Saturday, August 29, 2015

Drug industry clinical trials and the resulting reports criticized

Though big pharma's lobbying group disagreed, a recent Washington Post story shed more light on the problem of pharma-paid doctors writing for medical journals.

Drug industry clinical trials and the resulting reports criticized

A bottle of Avandia, which has been recalled.
A bottle of Avandia, which has been recalled.

A Washington Post story the other day explained the conflict that some might think is inherent in pharmaceutical companies testing their own drugs before applying to the FDA for approval in advance of distribution to patients - and the difficulty in trying to detect the financially-induced bias of authors of papers that spin out of such clinical trials.

» A link to the story is here.
»  A link to howling protest from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America is here.

The story used the clinical trials by GlaxoSmithKline in the run-up to the release of the very problematic diabetes drug Avandia. As a Glaxo spokesperson says in the story, the current leadership of the company has changed since then.

Beyond the issue of the data and what it shows, there is the recurring problem of doctors and researchers paid by companies writing reports that eventually show up in publications, including the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.

“I used to think that if studies were subject to rigorous peer review it would then be enough to simply disclose authors’ commercial ties,” Marcia Angell, who retired as editor in chief of NEJM in 2000 after more than 20 years at the publication, told the Post. “But I no longer believe that’s enough. It’s too hard for anyone — editors, peer reviewers, readers — to tell whether that bias has affected the work.”

Angell said in the story that a key change is that drug companies keep more testing in house, or control access to the information when they hire contract research organizations. Previously, more of the clinical testing was handled by academic institutions and others theoretically less beholden to profit-making companies.

“It used to be that drug companies would hand their new drug over to an academic center to have it tested, and then they sat back and waited,” Angell said, according to the Post. “Now they’re intimately involved in every step along the way, and they treat academic researchers more like hired hands.”

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: 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 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
David Sell blogs about the region's pharmaceutical industry. Follow him on Facebook.

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

Reach David at or 215-854-4506.

David Sell
Also on
letter icon Newsletter