JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives


EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Archives


EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Home

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH Home

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH  March 2006

EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH March 2006

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: pharmaceutical research sponsorship

From:

Dan Mayer <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Dan Mayer <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 16 Mar 2006 11:24:46 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (98 lines)

Disease Specific Survival vs. All Cause Mortality



The outcome for studies that look at mortality should be all cause mortality rather than disease specific or recurrence free mortality.  This is most often done wrongly in studies of treatments for cancer.  This allows bias to occur because death due to causes other than the disease being sought may still be related to that disease.  A recent study of Nesiritide, a natiuretic peptid, for the treatment of heart failure is an excellent example.  It concluded that cardiovascular mortality was the same in the treatment and control groups because the difference (increased mortality in the treated group) was small and didn't reach statistical significance.  (This of course goes against the aphorism; "failure to find an effect is not the same a lack of an effect".)  However, several of the patients that died of "non cardiovascular deaths" were not reported and could have died of a heart problem leading to another problem.  One subject who died of carbon monoxide poisoning may have had an arrhythmia while in her car and died when she sat there for hours without turning off the engine.  Another died in an automobile accident that may have occurred because they blacked out leading.



This leads to some comments on the interchange about "Big Pharma".  I think that there are two big issues to keep in mind.  "Big Pharma's" primary responsibility is to its shareholders.  The issues mentioned by Phil Hall all relate to the fiduciary responsibility that "Big Pharma" has to its shareholders.  Therefore, we should not be surprised that "Big Pharma" does not want studies that might show their drug is no better than current drugs on the market (i.e. "Me too drugs") and they don't want to do studies comparing their drugs to dirt cheap interventions (like generic drugs off patent).  However, the health care system has its primary obligation to its customers/clients/patients.  [At least the last time I looked I thought that we were still beholding to these people, but I might be wrong since the Bush administration market approach to medicine seems to be making us more responsible to shareholders.  Please forgive the diversion but I hope that you understand my point.]



Therefore, it seems that the pharmaceutical companies must be made responsible for supporting the social agenda of medicine, which physicians have allegedly or supposedly been doing all their careers.  This means that regulations must require "Big Pharma" to do either contribute 'blindly' to the dollars funding research or do the right type of studies themselves.  Without this we are pretty much at the mercy of poor science and the evidence obtained from tainted studies will always be of inferior quality.  It is up to the government (through the will of the people?) to regulate "Big Pharma" and the research agenda.  However, it is up to the individual clinician/health care worker to understand when she should and should not be using particular drugs because of their alleged benefit based on various types of "rigged studies."  It is only by having a solid foundation in EBM that physicians will be able to recognize when this happens and that's what we are all about.



Best wishes,



Dan



(Disclosure: The writer of this email is a dues paying member of "No Free Lunch", a non-profit organization that attempts to educate physicians on the dangers of too close associations with the pharmaceutical companies.   He receives no remuneration from this.)





****************************************************************************

Dan Mayer, MD

Professor of Emergency Medicine

Albany Medical College

47 New Scotland Ave.

Albany, NY,  12208

Ph; 518-262-6180

FAX; 518-262-5029

E-mail; [log in to unmask]

****************************************************************************



>>> Philip Hall <[log in to unmask]> 3/9/2006 11:27 AM >>>

This interchange and its "Big Pharma" riff suggests other variations on the original theme of "Best of..."



One is that perhaps we should all remember Voltaire's "The best is the enemy of the good." (Le meilleur est l'ennemi du bon.)



Another - Whatever the percent of research and publication that has no pharmaceutical backing, there are diverse reasons. One may be the most obvious, that the issue has little or nothing to do with Rx treatment. Alternatively, the pharmaceutical agent concerned may be so inexpensive to make that little to no profit is projected, or even cost recovery of research investment. It has been suggested that one reason that peri-conception folic acid prophylaxis against neural tube defects  has been so slow to penetrate public knowledge and behaviour is that no pharmaceutical company can afford to invest in its advertising as the stuff is so cheap to produce. In contrast, just about every pregnant woman in the northern hemisphere has been convinced that they need "prenatal vitamins", regardless of diet and personal circumstances, and their care providers probably believe so as well. But the evidence suggests that all that results in for most of them is expensive urine. Why the difference? Profit and marketing. 



