<code id='77B5F84B42'></code><style id='77B5F84B42'></style>
    • <acronym id='77B5F84B42'></acronym>
      <center id='77B5F84B42'><center id='77B5F84B42'><tfoot id='77B5F84B42'></tfoot></center><abbr id='77B5F84B42'><dir id='77B5F84B42'><tfoot id='77B5F84B42'></tfoot><noframes id='77B5F84B42'>

    • <optgroup id='77B5F84B42'><strike id='77B5F84B42'><sup id='77B5F84B42'></sup></strike><code id='77B5F84B42'></code></optgroup>
        1. <b id='77B5F84B42'><label id='77B5F84B42'><select id='77B5F84B42'><dt id='77B5F84B42'><span id='77B5F84B42'></span></dt></select></label></b><u id='77B5F84B42'></u>
          <i id='77B5F84B42'><strike id='77B5F84B42'><tt id='77B5F84B42'><pre id='77B5F84B42'></pre></tt></strike></i>

          leisure time

          leisure time

          author:hotspot    Page View:224
          Matts Take Column Illustration
          Molly Ferguson for STAT

          What do you say to a patient when the FDA rejects “their” experimental drug — one that they believe can alleviate at least some of their suffering?

          That question arises in the aftermath of a dramatic moment at the Food and Drug Administration last week. Over the FDA’s protests, a small biotechnology company called BrainStorm Cell Therapeutics had insisted that the agency evaluate its experimental treatment for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS, brand named NurOwn. ALS patients made fervent pleas for the medicine, a type of stem cell preparation, based on reports on social media and re-analyses of the data that they thought indicated it might be of some help to those with the fatal disease.

          advertisement

          But the FDA methodically dismantled BrainStorm’s application. The medicine couldn’t work the way the company said it would, the agency insisted; the clinical trials didn’t show it was effective; and it was not clear BrainStorm could manufacture the medicine with sufficient quality. Worst of all, more patients died among those who received the drug than those who got placebo. The FDA’s panel of expert advisers voted 17 to 1 that the medicine was not safe and effective, with one person abstaining. The agency doesn’t have to follow the panel’s advice but probably will.

          Get unlimited access to award-winning journalism and exclusive events.

          Subscribe Log In

          Wikipedia

          In age of alternative facts, a scholarly course on calling out crap
          In age of alternative facts, a scholarly course on calling out crap

          Screenshotviacallingbullshit.orgTiredofalternativefacts,fakenews,andbreathlesshyperbole,twoprofessor

          read more
          STAT's guide to the next generation of CAR
          STAT's guide to the next generation of CAR

          MollyFergusonforSTATCAR-Tcelltherapyhasbeenaboonfortreatingbloodcancers.Sincethetechnologywasfirstbr

          read more
          Activists slam private health insurers over coverage restrictions
          Activists slam private health insurers over coverage restrictions

          ProtestorsoutsideAmerica'sHealthInsurancePlansheadquarters.CourtesyPeople'sActionWASHINGTON—Hun

          read more

          Paxlovid study fails to answer questions over benefit for broader groups

          KobiWolf/BloombergPfizersaidTuesdaythatamuch-watchedstudyofitsantiviralPaxlovidinpatientswhohaveCovi