (direct causation)
the medicine is, I think, what I read and/or pending incoming information.
Apparently doctors can prescribe after Phase III and licensing. (according to the
UK website)
Are those UK criteria same as US?
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/
They explain different types.
But under phases, it sure looks like same for Phase II (to me).
They word it differently.
"In Phase II trials, the experimental study drug or treatment is given to a
larger group of people (100-300) to see if it is effective and to further
evaluate its safety." This is what I view as "glossing over and/or making it
more psychogically convincing".
Steph calls it "investigating the toxicity", they (US) call it "further evaluate
it's safety".
from NIH "In Phase IV trials, post marketing studies delineate additional
information including the drug's risks, benefits, and optimal use." So there's
still incentive IMO to continue with the trials.
Also, anticipation, getting in for free trials, there's word of mouth, which
comes out of trials.
Also there's new (potential) niches from where they originally thought the new
chemo would help.
In other words, they decide to test them for other types of cancers. So the
momentum grows....
I saw this happen with Erbitux, yet not a word (here) in the past year from
patients. I don't know why, except that now it's being considered for other
cancers.... I would have to be a "fly on the wall" on the ACOR colorectal cancer
list to maybe know what is going on with that.
I don't know if your question's been answered, but thanks for the interesting
questions.
When I look at individual clinical trials, I look to see who's funding them,
where they're located, competing interests.
I sure wish we (the public) had access to full details of results of clinical
trials.
J