Comments on: Now Merck Utters The ‘T’ Word: Transparency

By: SP Guy

SP Guy — Mon, 29 Sep 2008 14:53:08 +0000

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.

By: harpy

harpy — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:55:38 +0000

Thanks, Chris, I’d thought it was more comprehensive than that.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 17:14:11 +0000

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.

By: harpy

harpy — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:49:27 +0000

“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?

By: Condor

Condor — Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:21:06 +0000

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

By: PaulGGG

PaulGGG — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:08:29 +0000

Good for them. Here is an example of people doing what the critics are asking. How about saying “thank you”.

By: Ima Misfit

Ima Misfit — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 18:34:25 +0000

The use of the word ‘Transparancy’ by Pharma manufacturers is a really bad joke.