This blog is all about current FDA approved drugs to treat the hepatitis C virus (HCV) with a focus on treating HCV according to genotype, using information extracted from peer-reviewed journals, liver meetings/conferences, and interactive learning activities.
Risk Of Developing Liver Cancer After HCV Treatment
- Home
- Newly Diagnosed With Hep C? Or Considering Treatment?
- All FDA Approved Drugs To Treat Hepatitis C
- Hepatitis C Genotypes and Treatment
- Mavyret (glecaprevir/pibrentasvir)
- Vosevi (Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir/Voxilaprevir)
- Epclusa® (Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir)
- Harvoni® (Ledipasvir/Sofosbuvir)
- VIEKIRA XR/VIEKIRA Pak
- Zepatier(Elbasvir/Grazoprevir)
- Cure - Achieving sustained virologic response (SVR) in hepatitis C
- HCV Liver Fibrosis
- FibroScan® Understanding The Results
- HCV Cirrhosis
- Staging Cirrhosis
- HCV Liver Cancer
- Risk Of Developing Liver Cancer After HCV Treatment
- Treating Elderly HCV Patients
- Fatty Liver Disease: NAFLD/NASH
- Current research articles on ailments that may be related to HCV
- Is There A Natural Way To Improve Liver Fibrosis?
- Can Food Or Herbs Interact With Conventional Medical Treatments?
Monday, November 1, 2010
Roche Two Fines/One For Pegasys:Monies Paid To Nurse/Health Service To Use Drug
Today from Australia the age.com Kate Hagan writes "DRUG company Roche has been fined $200,000 for offering to fund a nurse's position at a health service - depending on how many patients were treated with its hepatitis C drug Pegasys"
The drug company has two fines under (two different occasions) the Medicines Australia code of conduct for the maximum of 200,000 dollars . The other matter was for its renal anaemia treatment Mircerea, because the company made misleading claims.
As for Pegasys it was reported that a letter was sent to a health service which made an offer of funding that hinged on the number of patients treated with the drug. This funding was increased as more patients were treated.
Roche claimed that ''when [its] employees realised that the proposal could be construed in a way that was contrary to the code, it was withdrawn'', and there was no code broken.
Quoted from the age.com article;" the committee disagreed, finding the fact the offer was made was sufficient to breach the code, particularly its requirement that no inducements should be offered that could interfere with a health care professional's independence".
Roche didn't win and was ordered to send a correction letter to all professionals with passwords to Roches website.
http://www.theage.com.au/national/two-fines-for-drug-company-20101101-17aex.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment