Saturday, February 27, 2016
Rival editors raise questions about drug trial research funded and often controlled by manufacturers - Inside Higher Ed
Editors at leading medical journals have co-produced research claiming that rivals have been publishing drug trials that may be little more than marketing by pharmaceutical firms.
The editor in chief of the British Medical Journal and a former editor of PLOS Medicine are co-authors of a new paper that argues that a substantial minority of papers in The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine are suspected "marketing trials" designed to promote a new drug.
Six members of the study team looked at 194 drug trials published in five medical journals in 2011 and independently assessed whether they thought they might have been designed for marketing purposes. Where four or more agreed, the trial was categorized as suspected marketing.
More than a fifth of the trials (41 in total) were assessed as suspected marketing, and all but two of these came from The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine.
At the former, almost a third of trials were thought to be marketing, and 23 percent at the latter. A further 7 percent of all trials were considered possible, but not definite, marketing.
All the suspected marketing studies were funded by the drug manufacturer, the analysis found. In the vast majority of cases the company was involved in the study design and the reporting of results, and in the majority of cases also had control over data analysis.
In addition, the suspected marketing studies tested drugs on patients from an average of 171 different geographical areas, compared with 13 for the trials deemed not to be marketing, according to "Characterization of trials where marketing purposes have been influential in study design: a descriptive study," published in BioMed Central.
Fiona Godlee, editor in chief of the BMJ and co-author of the paper, said that this might be because manufacturers wanted to expose as many doctors to their drugs as possible, in the hope that they would continue prescribing them even after the trial ended.
More ...
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/18/rival-editors-raise-questions-about-drug-trial-research-funded-and-often-controlled?
The editor in chief of the British Medical Journal and a former editor of PLOS Medicine are co-authors of a new paper that argues that a substantial minority of papers in The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine are suspected "marketing trials" designed to promote a new drug.
Six members of the study team looked at 194 drug trials published in five medical journals in 2011 and independently assessed whether they thought they might have been designed for marketing purposes. Where four or more agreed, the trial was categorized as suspected marketing.
More than a fifth of the trials (41 in total) were assessed as suspected marketing, and all but two of these came from The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine.
At the former, almost a third of trials were thought to be marketing, and 23 percent at the latter. A further 7 percent of all trials were considered possible, but not definite, marketing.
All the suspected marketing studies were funded by the drug manufacturer, the analysis found. In the vast majority of cases the company was involved in the study design and the reporting of results, and in the majority of cases also had control over data analysis.
In addition, the suspected marketing studies tested drugs on patients from an average of 171 different geographical areas, compared with 13 for the trials deemed not to be marketing, according to "Characterization of trials where marketing purposes have been influential in study design: a descriptive study," published in BioMed Central.
Fiona Godlee, editor in chief of the BMJ and co-author of the paper, said that this might be because manufacturers wanted to expose as many doctors to their drugs as possible, in the hope that they would continue prescribing them even after the trial ended.
More ...
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/02/18/rival-editors-raise-questions-about-drug-trial-research-funded-and-often-controlled?
Thursday, February 25, 2016
NYTimes: For Mark Willenbring, Substance Abuse Treatment Begins With Research
On the rainy fall morning of their first appointment, Dr. Mark Willenbring, a psychiatrist, welcomed a young web designer into his spacious office with a firm handshake and motioned for him to sit. The slender 29-year-old patient, dressed in a plaid shirt, jeans and a baseball cap, slouched into his chair and began pouring out a story of woe stretching back a dozen years.
Addicted to heroin, he had tried more than 20 traditional faith- and abstinence-based rehabilitation programs. In 2009, a brother died of an OxyContin overdose. Last summer, he attempted suicide by swallowing a fistful of Xanax. When he woke up to find he was still alive, he overdosed on heroin.
More ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/science/mark-willenbring-addiction-substance-abuse-treatment.html?
Addicted to heroin, he had tried more than 20 traditional faith- and abstinence-based rehabilitation programs. In 2009, a brother died of an OxyContin overdose. Last summer, he attempted suicide by swallowing a fistful of Xanax. When he woke up to find he was still alive, he overdosed on heroin.
More ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/science/mark-willenbring-addiction-substance-abuse-treatment.html?
Tuesday, February 23, 2016
NYTimes: Scientists Ponder the Prospect of Contagious Cancer
For all its peculiar horror, cancer comes with a saving grace. If nothing else can stop a tumor's mad evolution, the cancer ultimately dies with its host. Everything the malignant cells have learned about outwitting the patient's defenses — and those of the oncologists — is erased. The next case of cancer, in another victim, must start anew.
Imagine if instead, cancer cells had the ability to press on to another body. A cancer like that would have the power to metastasize not just from organ to organ, but from person to person, evolving deadly new skills along the way.
More ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/science/scientists-ponder-the-prospect-of-contagious-cancer.html?
Imagine if instead, cancer cells had the ability to press on to another body. A cancer like that would have the power to metastasize not just from organ to organ, but from person to person, evolving deadly new skills along the way.
More ...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/23/science/scientists-ponder-the-prospect-of-contagious-cancer.html?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)