> people were assigned standard doses of 100mg celecoxib twice a day, 600mg ibuprofen three times a day, and naproxen 375mg twice a day
> In almost every measure, ibuprofen looks worse, naproxen is intermediate and celecoxib is the best.
> the heart concerns led the FDA to require its maker, Pfizer, to pay for additional studies to ensure that celecoxib did not put people at increased risk of heart trouble
And afaik Celecoxib is the only one marketed solely by Pfizer, at prices 5 times higher than the other 2.
Am I being paranoid thinking this at least deserves more study, not conducted or paid for by pharma?
> Am I being paranoid thinking this at least deserves more study, not conducted or paid for by pharma?
Do their rivals have an incentive to check Pfizer's work? If they're publishing bogus studies to get through regulatory checks, it could delay the new drug from being released.
Further, if they're publishing bogus studies, it seems like the FDA would be partially responsible. So one might expect the FDA to possibly run trials of their own on a random sample of drugs, and compare with what the drug companies published.
Also, Trump has mentioned speeding drugs through the FDA process. There might be less incentive to cheat the results if they don't need to do it to release their drug.
The FDA has these funny rules where you only need one successful study to be accepted. So as long as you can pay for study after study you can just wait until chance works out in your favor and you're out on the market. This is known. FDA does not care.
> In almost every measure, ibuprofen looks worse, naproxen is intermediate and celecoxib is the best.
> the heart concerns led the FDA to require its maker, Pfizer, to pay for additional studies to ensure that celecoxib did not put people at increased risk of heart trouble
And afaik Celecoxib is the only one marketed solely by Pfizer, at prices 5 times higher than the other 2.
Am I being paranoid thinking this at least deserves more study, not conducted or paid for by pharma?