 |
 |
At 01:29 PM 2000/07/11 -0400, "<[log in to unmask]>" wrote, in part: >As in all things it depends on who you talk to. I am taking >Comtan and I would have to say I am experiencing significant >results.... You can't condemnn something just because it's >not working for you... the figures in the drug monograph are not opinions and they speak for themselves >Comtan must be doing some good for many >PWP's or it wouldn't be on the market... !oh, what a lovely button this one is! ummm eggskewse me but i do seem to get the impression that pharmaceutical companies are not non-profits, no? >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Phil Tompkins" <[log in to unmask]> >> ...I believe we need to think critically about reports about Comtan >> and the importance of its effects, and to consider alternatives. >> I took a look at the label information approved by the FDA for Comtan.... >> "http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/1999/20796LBL.PDF" ... >> The word "significant" can be misleading. When used in a >> statistical context, it denotes a difference that is greater than >> could be accounted for by mere chance. Statistical significance >> has a precise mathematical definition.... >> Outside the statistical context, "significant" means "important", >> a meaning which is much less precise and quite different.... >> It is easy to slip from one meaning to the other, and the NPF news >> items facililtate this. They summarize the study results in >> apparently popular language while retaining the statistical >> terminology. This will change "significant" to "important" in the >> mind of the reader. I would guess that this was not intentional.... ummm it seems to me that this isn't the first time that npf have 'published' some drug information that seemed to be biased [my opinion] in favour of the pharmaceutical manufacturer which is why i questioned their non-profit status a couple of years ago... ... sigh ... back to the mine .... >> By the way, if the increase is "significant," >> wouldn't it be worth saying what it is?... one would think so, wouldn't one? mirapex and requip certainly tooted their horns on this subject >> One more hour per day may be statistically significant but is it >> all that important? Can't the same results can be achieved by a >> slight increase in the frequency of Sinemet doses and/or by >> tighter control of dose vs. meal schedules and limiting of dietary >> fat and protein? ... one would think so, wouldn't one? >> These are questions that I think ought to be raised with one's doctor... if i might suggest maybe they should also be raised in the public where the 'market' for comtan is derived... 'sigificant change' seems to mean 'greater than one percent' the comtan monograph seems to indicate that comtan is maybe a bit more than one percent more effective than a placebo in the three clinical studies cited which made me stop and say 'huh?' and then i started mulling about the comt context with tasmar's [ tolcapone's] launch and fizzle hmmm.. a text replica of said fda monograph will be 'up' and 'clickable' at 'a new voice' shortly i.e minutes [in accessible-to-all .html format NOT .pdf] janet please note new and improved signature file below: janet paterson 53 now / 41 dx pd / 37 onset pd / 44 dx cd / 43 onset cd tel: 613 256 8340 url: "http://www.geocities.com/janet313/" email: "[log in to unmask]" smail: PO Box 171 Almonte Ontario K0A 1A0 Canada