Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ColtonGang who wrote (167847)	8/5/2001 8:48:34 PM
From: ColtonGang	Respond to of 769667

To be applauded.....Medical journals take a stand Plan to counter drug companies’ influence on studies By Susan Okie THE WASHINGTON POST Aug. 5 — Editors at the world’s most prominent medical journals, alarmed that drug companies are exercising too much control over research results, have agreed to adopt a uniform policy that reserves the right to refuse to publish drug company-sponsored studies unless the researchers involved are guaranteed scientific independence. THE NEW ENGLAND Journal of Medicine, the Lancet, the Annals of Internal Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) are among the journals that have agreed to publish a joint editorial in mid-September outlining the new policy, which was drafted by a committee of editors over the last several months. The unprecedented move could have a significant impact on how medical research is conducted and reported by giving researchers more leverage in their dealings with the pharmaceutical industry. Companies are eager to publish studies in these prestigious journals because doctors view them as credible sources of information to help them decide which drugs to prescribe to patients. Editors said the new policy is a response to companies’ increasingly tight hold over how research is done — and, in many cases, over whether and how the results are made public. In recent years, drug companies have become the dominant funder of biomedical research, especially of large studies of medicines’ safety and effectiveness. The authors who receive top billing on drug studies published in respected, peer-reviewed journals are usually medical school professors who are experts in their fields, but much of the research is paid for, and in large measure carried out, by companies with an enormous financial stake in the outcome. Company employees usually collect and analyze the data, and they often decide how it should be presented and write the reports. CONCERNS OVER RESULTS The journal editors decided to act after several recent cases involving charges that drug companies tried to withhold research results or present them in the most favorable way, several said during interviews last week. “It’s become a huge problem,” said Frank Davidoff, who as editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine was among those who decided to take a stand on the issue at an international meeting of medical journal editors in May in Philadelphia. Catherine D. DeAngelis, the editor of JAMA, said her journal already has a policy of demanding that study authors vouch for the integrity of their data. “The goal would be that all of the major journals would adopt similar . . . principles,” she said. Jeffrey M. Drazen, editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, confirmed that the editorial is to be published in mid-September but declined to discuss its content other than to say “it’s an important issue.” The decision was praised by several observers of biomedical studies who have become alarmed about the influence of the drug industry on the integrity of medical research. In large, company-sponsored drug trials involving multiple hospitals, all of the information collected is typically held by the company, said Marcia Angell, former editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. “Not even the principal author sees all the data,” she said. As editor of the journal, Angell recalled, she sometimes received manuscripts from company-sponsored studies that had the “methods” section — the explanation of how the study was carried out — left blank. “They’d say, ‘This is proprietary,’ ” she said. Surveys of the medical literature have shown that studies paid for by drug companies are more likely than those with other sponsors to show results favorable to the product tested, said Lisa Bero, a professor of clinical pharmacy and health policy at the University of California at San Francisco. Many medical schools include clauses in grant agreements with companies stating that researchers will be free to publish even if the results are negative. “But even if you have one of those, you can still get hassled, still get pressure put on you for fear that you won’t get any future funding,” Bero said.