DOC News September 1, 2007
Volume 4 Number 9 p. 11
© 2007 American Diabetes Association
Paying the Piper
Drug companies determine the agenda for much of the clinical research
conducted in the U.S. According to the Pharmaceutical Research and
Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), biopharmaceutical companies spent an
estimated $55.2 billion on research and development last year—nearly
twice what the National Institutes of Health invests annually in medical
research.1,2
Many people point to the good that results from drug company research:
the steady stream of new drugs, vaccines, and other products that fight
illness and improve health.
Others suggest that research sponsored by drug companies tends to focus
more on costly treatments that reap financial returns than on basic science to
understand and prevent disease.
DOC News asked:
Do pharmaceutical companies have an adverse influence on clinical research?
The short answer is that it is hard to imagine doing research without them,
since they provide the majority of the funding—unless the federal
government is going to step up all aspects of funding.
That being said, they're in the business of getting drugs approved. And
there are obvious business reasons for supporting research. You have to be
mindful of the fact that they're influencing things in a way that favors
themselves.
There's no easy answer.
Gregory Mishkell, MD Interventional Cardiologist Springfield, Ill.
I've seen deep infiltration from pharmaceutical and device companies in
cardiology. I think it's an inevitable coexistence.
Learning how to bridge that relationship without conflict of interest is
incredibly hard. There aren't any tools being taught to trainees to avoid
being negatively affected by the influences of these very powerful and rich
companies. We need to find ways to separate and yet coexist, because that's
how progress in our field is made.
Rose Cohen, MD Cardiology Fellow New York, N.Y.
When you read about the results of a study on the Web or in a news story,
often they describe the effect on the drug company's stock price. That means a
lot.
The only thing that can be done is that researchers can do good research,
if this is possible. Otherwise, we are in trouble.
Filippos Triposkiadis, MD Interventional Cardiologist Athens Greece
Most research [in the Philippines] is initiated by the institution, and
there is not a lot of industry-sponsored research. Mostly where I practice,
[pharma-sponsored research is related to] the introduction of newer
pharmaceuticals yet to be studied in Asian populations. I really don't see a
negative effect.
Gary Martinez, MD Interventional Cardiologist Manila Philippines
I think a lot of research is initiated or influenced by industry. That's
unfortunate, but that's been occurring for the last two decades. There are two
sides of the coin. If they weren't involved, then a lot of research would not
be initiated. It's similar to patents. Being financially rewarded is an
impetus for a company to do research that may be promising.
Cliff Thomas, MD Interventional Cardiologist Atlanta, Ga.
References
1. PhRMA: R&D spending by U.S. biopharmaceutical companies reaches
a record $55.2 billion in 2006. Available online at
http://www.phrma.org/news_room/press_releases/r%26d_spending_by_u.s._biopharmaceutical_companies_reaches_a_record_%2455.2_billion_in_2006.
Accessed July 12, 2007.2. National Institutes of Health: NIH budget: Research for the people.
Available online at
http://www.nih.gov/about/budget.htm.
Accessed July 12, 2007.
CiteULike 
Del.icio.us 
Digg 
Reddit 
Technorati What's this?
