Tuesday, October 28, 2008

MeReC on seeding trials

Evidence suggests that some clinical trials may have more to do with marketing than answering important research questions. The ethics of conducting these so-called ‘seeding trials’ is questionable.

What is a ‘seeding trial’?

It has been suggested that seeding trials are designed to appear as if they address important research questions, but in fact are motivated by marketing objectives. By ensuring that a large number of prescribers become familiar with a new drug, the sponsoring manufacturer hopes that their prescribing habits will change.

What does this paper say?

A recent paper proposes that such practices truly occur. The authors reviewed Merck & Co’s internal and external communications as (paid) consultants for plaintiffs in actions against Merck over the adverse cardiovascular effects of Vioxx® (rofecoxib). They conclude that the ADVANTAGE trial was a seeding trial, designed by the company’s marketing division to fulfil a marketing objective. They also say that Merck hid the marketing nature of the trial from participants, physician investigators and institutional review board members (the equivalent of research ethics committees in the UK).

What was the response to this?

In a Rapid Response to this paper, an Executive Director of Merck Research Laboratories denied what he called the "numerous inaccuracies” in it and stated that the evaluation by the marketing division of the “commercial possibilities” of ADVANTAGE “does not change the fact that the primary intent of the study was to answer scientific questions of importance to primary care physicians”.

What does this mean for us?

It is not possible to say how widely seeding trials are used, and many studies probably arise from a mix of motives. Nevertheless, conducting a trial primarily for marketing purposes rather than to address an important scientific question (thereby exposing patients to risk) is in conflict with the Declaration of Helsinki. It is also unethical not to declare the true motive for the trial to potential participants, researchers and research ethics committees.

The article, accompanying editorial and references cited by the authors suggest possible indicators of a seeding trial, the presence of which should perhaps raise the question of the true motives behind the study.

See the MeReC Rapid Review blog for further information.

References
Hill KP, et al. The ADVANTAGE seeding trial: a review of internal documents. Ann Intern Med 2008;149:251–8

Source

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The Human Injury of Lost Objectivity

I were to rate the corruptive tactics performed by big pharmaceutical companies, the intentional corruption of implementing fabricated and unreliable results of clinical trials would be at the top of the list. Pharmaceutical companies manipulate the trials they sponsor because of their power to control others involved in the process largely absent of regulation. This is a matter of requiring authenticity and, more importantly, assuring the safety of the public health.

Decades ago, clinical trials were If conducted in academic settings that focused on the acquisition of knowledge and the completely objective discovery of novel medicine. Then, in 1980, the Bayh-Dole Act was created, which allowed for such places to profit off of their discoveries that were performed for pharmaceutical companies in the past. This resulted in the creation of for-profit sites, called Contract Research Organizations (CROs), which are composed of community research sites with questionable investigators void of necessary experience or quality regarding their research purpose and ability. Since they are for-profit, the trials conducted at CROs are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies that control and manipulate all aspects of the trial. This coercion is done by various methods of deception in subtle and tacit methods. As a result, research in this manner has been transformed into a method of marketing, which includes altered results of the trial to favor the sponsor’s medication. Their activities are absent of true or applied regulation, and therefore have the autonomy to create whatever they want to benefit the collusive relationship between the site and the sponsor.

Further disturbing is that once the trials are completed, the medical articles are then written by ghostwriters, who are not identified and acknowledged by the sponsor, and are not trained in clinical research overall, as they are simply freelance writers. How often ghostwriters are utilized by pharmaceutical companies remains a mystery. This activity removes accountability and authenticity of the fabricated clinical trial even further. The corruptive act is finally completed by the sponsor hiring an author to be placed on the trial that likely had no involvement with the trial, and, along with others, was paid by the sponsor. To have the trial published, the sponsor pays a journal, along with the promise of purchasing thousands of reprints of the study from the journal.

Again, how often this process is performed is unknown, yet frequent enough to create hundreds of such false writers and research sites to support the industry. So benefits of medicine studied in such a malicious way can potentially harm patients and their treatment options. The purchased reprints are distributed to the sponsor’s sales force to share the content with prescribers — your doctor.

Such misconduct impedes research and the scientific method with frightening ethical and harmful concerns. Our health care treatment with medications is now undetermined in large part in such situations, as well as the objectivity that has been intentionally eliminated regarding the trust in the scientific method in this type of activity illustrated in this article. More now than ever, meds that are removed from the market are given black box warnings. Now I understand why this is occurring.
The pharmaceutical industry needs transparency and disclosure in order to correct what we have historically relied upon for conclusive proof — the scientific method. More importantly, research should not be conducted in a manner that the sponsor can interfere in the ways I described in this article. We should call for independent sites with absolutely no involvement with the drug maker. And clearly, regulation has to be enforced not selectively, but in a complete fashion. Public awareness would be a catalyst for this to occur, after initially experiencing a state of total disbelief that such operations actually are conducted by such people, of course. We can no longer be dependent on others for our optimal health. Knowledge is power, and is also possibly a lifesaver.

Ethics and Science need to shake hands.
– Richard Cabot

Dan Abshear (published on www.brainblogger.com