Wednesday, June 23, 2010

Survey fun

Doing a phone survey on a drug in development this morning, and was asked this question:

"Doctor, if the drug was found to cause cataracts in dogs, but not in rats, how would this affect your prescribing?"

And yes, my practice is only limited to humans.

21 comments:

Christie Critters said...

Dude, You gotta know how to evaluate all that valuable scientific information....

Sunny said...

It's *affect*, anyways, to boot. Well done, survey writer.... not.

Jackie said...

Uhhhh i'd not prescribe the drug because isn't testing on dogs illegal?

Anonymous said...

Death to all copywriters who cannot use affect and effect appropriately! You idiots, you have one job to do!

David said...

Let's see if cladistics can address the issue: Primates go back to the Cretaceous, rodents go back to the early Tertiary, and dogs show up around the mid-Tertiary. Therefore, dogs are more derived than rats and people, and whatever reactions they have to a drug might be the result of traits not shared with rodents and people.

Old MD Girl said...

Seroquel?

ERP said...

Wait, I thought you had an appointment made with a dog a while back?

Anonymous said...

if the drug really has promise it may be time for stage i testing with appropriate informed consent

Anonymous said...

Just what I was thinking Old MD Girl...I was also thinking 'where did they find psychotic dogs?'

A Doc 2 Be said...

Bless you!

On this day (and many days) when I need a considerable dose of reality plus laughter, I get you.

You rock!

Chris@Knucklehead! said...

"I would not prescribe the drug to dogs."

Thank you, I'm here all week.

Anonymous said...

628pm- michael vick et al

Outrider said...

The short answer is: rats are not dogs, and dogs are not humans.

There isn't room enough in this comment box for the long answer, but what a useless, irrelevant question to ask a physician.

This would be a valid question for a survey targeting veterinarians, as there are many drugs that cause serious side effects in one species but not another. For example, chloramphenicol... great stuff, but not for humans.

Anonymous said...

outrider- they are trying to decide if they should invest in further development and testing, if most will never prescribe based on the dog data, the drug is dead.

Anonymous said...

I am not sure how that error was the fault of the survey writer or copywriter, since it was a verbal survey.

Grumpy, M.D. said...

Sorry gang, the effect/affect error was mine. I fixed it.

A. Texan said...

who cares-effect or affect? We all knew what he was saying.robomod

Outrider said...

>>they are trying to decide if they should invest in further development and testing, if most will never prescribe based on the dog data, the drug is dead>>

I gathered, but don't human drugs have to undergo first safety (in humans), then efficacy (again, in humans) trials prior to approval?

That's after the drugs have been proven reasonably safe in non-human research subjects, of course.

Anonymous said...

Ben, the two of us need look no more, we both found what we were looking for...silly dog volunteers.

At least rats wouldn't be out of a job as guide 'rats' if they went blind.

Anonymous said...

safety in humans trials = stage i

Anonymous said...

check that- it is phase i, not stage i. sorry, dr.g.

 
Locations of visitors to this page