Psychiatric drugs fare favorably when companies pay for studies
You may have missed this last week, as I did, that yet another study confirms the bias in clinical drug trials as favoring the company who pays for the study.
Drug companies fund a growing number of the studies in leading psychiatric journals, and drugs fare much better in these company-funded studies than in trials done independently or by competitors, researchers reported Wednesday.
About 57% of published studies were paid for by drug companies in 2002, compared with 25% in 1992, says psychiatrist Igor Galynker of Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City.
His team looked at clinical research in four influential journals: American Journal of Psychiatry, Archives of General Psychiatry, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry and Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology.
The best part, however, is later in the article when a spokesperson for the industry trade group tries to defend these findings:
Because drug studies are very expensive, pharmaceutical companies fund those most likely to have a positive outcome, Goldhammer says. The firms weed out drugs that don’t work and consult with the Food and Drug Administration to design trials that will pass muster with the FDA. “We’re constantly trying to develop new drugs to treat mental illness,” he says.
What he says is true, insofar as much as it goes. But in a careful review of clinical drug trials, all sponsors of a drug trial should show very similar outcomes, since the cost of funding a clinical trial is similar no matter who is paying for it. For instance, why should your drug fare worse — significantly and statistically — when a competitor is paying for it than when the maker of the drug is paying for it? There’s no attempt to defend that finding, because that data tells the story — drug makers design studies to showcase their drugs while showing their competitors in a worse light.
Finally, another golden insight…
Posting a negative study on the database is voluntary. “And common sense dictates that the worse the drug does, the less likely you are to volunteer to beat yourself up publicly by sharing that,” says Sidney Wolfe of Public Citizen, the Washington-based consumer advocacy group.
Really now? Most researchers I know feel just the opposite — that there’s a dearth of data when it comes to negative results. And there’s a simple, obvious solution — pseudonymize the submissions. The maintainer of the database knows who the submitters are, but no one else does. That way there’s no public reputation harm that could come to a researcher.
And, by the way, researchers don’t take it personally when a drug trial fails to show the results the maker wants it to show. That is the nature and heart of science — for every positive result, there’s about a dozen or more negative results. This is the world researchers live in and they don’t mind sharing it with the rest of us.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...This entry was posted on Monday, May 29th, 2006 at 8:13 am and is filed under General, Policy and Advocacy, Medications, Research. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
2 Responses to “Psychiatric drugs fare favorably when companies pay for studies” (Pingbacks/trackbacks not shown below)
Daniel Haszard at 12:26 pm on
May 29th, 2006
Appreciate your blog,mental health consumers are the least capable of self advocacy,my doctors made me take zyprexa for 4 years which was ineffective for my symptoms.I now have a victims support page against Eli Lilly for it’s Zyprexa product causing my diabetes.–Daniel Haszard www.zyprexa-victims.com
_Sky at 2:13 am on
May 31st, 2006
Perhaps what is needed is a “Consumer Reports” type of investigation organization for medicines. What currently appears to be happening is the fox watches the hen house, and reports the count. Anyone who has studied statistics knows that they can be made to say what you wish them to…and that experts know how to spin is nothing surprising.
One does hope that researchers do an honest job, and report clearly and accurately. The more we can eliminate the drug companies’ intrusion, the better for the consumer, imo.
Be a Part of the Conversation! Comment on this Entry Now:
Appreciate your blog,mental health consumers are the least capable of self advocacy,my doctors made me take zyprexa for 4 years which was ineffective for my symptoms.I now have a victims support page against Eli Lilly for it’s Zyprexa product causing my diabetes.–Daniel Haszard www.zyprexa-victims.com
Perhaps what is needed is a “Consumer Reports” type of investigation organization for medicines. What currently appears to be happening is the fox watches the hen house, and reports the count. Anyone who has studied statistics knows that they can be made to say what you wish them to…and that experts know how to spin is nothing surprising.
One does hope that researchers do an honest job, and report clearly and accurately. The more we can eliminate the drug companies’ intrusion, the better for the consumer, imo.
