Drug regulators are protecting profits over patients, warn researchers

Medicines regulators are protecting drug company profits rather than the lives and welfare of patients by withholding unpublished trial data, argue researchers in the British Medical Journal today.

They call for full access to full trial reports (published and unpublished) to allow the true benefits and harms of treatments to be independently assessed by the scientific community.

Despite the existence of hundreds of thousands of , are unable to choose the best treatments for their patients because research results are being reported selectively, write Professor Peter Gøtzsche and Dr Anders Jørgensen from the Nordic Cochrane Centre in Denmark.

Selective reporting can have disastrous consequences. For example, Rofecoxib (Vioxx) has probably caused about 100,000 unnecessary heart attacks in the USA alone, while anti-arrhythmic drugs have probably caused the premature death of about 50,000 Americans each year in the 1980s.

This must be remedied, they say, and they describe a three-year struggle to access unpublished trial reports for two anti-obesity drugs, submitted by the manufacturers to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for marketing approval in the European Union.

"The information was important for patients because anti-obesity pills are controversial," say the authors. "People have died from cardiac and pulmonary complications or have experienced psychiatric disturbances, including suicidal events, and most of the drugs have been de-registered for safety reasons."

But the EMA refused access, arguing that this would undermine commercial interests and that there was no overriding public interest in disclosure. They also cited the administrative burden involved and the worthlessness of the data after they had edited them.

The authors appealed to the European ombudsman, who criticised the EMA's refusal to grant access. But only after the ombudsman accused EMA of maladministration, did it agree to widen public access to documents.

"There is something fundamentally wrong with our priorities in healthcare if commercial success depends on withholding data that are important for rational decision making by doctors and ," say Gøtzsche and Jørgensen.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Useful stroke trials left unpublished

Apr 22, 2010

An investigation into unpublished stroke research data has revealed that 19.6% of completed clinical trials, which could potentially influence patient care, are not published in full. Researchers writing in BioMed Central's ...

New strategies to tackle medical ghostwriting are debated

Feb 03, 2009

Better strategies to tackle ghostwriting in the medical literature are the subject of a debate by leading authors in next week's issue of the open-access journal PLoS Medicine. Ghostwriting is scientific misconduct, argues ...

Recommended for you

Have a cold? Don't ask your doctor for antibiotics

Nov 26, 2014

Antibiotic resistance is a major threat to public health. Resistance makes it harder for physicians to treat infections and can increase the chance patients will die from an infection. What is more, the treatment ...

Powdered measles vaccine found safe in early clinical trials

Nov 25, 2014

A measles vaccine made of fine dry powder and delivered with a puff of air triggered no adverse side effects in early human testing and it is likely effective, according to a paper to be published November 28 in the journal ...

User comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

NANOBRAIN
not rated yet May 17, 2011
WE WILL SEE ALLOT MORE OF THIS DOWN THE ROAD.MANKIND WILL SEE BIG PROBLEMS BECAUSE OF HIS GREEDYNESS.THERE IS TWO SIDES TO EVERY COIN!

NANOBRAIN

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.