{"id":30428,"date":"2012-11-26T08:24:10","date_gmt":"2012-11-26T13:24:10","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=30428"},"modified":"2012-11-26T11:02:29","modified_gmt":"2012-11-26T16:02:29","slug":"in-their-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2012\/11\/26\/in-their-court\/","title":{"rendered":"in their court…"},"content":{"rendered":"
As drug industry’s influence over research grows, so does the potential for bias<\/a>
Washington Post<\/font><\/strong>
By Peter Whoriskey
November 24, 2012<\/div>\n

<\/p>\n

The article is long and well done. It tells the story of Avandia and of Cleveland Clinic cardiologist Steven Nissen’s persistence in bringing its toxicity to light. Then there are the usual suspects, Vioxx and Celebrex, the comments of the NEJM editors about the growing problems, examples of the drug company trials designed to fail to show adverse effects, and ample documentation of the rise of the power of the pharmaceutical companies in general and their co-opted KOLs. The article ends with:<\/div>\n
\n
Blocking bias<\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n
In the wake of controversies arising around Vioxx, Avandia and Celebrex, many in the medical world have sought ways to ensure that drug research is free of commercial bias. One of the leading proposals would be to compel drug companies to release all of the data from trials of drugs that are on the market.<\/strong><\/sup><\/div>\n

Over the summer, the European Medicines Agency — the continent’s counterpart to the FDA — said it will move toward requiring the release of all such data. Glaxo, too, has said it is preparing for such a release, though other companies have yet to follow suit. “Since 2004, we have posted summaries<\/font> of all our clinical trial results on our Web site for the world to see,” Glaxo said in a statement. “All of these actions speak to the degree of commitment we have to be open with our research so there can be more understanding, and hopefully credibility, in what we are doing.”<\/strong><\/sup><\/p>\n

Such transparency about industry-sponsored trials would not eliminate the ability of companies to avoid unflattering studies, or to hire like-minded researchers, or to design research that gives only positive views of their products. But if such measures are carried out across the industry — and there is no sign at this point that they will be — independent researchers could analyze the data from trials and come to their own conclusions.<\/strong><\/sup><\/p>\n

Many believe drug companies should feel obliged to share such information. “If you have the privilege of selling a drug, in return should come the responsibility to share everything you know about the drug,” said Harlan Krumholz, a professor of medicine at Yale and a leading advocate of data access. “This is not about doing gotcha with industry. It’s about how to restore trust.”<\/strong><\/sup><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
I read this article in the spaces during holiday weekend doings and musing on my last post about Paxil 352, but there was something about it that nagged. Last night, it dawned on me that it wasn’t the content of the article itself. It was the use of the word bias<\/font><\/strong>. It wasn’t a big enough word: <\/div>\n