Gyno Reports

Gynecology related news - Powered By EZDoctor

Female Viagra

After an intense lobbying campaign, a federal advisory panel recommended approval of what would become the first drug to treat a lack of sexual desire in women.

The move was immediately hailed by some women’s organizations as a step toward sexual equality by, in effect, giving women their counterpart to Viagra, the widely prescribed drug for male erectile dysfunction.

By a vote of 18-6, the advisory committee to the Food and Drug Administration favored approval of the drug, flibanserin, for women whose lack of sexual desire was not attributable to other causes such as disease or relationship troubles, providing that certain steps were taken to limit the risks of the drug. Doctors might be required, for instance, to inform patients of potential side effects — like low blood pressure, fainting, nausea and dizziness — and physicians might have to become certified to prescribe the drug.

The controversial campaign by some women’s groups to win federal approval was waged under the banner Even the Score, which accused the F.D.A. of gender bias because it had approved Viagra and other drugs to help men have sex while leaving women without options.

The participants in the campaign had been brought together by a consultant to Sprout Pharmaceuticals, the developer of flibanserin.

That campaign, which packed the advisory committee meeting room with the drug’s supporters, in addition to some new data from clinical trials, apparently helped tip the balance for flibanserin, which has been rejected twice by the F.D.A. The first time, in 2010, came after a similar advisory committee had voted unanimously against approval.

Now the drug could be approved by Aug. 18, the F.D.A.’s deadline for making a decision.

The agency usually follows the advice of its advisory committees. But Thursday’s vote was closer than the numbers indicate, making it less clear how the F.D.A. will respond. Several committee members said they voted “yes” with great misgivings because of the drug’s modest benefit and possible side effects.

 

Read full story: NYTimes.

 

 

blog comments powered by Disqus