Now Merck Utters The ‘T’ Word: Transparency
7 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // September 25th, 2008 // 12:51 pm
Nothing like scandal, litigation and bad press to get the pharmaceutical industry to consider changing its practices. Over the past few months, one drugmaker after another has promised - in varying degrees - to disclose info about payments to docs and campaign contributions, publish more clinical trial data or end support of third-party continuing medical education.
Two days ago, Lilly promised to reveal payments to docs and touted its clinical trial registry (back story here, here and here). Glaxo vowed to disclose educational and charitable grants, as did Pfizer, which is also ending support for third-party CME. And AstraZeneca is disclosing political donations, grants to medical education and contributions to non-profits.
Today, Merck has joined the party. The drugmaker issued a statement saying next month, grants to patient groups, professional medical societies and other organizations will be posted on its web site. Next year, payments to docs who serve as speakers will also be posted. Also next month, Merck will post study results on the ClinicalTrials.gov site.
These steps are occuring before the Physicians Payments Sunshine Act even becomes law (back story). Who’s next? How far will they go? And what about Schering-Plough? Will it win the Tin Ear award again next year?
Ima Misfit
The use of the word ‘Transparancy’ by Pharma manufacturers is a really bad joke.
PaulGGG
Good for them. Here is an example of people doing what the critics are asking. How about saying “thank you”.
Condor
I guess when someone does something in order to avoid being RE-regulated, and/or subject to increased legislation — something, in short, it ought to have done on its own, to self-police, long ago. . . .
It is still “polite” to say thank you to them.
So, yes PaulGGG, “my thanks” do go out to Merck.
Especially in view of the fact that Schering-Plough, and a few others, have done no such thing — see this, referencing Ed’s above — and displaying Schering’s (largely non-responsive) hubris, via letter:
http://shearlingsplowed.blogspot.com/2008/09/great-stuff-on-merck-and-schering-at-ed.html
Namaste
harpy
“Also next month, Merck will post study results on the ClinicalTrials.gov site.”
I’m confused - aren’t they already supposed to be doing this?
Chris
Clinicaltrials.gov contains descriptions of the studies (without results). There is another site called Clinicalstudyresults.org which contains results.
From the website:
What information is in ClinicalTrials.gov?
Abstracts of Clinical Study Protocols that include the following information:
• summary of the purpose of the study
• recruiting status
• criteria for patient participation
• location of the trial and specific contact information
Additional Information that may help a patient decide whether to consider a particular trial:
• research study design
• phase of the trial
• disease or condition and drug or therapy under study
(There is an option to post a link to the Pubmed or MedLine Plus citation for any published studies.)
In the FDAA of 2007, there is also a requirement that by one year after Enactment (e.g. Oct 2008 or thereabouts), that basic results be posted in a ‘Registry and Results Databank’. Since the Registry data bank is clinicaltrials.gov, perhaps they are expanding it. BASIC RESULTS to include: i. Demographic and Baseline Characteristics of Patient Sample, ii. Primary and Secondary Outcomes, iii. Point of Contact, and iv. Certain Agreements.
harpy
Thanks, Chris, I’d thought it was more comprehensive than that.
SP Guy
You can bet Schering-Plough won’t be issuing any similar announcements. It appears there’s too much to be lost by doing so, but then again nobody trusts them anymore on anything. I think it’s a result of the past 2-3 years of management decisions combined with a whole bunch of docs that don’t want to see their names listed anywhere.