5 Questions: Ioannidis on the need to test medical 'truths'

(Medical Xpress) -- How many established standards of medical care are wrong? Disturbingly, no one knows for sure, but one study suggests that it could be almost half, according to a commentary published in the Jan. 4 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association. In many instances, physicians are prescribing treatments or therapies for which there is little or no evidence to support their use. And when evidence emerges that the harms posed by an established treatment may outweigh its benefits for certain patients, some physicians are reluctant to change the way they’ve practiced medicine during their careers.

John Ioannidis, MD, director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center and senior author of the JAMA commentary, believes it’s high time that do a reality check to determine which treatments have solid evidence behind them, and to “abandon ship” on those that don’t. This effort can be boosted, he said, by strengthening the standards for approving drugs and devices, working harder to remove bias from clinical trial design and limiting the role of the industry in funding clinical research. Ioannidis spoke with writer Susan Ipaktchian about the need to test established medical “truths.”

Q: Your commentary cites an alarming evaluation of 35 trials published in 2009 testing established clinical practices, which found a little less than half of those practices didn’t provide the stated benefit. What are the key reasons that so many of these practices don’t work?

Ioannidis: I think that many of these practices were adopted long ago based on thin or no evidence, and with high hopes rather than real data, and then they became entrenched in the system. In other cases, it is possible that these treatments worked when they were first adopted, but are no longer useful because of changes in the overall management of the disease, availability of other treatments and/or changes in the profile of patients being treated.

Q: Why are physicians unwilling to change their clinical practices when a new study shows that a specific treatment isn’t effective?

Ioannidis: I think this is because they are used to it, it forms an integral part of their practice: This is what they have learned to do, what they get paid to do and what they built their practice with. Sometimes the changes require physicians to redefine what they practice. One can’t change jobs easily.

Q: What can be done to motivate doctors to “abandon ship” on treatments that aren’t supported by strong evidence of effectiveness?

Ioannidis: It takes re-training and exposure to solid evidence against countering messages and advertising that try to maintain the status quo. Eliminating insurance reimbursement for these interventions would also make a difference. Similarly, regulatory agencies could help by revoking the licensing of these interventions when evidence shows that they are ineffective for specific indications

Q: Should patients be less trusting of the treatments suggested by their doctors?

Ioannidis: I would not wish the patient-physician relationship to be eroded; trust is essential. Trust is likely to be strengthened when patients are more knowledgeable, when they question their physicians about the evidence pertaining to their condition and when physicians give them the full, unbiased picture about this evidence.

Q: You mention that allowing companies to design clinical trials of their therapies and devices is like asking a painter to judge his or her own work for an award. Do you think the role of pharmaceutical and device companies in clinical trials should be limited?

Ioannidis: Pharmaceutical and device companies should be free to do early, high-risk R&D research, rather than be forced to cheat the system by designing in ways that will get the answer they want.

In the translational research framework, it is weird that T0 and T1 research (discovery) is funded by the public through governmental agencies, even though this research cannot directly and immediately harm or benefit people, while T2 and T3 research (clinical evaluation and implementation) is funded and controlled primarily by the industry. The public should control primarily the design and conduct of T2 and T3 research which has direct, major, immediate consequences for people’s health. The industry can contribute some funding toward a public-controlled pool for conducting impartial, randomized trials and can then shift their attention to basic discovery and innovation.

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

New guidelines issued for reporting of genetic risk research

Mar 28, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Apples to Apples is more than just a popular card game. It’s an important concept when comparing the results of published scientific studies. It’s impossible to draw accurate conclusions, for example, ...

Acute Stroke Therapy at Crossroads, Researchers Write

Nov 09, 2011

(Medical Xpress) -- Acute stroke therapy is at a crossroads, a University of Cincinnati (UC) researcher writes in a national medical journal, with clinical practice increasingly using approaches that have not been proven ...

Recommended for you

Ebola scare boosts business for US company

16 hours ago

The Ebola scare has subsided in the United States, at least temporarily, but an Alabama manufacturer is still trying to catch up with a glut of orders for gear to protect against the disease.

Thai parliament votes to ban commercial surrogacy (Update)

Nov 28, 2014

Thailand's parliament has voted to ban commercial surrogacy after outrage erupted over the unregulated industry following a series scandals including the case of an Australian couple accused of abandoning a baby with Down's ...

Doctor behind 'free radical' aging theory dies

Nov 25, 2014

Dr. Denham Harman, a renowned scientist who developed the most widely accepted theory on aging that's now used to study cancer, Alzheimer's disease and other illnesses, has died in Nebraska at age 98.

Mexican boy who had massive tumor recovering

Nov 25, 2014

An 11-year-old Mexican boy who had pieces of a massive tumor removed and who drew international attention after U.S. officials helped him get treatment in the southwestern U.S. state of New Mexico is still recovering after ...

User comments

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.