News and Document archive source
copyrighted material disclaimer at bottom of page

NewsMinecabal-elitecorporatepharmaceutical — Viewing Item


Clinical trials biased by profit funding

Original Source Link: (May no longer be active)
   http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/05/16/hscout532732.html

http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/health/feeds/hscout/2006/05/16/hscout532732.html

For-Profit Funding May Bias Clinical Trials
05.16.06, 12:00 AM ET

TUESDAY, May 16 (HealthDay News) -- In a revealing look at the impact of funding on medical research, a new study found that clinical trials funded by drug companies and other for-profit entities were more likely to report positive findings than similar trials funded by nonprofit groups.

Trials that were jointly funded by for-profit and non-profit organizations had positive findings that fell about midway between the rates observed for either extreme.

"I'm not surprised that that is the case," said Adil Shamoo, a professor of biochemistry and bioethics at the University of Maryland, Baltimore, and co-founder of Citizens for Responsible Care and Research, which lobbies for the rights of patients and clinical trial participants.

Shamoo was not involved in the study, which was led by researchers at Harvard Medical School and appears in the May 17 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

A study published earlier this year found that industry is paying for more and more medical research, with a full half of studies now funded solely by the private sector.

And according to background information in this article, surveys of randomized trials conducted in the 1990s found that for-profit trials were more likely to report positive findings. Those surveys raised questions about the design and conduct of industry-funded clinical trials. They resulted in recommendations for ways to improve academic oversight of industry-sponsored research and to make sure that all clinical trials are registered and published.

It has not been clear, however, if this emerging recognition has led to any improvements.

To see if anything had changed, the study authors reviewed 324 trials involving cardiovascular medicines published between January 1, 2000, and July 30, 2005, in three top medical journals: JAMA, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Twenty-one of the studies cited no funding source at all.

Of the 104 funded solely by nonprofits, 49 percent reported evidence favoring the newer treatment while 51 percent favored the existing standard of care or showed no difference between the two.

Of the 137 trials funded solely by for-profit entities, more than two-thirds (67.2 percent) favored the newer treatment.

There were 62 jointly funded trials, of which 56.5 percent favored the newer treatment.

Among 205 randomized trials evaluating new drugs, 39.5 percent of nonprofits, 54.4 percent of jointly funded trials, and 65.5 percent of for-profit trials leaned towards newer treatments, the researchers found.

Of 39 randomized trials looking at cardiovascular devices, 50 percent of nonprofit trials, 69.2 percent of jointly funded trials, and 82.4 percent of for-profit trials favored newer devices.

Regardless of the funding source, trials which used surrogate endpoints tended to report more positive findings (67 percent) than those using clinical endpoints (54.1 percent). A surrogate endpoint measures an outcome that is predictive of a clinical endpoint. So, for example, a clinical endpoint could be a heart attack, while a surrogate endpoint might be a certain blood marker that reflects a high risk for heart attack.

Some experts believe that study design is a main reason for such biases. "The outcome can be tremendously influenced literally by the A-to-Z of a clinical trial, by the type of question, the design of experiment, the type and characteristics of the human subjects selected, how you massage the data and analyze it, and where and what portion you publish," Shamoo said. "There are literally about 15 or 20 steps that can influence any experiment, not just a clinical trial."

The authors speculated that other factors might explain their findings. For example, negative findings are unlikely to be followed up with additional studies. Positive trials, on the other hand, are much more likely to get industry funding for continued study.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration also requires that any positive finding be replicated in subsequent trials, which may also help explain the findings.

Regardless of the cause, Shamoo said there's no one simple answer to the problem. Possible solutions include having multiple sources conducting similar trials, acknowledging apparent bias.

"The solution is multifaceted," he said. "As usual, there is no simple, black-and-white answer."



