|
List Info
Thread: Comparison of Schizophrenia Drugs Often Favors Firm Funding Study (Surprise, Surprise)
|
|
| Comparison of Schizophrenia Drugs Often
Favors Firm Funding Study (Surprise,
Surprise) |
|
2006-04-12 17:07:01 |
|
Comparison of Schizophrenia Drugs Often Favors Firm Funding Study
By Shankar Vedantam
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 12, 2006; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/11/AR2006041101478.html?referrer=email
Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly and Co. recently funded five studies that
compared its antipsychotic drug Zyprexa with Risperdal, a competing drug
made by Janssen. All five showed Zyprexa was superior in treating
schizophrenia.
But when Janssen sponsored its own studies comparing the two drugs,
Risperdal came out ahead in three out of four.
Comparing Drug Studies
Industry-sponsored head-to-head comparison studies of antipsychotic
medicines generally favor the sponsors drug over the comparison drug.
In fact, when psychiatrist John Davis analyzed every publicly available
trial funded by the pharmaceutical industry pitting five new antipsychotic
drugs against one another, nine in 10 showed that the best drug was the one
made by the company funding the study.
"On the basis of these contrasting findings in head-to-head trials, it
appears that whichever company sponsors the trial produces the better
antipsychotic drug,"; Davis and others wrote in the American Journal of
Psychiatry.
Such studies make up the bulk of the evidence that American doctors rely on
to prescribe $10 billion worth of antipsychotic medications each year. Davis
pointed out the potential biases in design and interpretation that produced
such contradictory results. Other experts note that industry studies
invariably seek to boost the image of expensive drugs that are still under
patent. Moreover, they say, the trials are relatively brief and test drugs
on patients with simpler problems than doctors typically encounter in daily
practice.
By contrast, when the federal government recently compared a broader range
of drugs in typical schizophrenia patients in a lengthy trial, two
medications that stood out were cheaper drugs not under patent. The
medication that worked best for patients with severe, intractable
schizophrenia was clozapine, whose sales lag well behind every other drug in
its class. And an earlier leg of the study found that the largely unused
drug perphenazine had about the same risks and benefits as far more
expensive competitors that are widely assumed to be safer.
Reliance on industry-sponsored studies is not limited to psychiatry, but
experts say the problem is exacerbated in areas of medicine where the goal
of trials is not to demonstrate cures but to measure symptomatic relief,
which allows more latitude in how the results are interpreted and marketed.
Now a growing chorus of experts is asking whether the research establishment
needs to be reoriented toward publicly funded studies that might better
guide clinical decisions and the billions of tax dollars the government
itself spends on treatment.
"A perfectly independent agency has to be set up that says, 'Here are the
areas where trials must be done,' " said Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of
the Journal of the American Medical Association. "There will be two classes
of trials -- the believable ones and the non-believable ones.";
The problem is not that companies fabricate results, experts say.
Researchers, in fact, want drugmakers to sponsor more studies, not fewer.
But ostensibly valid industry studies can be misleading in multiple ways,
Davis said. Some use too low a dose of a competitor's drug, while others
choose statistical techniques that show their drug in the best light.
Virtually all test drugs on patients with relatively straightforward
problems.
Davis warned that the circular results he found could undermine the
confidence of clinicians and patients, and even cast doubt on medications
that are genuinely superior. He and Rennie also questioned academic
researchers' role in these studies.
Davis, who joked in an interview that he no longer gets to fly first class
to Tokyo and Monte Carlo since he stopped accepting money from
pharmaceutical companies, guessed that 90 percent of industry-sponsored
studies that boast a prominent academic as the lead author are conducted by
a company that later enlists a university researcher as the "author."
"We know that happens all the time,"; Rennie said. "The only reason that the
company wants a non-company person as an author is to give credence to an
advertisement. . . . The whole entire paper from start to finish is an
advertisement. It is a much more subtle and telling ad than anything they
can publish as an ad."
Drugmakers defend their studies, and Davis emphasized that the drugs do help
patients. But doctors, he said, cannot afford to take the results at face
value.