At least in Canada, regular strength "ASA" can be bought cheaper than borscht. Not so for "mini" strength though, now widely marketed for prophylaxis in middle aged types such as myself for fatal MI prophylaxis. 81 mg, even in bulk, costs much more than 325 mg and cleverly, nobody is producting the latter in tabs that can be broken into quarters. Why the difference? Profit and marketing. 



In counterpoint, there are consistent undertones in this string and elsewhere that pharmaceutical companies are intrinsically evil. Consider what John le Carré did with this theme in The Constant Gardener, ramped up in the Hollywood-ized version, Oscars and al. I am not sufficiently naive to suggest that for profit motivation whether in drug production or anywhere else does not corrupt motives and practices. Vigilance, including self-vigilance, by all means. But season it with reason. Not all pharmaceutical companies, even the big ones, have plants located on the moral outskirts of Bhopal.



Phil. Hall

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada 

(Manitoba partially funded, and Winnipeg had two brief scenes in Constant Gardener, and  Capote was filmed completely here, for readers' unlikely interest)

(and Brokeback Mountain was filmed in Alberta)

 

>>> Paul Glasziou <[log in to unmask]> 3/9/2006 12:56 AM >>>

Dear Martin,

Good question. The pharmaceutical companies do 

invest *much* more in research than government 

and not-for-profit groups (in the UK this is 

about 5:1). However, often the research is me-to 

or marketing research that doesn't answer our 

clinical questions. So the research relevant to 

clinicians may be better balanced. I can't tell 

you how many of the 20,000 new randomised trials 

published each year are non-pharmaceutical 

interventions, but in a review of things we 

picked for the EBM journal we found about a 50:50 

split over 3 years. The split we found is similar 

to the split you can find in Figure 3 of a recent 

UK analysis of non-commercial trials:

Chalmers I, Rounding C, Lock K. Descriptive 

survey of non-commercial randomised controlled 

trials in the United Kingdom, 1980-2002. BMJ. 2003 Nov 1;327(7422):1017.

Cheers

Paul Glasziou







Philip F. Hall, MD BScMed FRCSC

Professor, Faculty of Medicine, University of Manitoba

Director, Fetal Assessment, Manitoba Obstetric Outreach and Maternal-Fetal Medicine Programs

President of Medical Staff

St.Boniface General Hospital, 409 Tache Avenue D2044

Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada R2H 2A6

ph 204-237-2547 FAX 204-233-1751

(Past Chair, Obs & Gyn Specialty Committee,

Royal College of Physicians & Surgeons of Canada)



<www.umanitoba.ca/womens_health>







__________________________________________________

This email and/or any documents in this transmission is intended for the address(s) only and may contain legally privileged or confidential information.  Any unauthorized use, disclosure, distribution, copying or dissemination is strictly prohibited.  If you receive this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and return the original.



Ce courriel et tout document dans cette transmission est destiné à la personne ou aux personnes à qui il est adressé. Il peut contenir des informations privilégiées ou confidentielles. Toute utilisation, divulgation, distribution, copie, ou diffusion non autorisée est strictement défendue. Si vous n'êtes pas le destinataire de ce message, veuillez en informer l'expéditeur immédiatement et lui remettre l'original. 



-----------------------------------------

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This email and any attachments may contain

confidential information that is protected by law and is for the

sole use of the individuals or entities to which it is addressed.

If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender by

replying to this email and destroying all copies of the

communication and attachments. Further use, disclosure, copying,

distribution of, or reliance upon the contents of this email and

attachments is strictly prohibited. To contact Albany Medical

Center, or for a copy of our privacy practices, please visit us on

the Internet at www.amc.edu.


Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
January 2000
December 1999
November 1999
October 1999
September 1999
August 1999
July 1999
June 1999
May 1999
April 1999
March 1999
February 1999
January 1999
December 1998
November 1998
October 1998
September 1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager