Pfizer Site Lists Post-Marketing Studies
6 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // May 2nd, 2007 // 11:01 am
In another long overdue move, a big drugmaker has finally gotten around to making it possible to check the status of its post-marketing commitments to the FDA. This morning, Pfizer officially unveiled a spot on its corporate web site that contains info on different kinds of follow-up studies for its various meds.
Look here, for instance, and one gets a thumbnail sketch of a half dozen Celebrex studies - including pediatric and safety trials - that are pending or under way. The effort contains a glossary for consumers and categories for the various types of studies to which Pfizer is committed.
In its press release, Pfizer maintains this sort of info has actually been available on its web site since 2003. But the drugmaker’s web site isn’t the easiest to navigate (try finding the name and phone number for a media contact, which is supposed to be a simple exercise). Given the criticism over industry’s lack of transparency, this is a step in the right direction.
However, this undertaking would be even more useful it were directly linked to all ongoing Pfizer trials, including those for meds being developed. Pfizer touts its effort as as industry first, which is all well and good, but let’s not stop here.
Meanwhile, take a look for yourself. Scrutinize closely. What do you like? What don’t you find that you want listed? Then drop us a line.
[tags]Clinical Trials, Pfizer[/tags]
Dr. B
Pfizer only lists research commitments to the FDA, on this corporate website, which is misleading. Pfizer conducts many more phase IV studies from their New York HQ, (marketing HQ) which are commitments to Pfizer Marketing not the FDA. Some of these trials are listed on clinicaltrials.gov, where Pfizer is forced to register them along with every other drug company.
Pfizer marketing are very innovative when it comes to designing posters and soft porn adverts, but not clinical trials. These trials are used to support their advertising claims, increase Pfizer’s access to insitutions and paying off their preferred doctors.
ed
Hello Doctor,
Thanks for writing, and you make a good point. These are only research commitments and do not reflect any sort of seeding trials or pre-launch buy-in exercises or anything to do with boosting scrips..
That distinction should have been made, but instead relied on the assumption that many people would recognize the difference. I appreicate that you pointed this out.
Regards
ed
JoelB
“However, this undertaking would be even more useful it were directly linked to all ongoing Pfizer trials, including those for meds being developed. ”
Why stop there? Lets have ALL inventors disclose EVERY research. (rolls eyes) There is such a thing as business confidentiality in a competitive environment or are you suggesting we leave capitalism behind and move straight into a socialist government?
ed
Hi Joel,
Thanks for writing.
But I’m afraid you missed my point. I was referring to the commitment by some drugmakers to post their earlier studies on Clinicaltrials.gov or an in-house site, for instance.
You may recall this issue arose a couple of years ago after accusations surfaced that side effect data from certain trials was never disclosed, and so there was a push to register and post more of these activities.
I was suggesting, in this case, that Pfizer make it easy to find those trials and the post-marketing trials by creating a ‘page’ on its web site where all of those are found together, or at least easily linked. Personally, I don’t find Pfizer’s web site easy to navigate all the time (I think I mentioned that in my post).
That’s all. I’m always happy to discuss any point, but I wasn’t advocating a fundamental change in government. I regret that you misinterpreted my remarks in that way. But I don’t think I wrote anything to suggest the kind of reaction you had.
In any event, I appreciate that you stopped by and offered your thoughts.
Cheers
ed
JoelB
LOL. I surely hope that you recognized humor when you read it. After all, I did, in fact, preface it by “rolling my eyes”. The point I was trying to make is that businesses have a right to protect confidential material (especially when research is involved). Here is an example. Say that you are a big Pharma, okay…go ahead and chose Pfizer if you want… and you think there would be a new use for a SERM that you have been developing but is not yet approved and marketed. You start a clinical trial to prove the efficacy in this new indication and publish it on your website to be truly “transparent”. Now say that there is a company with a competing SERM that has never considered this particular indication and they look at their model and figure that they could also run a similar trial. Now, say you had a couple of glitches in your study that allowed your competitor to finish his first, and he gets the approval before you for that indication. Suddenly you are a “me too†drug producer instead of an innovator. Not a likely scenario? Some drugs have been approved for indications that they weren’t originally discovered (can you spell V-I-A-G-R-A?), where would drug companies who have similar pipelines be if their competitors had ready access to the protocols they were running, especially Phase I – III? Sorry, buy I believe it is somewhat naive to expect that kind of transparency.
I didn’t think you were advocating socialism, and I am sure you truly didn’t believe that I thought you were.
ed
Hi JoelB,
I get your point about competition. Maybe I’m not being articulate enough. Again, I was simply referring to the trials that are under way and drugmakes are already posting on cliniicaltrials.gov and/or company web sites. There’s nothing new about that - its been out there for a couple of years.
I think it would be more efficient to be able to find those trials, and the post-marketing triials, in one easy-to-find page, or link, or whatever.
Meanwhile, sorry for misconstruing the remark about socialism. I wasn’t sure. Inflection can get lost in these comments and posts sometimes - I run into others misunderstanding me - so I stand corrected.
Thanks for taking the time to stop by and write. I appreciate it.
ed