Sara Corya, medical director for neuroscience at Eli Lilly, a company Davis
singled out for praise for the quality of its studies, said that conflicting
results do not cancel each other out, and that they help clinicians
understand the strengths of different drugs. Corya and Davis noted that
Lilly has strict rules to prevent author-shopping.
"The reality is that even in head-to-head comparisons, study results will
differ for a variety of reasons, some transparent, some opaque," added
Mariann Caprino, a spokeswoman for Pfizer, whose antipsychotic drug Geodon
did not perform as well as Zyprexa in two trials funded by Eli Lilly.
Pfizer's own studies found that Geodon was superior to Zyprexa in one trial
and inferior in another.
"What this all means," Caprino said, "is there is no substitute for the
judgment and experience of the clinician in selecting among a fortunately
broad palette of medicines."
But several experts say industry-sponsored trials are failing to answer the
questions doctors really need answered: Which drug works best for which
patient? Are differences in drugs worth the differences in cost? How many
patients are likely to recover entirely, rather than just show progress in
the right direction? Head-to-head trials of similar medications may show
statistical differences in how they perform, but those differences may not
mean very much for doctors and patients, said Robert Rosenheck, a Yale
psychiatrist.
What a clinician wants to know is whether the patient she is treating will
get better on a drug, said Thomas R. Insel, director of the National
Institute of Mental Health. "If they are not going to get well, what is the
better approach? The public is less interested in statistical significance
and more interested in clinical significance."
The difference between the two was highlighted by the recent study of
antipsychotic drugs funded by the National Institute of Mental Health.
Rather than focus on how some symptom or side effect waxes and wanes, the
government trial focused on the big picture: How do typical schizophrenia
patients fare on the drugs over the long term?
The results were sobering: Regardless of the drug, three-quarters of all
patients stopped taking it, either because it did not make them better or
had intolerable side effects. The discontinuation rates remained high when
they were switched to a new drug, but patients stayed on clozapine about 11
months, compared with only three months for Seroquel, Risperdal or Zyprexa,
which are far more heavily marketed -- and dominate sales.
"Clozapine is better by far than the other antipsychotics," said Carol
Tamminga, a psychiatry professor at the University of Texas Southwestern
Medical Center at Dallas, who wrote an editorial in the American Journal of
Psychiatry about the trial. "The question is: Why do doctors not use it?"
The drug requires more careful monitoring to prevent potentially fatal
bone-marrow toxicity, she said, but a national monitoring program ensures it
is used properly. Tamminga agreed that marketing may play a role in why the
drug is not used more often.
"Clozapine is less marketed," she said. "It is off patent. Even when it was
on patent, it has never been as actively marketed as the other drugs."
The government study also provided the big picture missing from
company-sponsored trials, said Jeffrey Lieberman, a Columbia University
psychiatrist who led the first phase of the study: "The drugs work, but only
so well. They are not meeting expectations."
By focusing on the horse race -- which drug is marginally better -- industry
studies obscure the reality that better drugs are needed overall, agreed
Rennie, who is a professor of medicine at the University of California at
San Francisco.
"Finding the 100th similar antipsychotic drug is not where the research
should be," he said. "It should be to develop new drugs, not 'me, too'
drugs."
Rennie said that government agencies such as the Centers for Medicaid and
Medicare Services and the Department of Veterans Affairs that disburse
billions of dollars for treatment should rely on publicly funded studies.
"There are lots of questions that drug companies are not going to be
primarily interested in," agreed Robert Temple, a senior official at the
Food and Drug Administration. He has long been a personal advocate of what
he calls a "national problems laboratory."
But Uwe Reinhardt, a political economist at Princeton, said drug companies,
device manufacturers and even physicians are reluctant to delve into
questions of cost-effectiveness because such inquiries may find that the
latest, most expensive treatment is not worth the cost.
"I have come to believe a lot of inefficiency is quite deliberate and
supported by Congress," he said. "One person's inefficiency is another
person's income."
Post a Comment
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
http://testweb2d.digitalink.com/ac2/wp-dyn/comments/display?contentID=AR2006041101478
Regards,
Catherine
";Every science touches art at some points while
every art has its scientific side; the worst man
of science is he who is never an artist, and the
worst artist is he who is never a man of science."
[Armand Trousseau]
|
[1]
|
|