Why Trust Drug Company Executives After One Admits Commercially Sponsored Clinical Research Is All About "Competitive Advantage?"
Mickey, the semi-anonymous blogger on 1BoringOldMan, wrote a righteously angry post in support of transparent clinical research. As we have noted frequently, clinical trials done on human subjects are often manipulated to increase the likelihood of results favorable to commercial sponsors, or suppressed when even such manipulation does not produce the desired results.
Note that such suppression and manipulation degrade the scientific value of the studies, impede the evidence-based medicine process to rationally apply clinical research evidence to improve the health of patients and the public, and violate the trust of research subjects who volunteer to participate based on the assumption that clinical research is meant to improve patient care and public health, and contribute to science, not just secure commercial advantage.
A European initiative to combat suppression of clinical research has been opposed by a lawsuit from US pharmaceutical manufacturers AbbeVie, spun off from Abbott Laboratories, and Intermune. The European Medicines Agency had been willing to to make public unpublished patient level data from commercially sponsored clinical trials. The lawsuit has shut down the process, and is meant to shut it down permanently, claiming that the clinical data, obtained from volunteer research subjects, includes "trade secrets."
As summarized by Mickey, their motivation seems to be to conceal how pharmaceutical manufacturers and other commercial sponsors of human research use this research for promotional, rather than scientific purposes.
An AbbeVie lawyer asserted that some adverse effects data should be kept confidential, and that "internal tactical decisions on how we are going to run a study, engage with regulators, and confront and solve problems and challenges we have uncovered during clinical trials" should also be kept secret because revealing them could "give other companies a tremendous competitive advantage," never mind whether keeping secrets could undermine science, decrease the study's usefulness to aid clinical and policy decision making, and break the implicit contract between researchers and study subjects.
It is becoming more obvious that many drug company executives, and other leaders of large health organizations, may care more about "competitive advantage" than patients, science or the public good, as Mickey points out. So much for that advertising puffery about drug development to improve patient health. Thus it may be ridiculous to think that these executives they will negotiate to improve transparency of clinical research in good faith when doing so could decrease such advantage, again no matter what the effect on patients, public health, or science.
On this case there is an opportunity to speak out, Dr David Healy has a petition up on Change.org to oppose the AbbeVie and Intermune lawsuit which might get some notice if there are enough signatures.
Note that such suppression and manipulation degrade the scientific value of the studies, impede the evidence-based medicine process to rationally apply clinical research evidence to improve the health of patients and the public, and violate the trust of research subjects who volunteer to participate based on the assumption that clinical research is meant to improve patient care and public health, and contribute to science, not just secure commercial advantage.
A European initiative to combat suppression of clinical research has been opposed by a lawsuit from US pharmaceutical manufacturers AbbeVie, spun off from Abbott Laboratories, and Intermune. The European Medicines Agency had been willing to to make public unpublished patient level data from commercially sponsored clinical trials. The lawsuit has shut down the process, and is meant to shut it down permanently, claiming that the clinical data, obtained from volunteer research subjects, includes "trade secrets."
As summarized by Mickey, their motivation seems to be to conceal how pharmaceutical manufacturers and other commercial sponsors of human research use this research for promotional, rather than scientific purposes.
An AbbeVie lawyer asserted that some adverse effects data should be kept confidential, and that "internal tactical decisions on how we are going to run a study, engage with regulators, and confront and solve problems and challenges we have uncovered during clinical trials" should also be kept secret because revealing them could "give other companies a tremendous competitive advantage," never mind whether keeping secrets could undermine science, decrease the study's usefulness to aid clinical and policy decision making, and break the implicit contract between researchers and study subjects.
It is becoming more obvious that many drug company executives, and other leaders of large health organizations, may care more about "competitive advantage" than patients, science or the public good, as Mickey points out. So much for that advertising puffery about drug development to improve patient health. Thus it may be ridiculous to think that these executives they will negotiate to improve transparency of clinical research in good faith when doing so could decrease such advantage, again no matter what the effect on patients, public health, or science.
On this case there is an opportunity to speak out, Dr David Healy has a petition up on Change.org to oppose the AbbeVie and Intermune lawsuit which might get some notice if there are enough signatures.
Why Trust Drug Company Executives After One Admits Commercially Sponsored Clinical Research Is All About "Competitive Advantage?"
![Why Trust Drug Company Executives After One Admits Commercially Sponsored Clinical Research Is All About "Competitive Advantage?"]()
Reviewed by MCH
on
September 12, 2013
Rating:
No comments: