blog.bioethics.net

I agree with Milstein that there needs to be more information sharing in clinical trials. The clinical trial registration systems that are now in place need to include information about study outcomes, which they don't, currently.

- by David Resnik on Jan 17, 2008 at 12:35 PM | link

As if on cue, the New England Journal of Medicine has confirmed this view in an article to be published this week. The Journal reported that drug companies reported more than 90% of the results of clinical trials where the data supported the efficacy of antidepressants but only about a third of the trials where it did not.

- by Alan Mistein on Jan 17, 2008 at 9:53 PM | link

I would note that this is hardly unique to drug trials. I was taught as a psyc undergrad that 'peer-review publishing is a type 1 error'. That is significant findings are far more likely to be published than negative findings--thus false positives abound.

In my own work I consider my most important finding so far to be a negative one, but after three attempts I gave up trying to get it published. Negative findings, expecially if counter-intuitive, don't go down well with journals.

- by emily on Jan 18, 2008 at 9:16 AM | link

The FDA and Its Progressive Lack of Citizen Protection

The Food and Drug Administration originated in its primitive form several decades ago to ensure the health and safety of the citizens of the United States. Who became the catalyst for the formation of the Food and Drug Administration was a socialist named Upton Sinclair, who was a writer. One particular book, while fictional, addressed the working conditions in a meat packaging company that were quite shockingly described by Upton in this book. While the author intended with composing, “The Jungle”, to address and focus for the benefit of the readers the effects of capitalism, the issue regarding food safety is what ultimately captured the attention of everyone, including the president, so the FDA began during this time.
However, their purpose and function seems to have changed the past few decades, as the FDA appears to have formed a pathological alliance with the pharmaceutical industry in particular, to name one of the industries that the FDA is obligated to oversight.
An example is the large amounts of money the industry gives the FDA for various reasons created recently- amounts so large that this accounts, according to some, for about half of the FDA’s total income, although it is a governmental administration, and this is upon information and belief. An example of funds received is due to the prescription drug user fee act, which began in 1992. Basically, the drug industry has been authorized and is now required to pay the FDA for faster approval of their pending medications, called New Drug Applications.
Results of this relationship between the drug industry and the FDA, one could posit, could be a contributing factor the progressive and recent approval of unsafe drugs as demonstrated by their removal or given a black box warning of such drugs. The lack of regulation and monitoring required by the FDA of such industries as the pharmaceutical one may be why there is this progressive safety concern of medications prescribed to many in the United States. In addition, perhaps, the FDA continues to validate what has been posited through their known financial support from the drug industry, in ways that seem reciprocal, and as a consequence, have possibly neglected the health of the public as best as they should. However the growth of generics is about twice of branded meds annually, though, I believe. This may be a relief to some if not many.
Yet, the presumed intimacy between these two organizations speculated upone, which are the FDA and the pharmaceutical industry, does in fact seem to continue to worsen that do not have generics available as of yet- possibly due to the growth of generics being a concern for the branded companies. For example, and recently, a new proposal by the FDA has been introduced that would allow the pharmaceutical industry’s drug sales reps to discuss their products with prescribers off-label, which means that the FDA may allow and accept the industry with their approval and presumed elation to possibly create harm to patients with this proposal due to the obvious uncertainty associated with unapproved uses of a drug promoted in this way. Yet the FDA claims that this proposal would enhance the education and knowledge of the prescriber by the pharmaceutical representative, and this is rather delusional if not absurd, to say the least. Especially when one considers the high number of drugs that historicallyhave been removed from the market or have been given black box warnings that have been mentioned already.
A prescriber, upon their own discretion, can in fact prescribe a drug off-label, but historically and legally, however, representatives from the pharmaceutical industry have been prohibited from suggesting this type of activity that deviates from the product insert that illustrates the medication’s indications. In fact, it is a federal offense for such reps to speak off-label about the drugs they promote, and more pharmaceutical companies are and have been penalized in the form of large settlements for this behavior in the past as determined to some degree by the department of justice. The drug companies that have allowed such criminal offenses, through vicarious liability at times, perhaps, rarely admit guilt as part of such settlement agreements, which include agreements where the corporation is not prosecuted. Off-Label activities are only some of the federal laws that have been frequently fractured in a progressive manner as well.
This FDA protocol for drug reps that has been described and proposed by our FDA is called, “Good Reprint Practices.” This would require pharmaceutical sales representatives to use what may not truly exist, which is truthful and authentic clinical trials, aseptic and sterile without bias, when and if they do speak off-label to prescribers. This in itself lacks etiology for such discussions by drug reps, as many clinical trials may be flawed due to the trials being possibly manipulated by the pharmaceutical companies of the meds involved in such trials, such as by a third party. Additional trial deception involves ghostwriting and invalid authors of such trials, and this is one of many concerns of this FDA protocol suggested by the FDA, yet possibly influenced by others. These facts can be validated and have been discovered by others, so it appears the FDA did not take this into consideration when they did suggest this ridiculous and frightening authorization.
Furthermore, this proposal is flawed in that most pharmaceutical reps lack clinical training and the ability for most drug representatives to analyze the unique statistical data regarding this issue with accuracy and meaning is unlikely, for the most part, I surmise. Remember that most drug reps have no medical or clinical training in any objective way, and, in my experience, have no interest in such training. So this seems to further complicate the idea of this off-label concept due to the ignorance of the reps of the complexities of these once reliable and dependable methods of proof. In addition, the relaxation of previous restrictions regarding off-label promotion could prove to be a catalyst for reps to embellish statements to prescribers for their own benefit in regards to their promoted meds. So, our previous safety association, the FDA, appears to be evolving into a possibly harmful association by suggesting such practices as this with deliberate intent and reckless disregard for public health, so it seems. Yet this situation of the FDA proposal mentioned appears to be of most benefit for the drug companies. It’s unbelievable this proposal ever came into existence, with the delusional fallacy that it would be of benefit to patient health, most likely. Furthermore, this may complicate existing patient medication errors, such as in the elderly or dosing for children, complicated by the fact that many are unable to understand label instructions on their med. So there are enough problems with prescribing, and adding this FDA proposal would just make the situation worse. We as citizens are no longer the concern of the FDA, one could conclude.
However, there is freedom of speech, but in the amendment should certainly be restrictions in regards to public health, as speech should be accurate and objective when conducting dialogues with prescribers. Perhaps another alternative would be to have clinically trained people discuss such issues with prescribers, instead of the drug reps, who, unlike those academically enriched, have the objective of increasing the market share of their promoted meds with no regard to the science behind these meds, in large part. Because historically, medications have in fact proven to be beneficial for other disease states other than what a certain med was initially indicated for upon approval. Regardless, awareness needs to happen by the citizens involving tactics that are possibly deceptive such as this and many more activities by the pharmaceutical industry that one could argue are in fact somewhat covert and tacit. As citizens, we have the right to insist of the pharmaceutical company to maintain focus on the interest of others besides themselves, which could be the case now with the FDA. And the health of the public is that interest what I believe we as citizens demand, and should be enforced than it appears to be presently.
“Unlimited power is apt to corrupt the minds of those who possess it.” --- William Pitt
Dan Abshear (author’s note: what has been written was based on information and belief)

- by Dan on Jul 21, 2008 at 11:52 PM | link