PHA-Exchange> Drug makers deceive

[Claudio]

From: "Maija Kagis" <maija.kagis at sympatico.ca>
> Drug makers deceive doctors
>
> Pay "authors" of major studies for use of their name, credibility; ask
minimal participation in research or writing.
>
> By Gordon Guyatt
>
> Peter (not his real name) is a physician-scientist who, a couple of years
> ago, was finishing his research training in Canada. Shortly before
returning
> to his native Australia, Peter received an interesting offer.
>
> A pharmaceutical company was ready to pay Peter several thousand dollars
to
> write an opinion piece for a prominent medical journal. Peter is smart,
and
> a good writer. Producing the article would be a cinch. Attractive
> proposition, no?
>
> Well, a couple of catches. First, Peter would have to follow the company's
> direction about what to say. Second, when the article was published,
Peter's
> name would not appear.
>
> Rather, a respected senior researcher who has conducted many studies
funded
> by the pharmaceutical industry would get the credit.
>
> Peter refused the offer. The company probably succeeded in finding a
> different, willing ghost-writer.
>
> Like all unethical practices, it is difficult to establish the size of the
> medical ghost-writing problem. Senior authors will never threaten their
> prestige by admitting someone else wrote their article. Professional
> ghostwriters won't embarrass their clients. People like Peter won't
> embarrass their colleagues.
>
> Ghost writing is a big enough business, though, to sustain companies
focused
> on medical writing. Medical editors recognize ghostwriting as a widespread
> practice and have tried to tighten up their rules. Still, there is no
> protection against misleading or dishonest representations, and
authorities
> suggest that up to 50% of articles reporting results of pharmaceutical
> trials are ghostwritten.
>
> Lead authors of major drug studies may not only have done little of the
> writing, but their participation in the research itself may have been
> minimal. Company personnel may have developed the research plan,
supervised
> the collection of the data, conducted the analyses, and written the first
> draft of the article.
>
> The companies then go to prominent researchers, and ask: "Would you like
to
> be an author, or even the leading author, on the article?"
>
> The higher the profile of the author, the better for the company. The
> author's prestige helps to establish the credibility of the study, and
> contributes to the attention that the article receives.
>
> While these extreme situations are not the most common way drug studies
are
> reported, they merge into a grey area that is very common. Academic
> researchers may participate in planning the study and carrying it out, but
> they may never see the actual data. The company conducts the analysis, and
> presents the academic authors with tables that summarize the results.
>
> Biased presentations affect not only how individual doctors understand
> research results, but how experts who create guidelines understand the
> results. Worse yet, the industry exerts direct influence on those experts.
>
> Drugs that are recently developed and released are far more expensive.
About
> 25% of the time, these new drugs turn out to have serious side effects
that
> are not suspected at the time they were released. On occasion, these side
> effects are fatal.
>
> Doctors expect objectivity in the research reports and expert
> recommendations that guide their practice. Too often, the drug industry
> ensures that bias, rather than objectivity, is what doctors receive.
>
> Gordon Guyatt MD, FRCPC, lives in Dundas, Ontario. He is an academic
> physician at McMaster University's Department of Clinical Epidemiology and
> Biostatistics and Department of Medicine.