Those Who Have the Gold Make the Evidence: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Biases the Outcomes of Clinical Trials of Medications
Pharmaceutical companies fund the bulk of clinical research that is carried out on medications. Poor outcomes from these studies can have negative effects on sales of medicines. Previous research has shown that company funded research is much more likely to yield positive outcomes than research with any other sponsorship. The aim of this article is to investigate the possible ways in which bias can be introduced into research outcomes by drawing on concrete examples from the published literature. Poorer methodology in industry-funded research is not likely to account for the biases seen. Biases are introduced through a variety of measures including the choice of comparator agents, multiple publication of positive trials and non-publication of negative trials, reinterpreting data submitted to regulatory agencies, discordance between results and conclusions, conflict-of-interest leading to more positive conclusions, ghostwriting and the use of “seeding” trials. Thus far, efforts to contain bias have largely focused on more stringent rules regarding conflict-of-interest (COI) and clinical trial registries. There is no evidence that any measures that have been taken so far have stopped the biasing of clinical research and it’s not clear that they have even slowed down the process. Economic theory predicts that firms will try to bias the evidence base wherever its benefits exceed its costs. The examples given here confirm what theory predicts. What will be needed to curb and ultimately stop the bias that we have seen is a paradigm change in the way that we treat the relationship between pharmaceutical companies and the conduct and reporting of clinical trials.
KeywordsBias Clinical trials Conflict-of-interest Ghostwriting Pharmaceutical industry
- AMSA PharmFree Scorecard 2009. (2009). Executive summary updated. http://amsascorecard.org/executive-summary. Accessed 26 Sept 2010.
- Angell, M. (2004). The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
- Dembner, A. (2002). Report raps drug firms' 'post-approval studies. Boston Globe.Google Scholar
- Djulbegovic, B., Cantor, A., & Clarke, M. (2003). The importance of preservation of the ethical principle of equipoise in the design of clinical trials: Relative impact of the methodological quality domains on the treatment effect in randomized controlled trials. Accountability in Research, 10, 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Finkelstein, S., & Temin, P. (2008). Reasonable Rx: Solving the drug price crisis. Upper Saddle River: FT Press.Google Scholar
- Goozner, M. (2004). Unrevealed: Non-disclosure of conflicts of interest in four medical and scientific journals. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest.Google Scholar
- Heres, S., Davis, J., Maino, K., Jetzinger, E., Kissling, W., & Leucht, S. (2006). Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: An exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Hill, K. P., Ross, J. S., Egilman, D. S., & Krumholz, H. M. (2008). The ADVANTAGE seeding trial: A review of internal documents. Annals of Internal Medicine, 149, 251–258.Google Scholar
- Hulley, S., Grady, D., Bush, T., Furberg, C., Herrington, D., Riggs, B., et al. (1998). Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) Research Group. JAMA, 280, 605–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lewis, T., Reichman, J., & So, A. (2007). The case for public funding and public oversight of clinical trials. Economists’ Voice, 4(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
- Light, D. W. (2006). Basic research funds to discover important new drugs: Who contributes how much? In M. A. Burke & A. de Francisco (Eds.), Monitoring financial flows for health research 2005: Behind the global numbers (pp. 29–43). Geneva: Global Fund for Health Research.Google Scholar
- Montgomery, J. H., Byerly, M., Carmody, T., Li, B., Miller, D. R., Varghese, F., et al. (2004). An analysis of the effect of funding source in randomized clinical trials of second generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia. Controlled Clinical Trials, 25, 598–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Rochon, P. A., Sekeres, M., Lexchin, J., Moher, D., Wu, W., Kalkar, S. R., et al. (2010). Institutional financial conflicts of interest policies at Canadian academic health science centres: A national survey. Open Medicine, 4, E134–E138.Google Scholar