Sunday, August 2, 2015

Can Doctors Trust Pharma's Data?

Last winter the federal government's Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies (CMS) eased funding for physicians to adopt electronic medical records (EMRs), even as the agency also announced reimbursement penalties for those who refuse to make the conversion by 2015. While that may appear as merely a pedestrian matter related to bookkeeping, the fact is EMRs will bring major changes to medical practice and every other aspect of the healthcare system. For the pharmaceutical industry the fact that all US physicians will maintain digital patient records represents both an embarrassment and a challenge. For several generations the clinical trials designed and sponsored by pharma companies provided the principal basis on which physicians selected drug therapies.

Can Doctors Trust Pharma's Data?

0 comments

By guest blogger Daniel Hoffman:

Last winter the federal government’s Center for Medicare and Medicaid Studies (CMS) eased funding for physicians to adopt electronic medical records (EMRs), even as the agency also announced reimbursement penalties for those who refuse to make the conversion by 2015. While that may appear as merely a pedestrian matter related to bookkeeping, the fact is EMRs will bring major changes to medical practice and every other aspect of the healthcare system.

For the pharmaceutical industry the fact that all US physicians will maintain digital patient records represents both an embarrassment and a challenge. For several generations the clinical trials designed and sponsored by pharma companies provided the principal basis on which physicians selected drug therapies. The advent of universal EMRs in this country will soon permit retrospective analysis of these electronic databases as an alternative foundation for selecting cost-effective therapies. One factor behind the adoption of this new standard is the increasing percentage of physicians that implicitly say they don’t trust pharma’s clinical data.

The rising tide of distrust does not necessarily result from the industry’s deliberate misdeeds such as bribing investigators, ghost-written studies, or hiding critical results, although such pervasive practices didn’t help. The problems are more basic and would likely arise even if drug development had been a model of scientific probity and ethical integrity.

Pharmaceutical companies prospectively design clinical trials to get their drugs approved and to enhance their utility in the eyes of physicians. For this reason the designs they use, the measures of success they select and the comparisons they make are all intended to reflect favorably on their products. The fact that sponsoring pharma companies pay the pipers (i.e., the “independent clinicians”) means they get to call the tunes.

A second reason for doubting trials is the fact that even if rigorously pure scientists designed, ran and assessed them, clinical studies are not the real world. Patients prescribed medications in the real world are not carefully selected or closely monitored. They often miss doses and do other things that either prevent them from obtaining desirable results or expose them to dangerous side effects. For this reason a growing number of physicians claim that a more persuasive source of evidence consists of outcomes among patients that used various therapies in ordinary settings outside of clinical trials.

Pharma spokespeople may scream like banshees about the disparagement of their trials and the growing use of retrospective databases, but this is just another change due to the prohibitive cost of drugs. In European countries such as Great Britain, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence uses this type of database analysis to advise the National Health Service on which drugs to cover. Pharma companies make handsome profits in Europe, although not unconscionable profits. Selecting drugs by analyzing patient databases is one means to produce a similar result here.

To check out more Check Up items go to www.philly.com/checkup.

0 comments
We encourage respectful comments but reserve the right to delete anything that doesn't contribute to an engaging dialogue.
Help us moderate this thread by flagging comments that violate our guidelines.

Comment policy:

Philly.com comments are intended to be civil, friendly conversations. Please treat other participants with respect and in a way that you would want to be treated. You are responsible for what you say. And please, stay on topic. If you see an objectionable post, please report it to us using the "Report Abuse" option.

Please note that comments are monitored by Philly.com staff. We reserve the right at all times to remove any information or materials that are unlawful, threatening, abusive, libelous, defamatory, obscene, vulgar, pornographic, profane, indecent or otherwise objectionable. Personal attacks, especially on other participants, are not permitted. We reserve the right to permanently block any user who violates these terms and conditions.

Additionally comments that are long, have multiple paragraph breaks, include code, or include hyperlinks may not be posted.

Read 0 comments
 
comments powered by Disqus
About this blog

Check Up covers regional health news and a wide array of healthcare topics from pharmaceutical happenings to patient safety. Read about some of our bloggers here.

Portions of this blog may also be found in the Inquirer's Sunday Health Section.

Daniel R. Hoffman, Ph.D. President, Pharmaceutical Business Research Associates
Latest Health Videos
Also on Philly.com:
letter icon Newsletter