Comments on: Most Avandia Supporters Have Ties To Glaxo

By: worksforpharma

worksforpharma — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:06:29 +0000

A point was made earlier that clinical investigators do not work for free, and this kind of research is astonishingly expensive. Unless the government stops slashing investment in reseach and finds a few billion dollars to invest in grants, the bulk of the funding is going to come from drug and device companies who are hoping that the research will show their product is superior. And do you know what? Sometimes it IS superior.

I am not convinced that corporate-sponsored research is all completely untrustworthy, which is a strong implication of much of this thread. I will grant that there are cases of abuse, and that casts a pall. However, unless you want to have all studies repeated, you need to do a close analysis of the data and draw your own conclusions. Don’t feel guilty or hoodwinked if once in a while you believe it’s good science.

By: Former Pharma Marketing Director

Former Pharma Marketing Director — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 07:43:51 +0000

Pharmavet,

Given all that I have experienced in my professional life and personal life, I still remain optimist. However, the only way we can fix anything is by standing back and objectively thinking about what we are doing. This is not something that we do very well these days. I am appalled at the missed opportunities for real improvements and measured successes in all areas simply because we refuse to critically evaluate the evidence that lands before us.

We have allowed the marketing departments to become too powerful. This is interfering with science and the results are detrimental in many cases.

When we let the scientists do the work they are supposed to do we have much better successes.

Overzealous marketing puts the wrong drug into the wrong patients hands and that is what creates the problems.

No we are not headed for anarchy, and I didn’t get that from the article. Head the warnings, it is time we fixed what is wrong…

It is time to do more than just talking.

By: elmore

elmore — Sun, 21 Mar 2010 16:10:11 +0000

It’s been said a million times before but most of this stuff is the work of ghost writers. The authors whose names are on the papers agree to be included so they’ll continue to get income. And the authors who are approached to be included are already known to be “friendly” to the drug and company.

By: pharmavet

pharmavet — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 23:23:16 +0000

FPMD, good article in Time. A bit hyperbolic; if you take it to its logical extreme, then we are headed for anarchy, or at least a revolt of the proletariat against the bourgoise robber barrons. I personally believe that people will always strive to acquire the means to live a better life, socially, economically, etc. I suggest reading Thorstein Veblen’s book, “Theory of the Leisure Class”, which coined the term “conspicuous consumption”. Or, if you prefer someone more modern, try economist Lawrence Kudlow who authored the book “American Abundance: The New Economic and Moral Prosperity”. My favorite quote of his: “The American way of life is non-negotiable”. An optimist for sure.

By: Former Pharma Marketing Director

Former Pharma Marketing Director — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:35:06 +0000

Pharmavet, we need independently sponsored and peer reviewed trials. If the company holds all the data and manipulates it to suit their own marketing agenda, then that is a big problem.

The cases that are being brought up here clearly show that that is what has been happening….

We cannot rely on a for profit business to do the right thing, plain and simple….

The other way around this is to put black box warnings on everything, make full disclaimers and let the patients know that in many cases they are rolling the dice and they are just one crap shot away from a heart attack or (fill in the AE) and do they think the risk is worth the benefit.

By the way, ecellent article in this weeks Time Magazine
” The Twilight of the Elites, why we have entered the post trust era”

By: notnissen

notnissen — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:17:40 +0000

But do they ask the other question, are investigators with ties to Takeda more likely to publish negative reports?

By: pharmavet

pharmavet — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:10:58 +0000

Sorry, Laurie. Last time I tried to get a clinical investigator to work for free I was turned down. Would you do your job for no paycheck?

By: Laurie

Laurie — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 17:37:51 +0000

“That’s why bias would be less likely if the prospective study were undertaken pre-Nissen.”

If the goal is financial, then the bias was always towards financial gain….now they’re just getting caught.
GSK is known for being less that forthright in their clinical trials across the board.

By: johns

johns — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:56:10 +0000

total mess as usual.

By: pharmavet

pharmavet — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:24:09 +0000

In my opinion, original research (i.e. prospective studies, not meta-analyses, etc.) conducted prior to 2007 and published anytime thereafter would be less subject to bias unless the researchers somehow had a crystal ball and knew that Nissen would publish his meta-analysis showing relationship between Avandia and cardiovascular events in 2007. That is, you can’t bias a research study without know what to bias it towards or against. That’s why bias would be less likely if the prospective study were undertaken pre-Nissen.