Bucky wrote:I'm surprised there's no org like Gartner who covers the industry and does something like the "Gartner Magic Quadrant" for drugs. Every other business in the world thrives on competitive comparison; why would pharma not?
But JLBurton's point is very relevant, too. And even is evidenced in BuddyGroom's predecessor quote. There are many people getting benefits from Zoloft and Cimbalta; I suspect it's specific genetics, and not any readily identifiable condition that someone can look at and pick from the different available therapies.
That, and also this is medicine rather reads, feeds & speeds; if you're running tests, frequently over years (some of the good - or bad - effects may not materialize except over long periods of administration) to see which Rx works best, you may be in the awkward (and sue-able) position of having providing some people with inferior - or outright dangerous - medicines.
Then there's the issue of what's a "successful" outcome? Human beings are remarkably, perversely various in their attitudes and preferences respecting personal wellbeing. "Healthier" is harder to agree on than it may seem.
I'm hopeful there are ingenious testing/verification protocols that might be employed to accomplish the desired comparative results. You can be sure any Rx/devise/surgical procedure-devising enterprise or entrepreneur will have some equally ingenious objection to the results if they are on the "losing" end of the judgment.