40 percent of americans take prescription drugs
ADD drugs give hallucinations of bugs and snakes { March 22 2006 }
American painkiller use skyrocketing
Anti depresents linked to suicide
Antibiotic causes liver damage
Antidepressant use by adults surges { December 3 2004 }
Antidepressants addictive to some people { August 6 2006 }
Antidepressants remove obsessive focus of love
Antidepressiants increases chance of suicide { December 13 2006 }
Arthritis drugs causing cancer in childen { April 29 2008 }
Bayer sent riskier drug asia latinamerica { May 22 2003 }
Birth defects from paxil in pregnant women { December 8 2005 }
Canada makes drug deals with 2 states against fda wishes { October 5 2004 }
Cholesterol drug causes kidney damage contradicting fda { May 24 2005 }
Cholesterol meds lower test results not improving health { January 15 2008 }
Clinical trials biased by profit funding
Company hid heartattack data for painkiller { December 8 2005 }
Congressman moves retired to drug lobby
Dc council legislation blocks pharmaceutical price gounging { September 21 2005 }
Doctor gives anti depressants to 4 yr old girl
Doctors get kickbacks to promote drugs
Doctors prescribe paxil whenever asked { April 27 2005 }
Drug aleve increases stroke heart attack risk { December 21 2004 }
Drug bill well financed victory
Drug company criminal charges { May 31 2003 }
Drug firms hide studies showing suicidal behavior { September 10 2004 }
Drug firms hype up diseases to boost sales
Drug leader at NIH takes pharmaceutical money { December 22 2004 }
Fda accused too cozy with pharmaceuticals { November 18 2004 }
Fda approval surprises many doctors
Fda prevented drug expert from speaking on anti depressants { April 16 2004 }
Fda wants suicide warning on anti depressants { March 23 2004 }
Fda whistle blower seeks legal help { November 24 2004 }
Fraud studies made by drug company { March 2008 }
Man arrested if not medicating child with drugs { June 7 2004 }
Mccain knocks steroids baseball
Minnesota school shooter using prozac and others { March 26 2005 }
More anti depressant drug warnings by fda
New diabetes pill poses deadly risk
New york state sues paxil company over coverup { June 3 2004 }
Newer antipsychotic drugs more costly less effective { September 20 2005 }
Parents reverse child hyper activity without drugs { December 22 2006 }
Paxil link found with birth defects
Pharmaceutical cholesterol drugs not lowering risk
Pharmaceutical companies court doctors for sells { April 11 2008 }
Pharmaceutical companies using tax exempt charities { June 28 2006 }
Pharmaceutical secrecy on antidepressant data { January 29 2004 }
Pharmaceuticals in tap water through sewage { March 10 2008 }
Pharmaceuticals pay fda more for speedy approvals { November 22 2006 }
Return of vioxx unusual not unprecendented
Rise of european behavior controlling drug
Ritalin could be dangerous to heart { February 10 2006 }
Senators told fda too cozy with drug industry { November 18 2004 }
Sharp rise in ritalin { July 19 2003 }
Sleeping pill causes sleep driving { March 15 2007 }
Sleeping pills once a day increase death rate { March 23 2006 }
Statin drug takers suffer heart attacks anyway
Study criticizes painkiller marketing { January 25 2005 }
Study drugs for students growing { June 11 2006 }
Study shows no good effect from anti depressants { February 25 2008 }
Suicide risk increase with antidepressants { February 18 2005 }
Supreme court allows pharmaceutical to bulldoze homes { June 23 2005 }
Teens increasing pharmaceutical drug abuse { April 21 2005 }
Teens use pharmaceutical drugs to get high { December 21 2006 }
Unapproved drug tested on children in nigeria { May 7 2006 }
Unfavorable drug studies never reported
Viox risk seen with short term use { May 17 2006 }
Women participating in lilly drug trial hangs self { February 9 2004 }

Files Listed: 68



Correction/submissions

CIA FOIA Archive

National Security
Archives
Support one-state solution for Israel and Palestine Tea Party bumper stickers JFK for Dummies, The Assassination made simple