To bring some more attention to the EMA’s updated guidance on the naming of medicines, we thought we’d share a few names that are unlikely to be acceptable…
When was the last time any department said they didn’t want to be involved as early as possible in planning?
One of the buzzwords in modern clinical research is transparency… but how would we know if it had all gone a bit too far? Here are some signs to watch out for:
- Doctors being required to state whether (or not) they had been involved in the clinical trials of a medicine each time they prescribe it.
- Sponsors being required to disclose the eye colour of the monitor who checked each data point.
- Patients being required to give ePRO data on every visit, whether or not they receive a drug in a clinical trial (or, indeed, any drug at all).
- Patients being required to report on cancer progression/morbidity/mortality at every visit, whatever the reason, to be included in a massive “cures cancer”/”causes cancer” registry study sponsored by the Daily Mail.
- Academic researchers being required to disclose whether they have actually found anything significant after re-analysing all the massive data files they have called for, and how many of them have simply reiterated the findings in the initial summary reports and published papers.