Study Distorted results by pharmaceutical industry

Investigation: Industry-funded studies cause distorted results

12/12/2012

The pharmaceutical industry is constantly developing new drugs, diagnostic methods and therapies. To guarantee sales, the drug must also deliver what it promises. There are clear rules that determine whether or not funds are allowed by government agencies. One of these is scientific proof and medical benefits. To provide this evidence, evidence-based studies must be submitted. These are in turn largely funded by the pharmaceutical companies themselves. A scientific analysis of the "Cochrance Collaboration" now showed that the industrial funding of the studies leads to a visible distortion of the study results. Because the results of these studies are much more positive than non-funded research.

Almost every week new clinical studies are published. The majority of the studies are about confirming certain drugs in their modes of action. The studies are very important. The results determine which medications doctors prescribe, which funds are funded by the health insurances, and whether any medicine on the drug market is approved by the regulatory authorities. Last but not least, patients must also be able to rely on the effectiveness of the administered therapy. It is assumed that the studies are carried out according to strict scientific guidelines by research teams and that the results are published objectively without previous specifications by the clients. However, as a Cochrane Collaboration research team has determined, a number of studies seem downright unbelievable, as it stands out in direct comparison that funded industry studies are much better off than other non-funded ones. This raises numerous questions about the actual benefits.

Conclusions and results are presented more positively in comparison
The study found that studies on medicines and other medical products funded by the pharmaceutical industry or medical device manufacturers give a much more positive picture than other university studies without the influence of pharmaceutical companies. "It also struck that, moreover, the conclusions were less in line with the actual findings," the nonprofit researchers wrote in the science magazine "Cochrane Library.".

Study sponsorship by pharmaceutical companies
Clinical research is increasingly sponsored by companies. Either the student papers are funded wholly or partially by the corporations. In many cases, the studies are carried out by the manufacturer or an external institute is commissioned with the research work. This often leads companies to present their products in a better light by, for example, withholding negative reports and publishing only supposedly positive results in specialist magazines. That is a frequently applied reality. "This has been shown in several studies on drugs of the Cochrane Collaboration," the scientists emphasize. Now, the organization's independent scientists have also been able to demonstrate this effect for medical products and medicines.

"The primary goal of the review was to find out if the published results and the overall conclusions of the industry-sponsored drugs and devices favored the sponsors' perspective." The experts compared the sources of the corporations and the findings of other studies on the same topics. "The second goal was to find out if the methods of such industry-funded studies increase the risk of statistical bias." Again, the different sources were compared. "We have published a comprehensive search in all relevant documents before September 2010. These contain 48 technical reports, "the researchers write in their freely available report.

48 drugs and medical products compared
For the analysis, the scientists and physicians around the study director Andreas Lundh from the Cochrane Center in Copenhagen examined 48 medical devices and medicines. These included, for example, heart remedies or remedies for the relief of psychotic illnesses. All medical devices showed that the studies financed by the manufacturers reported "fewer side effects and more positive effects" than other pharmaceutical industry-independent research. In addition, the findings and subsequent published results of pharmaceutical industry-funded studies were less consistent. "Our findings suggest that industry-sponsored drug or medical device trials are more likely to favor the sponsor's products than non-industry funded trials," Lundh said. The findings would clearly show that the demands for better access to science outcomes, methodologies and raw data are of high value. However, this is so far completely or partially blocked by the pharmaceutical companies.

Government policies do not pay attention to industry sponsorship
"The medical guidelines and assessments do not always take into account the potential influence of the industry," the authors criticize. One solution could be to note that funding for the studies is included in the original publications. This must also be considered for later reports. "If we agree that industrial finance is an important factor in bias, then we need to think about new methods," warns senior author Lisa Bero of the University of California at San Francisco. "How do we report on the distortion of the industry, how do we assess it and how do we deal with it when we evaluate the effect of medicines and aids?" This question is all the more important after the results.

The non-profit organization is fundamentally not critical of conventional medicine. Rather, the researcher's initiative bears the name of the English epidemiological researcher Sir Achibald Leman Cochrane, who is considered one of the founders of evidence-based medicine. The work of the Cochrane Collaboration is considered to be very detailed and highly recognized in the researcher world. The scientists are committed to researching the benefits and potential harms of therapies and drugs independently. In the meantime, they are working on 13 research institutions around the world, evaluating different study projects and results. The most important goal is to create a picture that is as objective as possible without distorting medical questions. External influence by pharmaceutical companies is strictly rejected. (Sb)

Also read:
Pharmaceutical industry against medication catalog
The honored studies of the pharmaceutical industry
WHO scandal: Paid swine flu panic?

Picture: clearlens-images