|
Put the warnings on those cute little ink pens
The fact that proving efficacy and toxicity in one situation does nothing to prove efficacy and toxicity in any other situation. This is why the FDA demands clinical trials showing data for each and every indication relating to drugs.
Therapy-related, late onset sequelae are becoming a real problem. Many of these new targeted therapies often get a pass on toxicities because they are just so darn cool (Herceptin in the adjuvant setting is another example).
In cancer medicine, it's not a case of throwing targeted drugs at the problem. The problem is that few drugs work the way oncologists think and few of them take the time to think through what it is they are using them for. It's hard to tell a doctor to tatchet back on the anti-VEGF drug they're using when the disease setting is stage IV cancer.
There are good sides and bad sides to all drugs. What needs to be learned, and obviously sometimes the hard way, is how do drugs work. This is particularly true when they are biologics, they can be working in ways and speed that scientists weren't used to. It is a learning process and it can be a painful one.
Maybe we should have the drug makers put the warnings on those cute little ink pens instead of the company's mascot and drug names so they can remember what can go wrong while writing these therapies. Which is more important to remember, the drug company mascot or the fatal side effects?
|
Linear Mode
