The finding is likely to inflame a continuing debate about how drug trial data
is reported. In 2004, after revelations that negative findings from
antidepressant trials had not been published, a group of leading medical
journals agreed to stop publishing clinical trials that were not registered in a
public database. Trade groups representing the world’s largest drug makers
announced that members’ companies would begin to release more data from trials
more quickly, on their own database, clinicalstudyresults.org.
And last year, Congress passed legislation that expanded the type of trials and
the depth of information that must be submitted to clinicaltrials.gov, a public
database operated by the National Library of Medicine. The Food and Drug
Administration’s Web site provides limited access to recent reviews of drug
trials, but critics say it is very hard to navigate.
“This is a very important study for two reasons,” said Dr. Jeffrey M. Drazen,
editor-in-cheif of The New England Journal. “One is that when you prescribe
drugs, you want to make sure you’re working with best data possible; you
wouldn’t buy a stock if you only knew a third of the truth about it.”
Second, he continued, “we need to show respect for the people who enter a
trial.”
“They take some risk to be in the trial and then the drug company hides the
data?” he asked. “That kind of thing gets us pretty passionate about this
issue.”
Note:
Read the rest here.
Filthy Rich Drug Exec #1: "Damn these pills have some nasty side effects. I'm soooo depressed about reporting these negative results ... so guys, what to do, what to do?"
Filthy Rich Drug Exec #2: "I know let's take some of those pills!"
<pop> <swallow> <pop> <swallow>
Filthy Rich Drug Exec's in unison: "Whoo Wooo! These anti-depressants are GRRRREAT!"