[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.211.168.204. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Article
September 17, 1997

Bioequivalence of Levothyroxine Preparations: Issues of Science, Publication, and Advertising-Reply

Author Affiliations

University of California, San Francisco
Thomas Jefferson University Philadelphia, Pa

JAMA. 1997;278(11):898. doi:10.1001/jama.1997.03550110036026
Abstract

In Reply.  —We would like to acknowledge the many letters and encouraging words of support that we have received from both old and new colleagues since the publication of our study. We do not believe that our story suggests that all future collaborations with industry are doomed. We agree with Dr Dreyer and others1,2 that academic researchers should not agree to restrictive contracts forbidding publication rights.Dr DeGroot and Drs St. Germain and Ridgway disagree with our findings. DeGroot's understanding that AUC data are only logical for compounds with rapid turnover is incorrect, and a revisiting of pharmacokinetic principles is needed. The AUC measurements are valid for thyroxine with a half-life of 7 days, if it is taken under steady and comparable conditions, as in our study. The pharmacokinetic data and the clinical outcome of the subjects who received each product for 6 weeks clearly show that the 4 levothyroxine preparations

×