MDs distrust industry-funded studies
Posted by medconsumers on September 27, 2012
Here’s an interesting turn of events. A new survey shows that physicians will distrust the results of a study, once they see that it was funded by the pharmaceutical industry. In fact, many physicians were more likely to trust research funded by a government agency like the National Institutes of Health. But here’s the twist: Many industry-funded studies are of very high quality and some taxpayer-funded studies can be of lesser quality.
If physicians’ prescribing decisions are not guided by the quality of the research, then we’re all in trouble. But then again, maybe we’re all in trouble, anyway, given the fact that most drug studies are funded by industry. We already know that industry-funded trials tend to produce results that favor their products—and the studies that fail to do so never see the light of day. The latter problem has been resolved—somewhat— for new drugs. Trials initiated after 2007 are mandated to register on a publicly accessible website so that everyone knows of their existence and goals.
But I digress. The surveyed physicians were given only the abstracts (summaries) of hypothetical clinical trials of three different drugs. The trials were of high, medium or low quality. Each abstract disclosed whether the study had support from a pharmaceutical company, the National Institutes of Health, or made no mention of support. The follow-up questions determined physician understanding of the trials’ quality, their confidence in the results, and their willingness to prescribe the drugs.
“We found that respondents downgraded the credibility of industry- funded trials, as compared with the same trials randomly characterized as having NIH funding or having no source of support listed,” concluded Aaron S. Kesselheim, MD, Harvard Medical School, and colleagues who developed the survey, published recently in The New England Journal of Medicine. Ironically, 75% of the surveyed physicians reported “accepting at least one type of industry support.”
What to make of all this? I have to admit that I was somewhat surprised by the survey results. I didn’t think practicing physicians were that jaded, especially physicians who themselves take industry money. This survey is important, but there’s a far larger problem related to pharmaceutical industry funding. It was addressed by one memorable speaker at a conference held last year by the Cochrane Collaboration. “Many of the clinical trials conducted by the pharmaceutical industry are very well-designed, but they do not answer the questions we want answered,” said John Ionnaides, MD. “We want to know whether the new drug is safer and more effective than the older drugs,” he said. The “we” he was describing are the physicians who prescribe the drugs as well as the people who take them.
Dr. Ionnaides, an internationally respected researcher, went on to explain that no drug company wants to risk a head-to-head comparison trial, which could find an older, cheaper off-patent drug is better than their new expensive drug. Instead, a new drug goes on the market having proven to the FDA’s satisfaction that it is better than nothing (a placebo). And that’s exactly the way the drug makers want it to be (and lobby Congress to make sure things go their way).
This research gap goes far beyond drugs. No head-to-head comparison study, for example, has been done to guide men through the thicket of treatment options for prostate cancer.
Perhaps information gaps like this can be tackled successfully by the comparative effectiveness research efforts that have emerged as a result of the Affordable Care Act. But wouldn’t it be better if taxpayers did not have pay for this important research? Isn’t it about time to take seriously an idea that bubbles up every now and then: Make the drug and device companies contribute to a large research fund; and then make them step back to let independent researchers conduct the head-to-head comparison trials.
Maryann Napoli, Center for Medical Consumers©