Clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies have gone out of Trust
In recent years, serious medical journals have been providing information about the so-called conflicts of interest of the authors of published works. At the same time, clinicians show considerable skepticism about the objectivity of the results of clinical trials funded by pharmaceutical companies.
Conflict of interest is a situation in which personal interest affects or may affect the objective performance of official duties. Personal interest is understood as the possibility of obtaining income in cash or in kind, material benefits directly for oneself or one's loved ones, as well as for citizens or organizations with which the performer is bound by financial or other obligations.
To study this issue, scientists at the University of Pennsylvania asked 263 certified physicians to analyze several specially compiled summaries of scientific articles describing the results of clinical trials of three hypothetical recently approved drugs, and evaluate their impression of the research, as well as their desire to prescribe the described drugs to patients. All participants claimed that in the month preceding the survey they had read an average of 4 summaries of scientific articles describing the effectiveness of drugs intended for use under the supervision of a doctor.
For each of the three drugs, a summary was written reflecting the results of the most carefully planned study – a randomized, double-blind study involving a large number of patients and a long follow-up period, as well as providing data on the safety of the drug. In addition, summaries were written for the same drugs reflecting the results of hypothetical studies, the thoroughness of planning of which was assessed as moderate or weak. All summaries stated the statistical significance of the data obtained. At the same time , each of them indicated one of the options:
- lack of funding;
- financing provided by the pharmaceutical industry;
- support from the US National Institutes of Health.
When studying the submitted resumes, the participants accurately determined the level of thoroughness of clinical trial planning. They also noted a greater degree of confidence in the adequacy of the results of carefully planned work and, accordingly, a greater desire to prescribe appropriate drugs.
At the same time, regardless of the level of thorough planning, the results of studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry generally aroused less confidence among participants than studies supported by the US National Institutes of Health.
In fact, despite periodically identified scientific and ethical errors in the planning of industry-funded clinical trials, pharmaceutical companies have provided financial support for a large number of studies that have brought extremely important clinical results. The researchers believe that the revealed fact of the negative attitude of doctors to clinical trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry is of great importance.
The authors note that the interest of doctors in the methodological quality of clinical trials is a very good sign, however, excessive skepticism towards research sponsored by pharmaceutical manufacturers may lead to underestimation of their real achievements.
Article by Kesselheim et al. A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures
published in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Evgeniya Ryabtseva
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru27.09.2012