More drug trials – more research on new drugs hitting the market – is a good thing, right? According to a study recently published in the Journal of the American Medial Association (JAMA), that is not always the case. Industry-funded drug trials outstrip independent trials.
More drug trials – more research on new drugs hitting the market – is a good thing, right? According to a study recently published in the Journal of the American Medial Association (JAMA), that is not always the case. Industry-funded drug trials outstrip independent trials.
The study points out that we really shouldn’t be surprised. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the country’s largest independent sponsor of biomedical research, has had its budget gutted over the last ten years. Less money equals fewer independently funded trials and Big Pharma has stepped in to fill that gap.
The federal agency’s $30B budget for 2014 (when adjusted for inflation) has 14% less buying power than it did in 2006. In fact, the NIH funded 1,376 trials in 2006 and only 1,048 in 2014. The number of studies funded by the industry grew by around 2,000 trials during that same time period, ultimately peaking at 6,550 in 2014.
Stephan Ehrhardt, as associate professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, says that more trials can often be better, but that there is a flaw in the system. Namely, NIH-sponsored trials usually compare drugs or other treatments rather than just proving that a given drug or treatment works.
Professor Ehrhardt said, “Industry funds trials that test their own product — they develop a drug to lower blood pressure and they test it against a placebo and it’s more effective or not. These are the typical industry-funded trials, and these are important. My real-world question is: What drug do I give? I have a hypertensive patient in front of me, what am I doing with this patient: Give this drug or the older drug? Reduce salt intake? Go on the treadmill every day for X minutes?”
In federally funded research trials, the drug’s efficacy would be compared to dietary or lifestyle changes as well as other available drugs with the goal of finding the best overall treatment. For example, one federally funded trial published this fall highlighted the efficacy of treating schizophrenia patients, after their first psychotic episode, with a combined plan including medication, therapy, family support and case management.
Industry-funded trials, whose ultimate goal is getting FDA approval to take the drug to market, are less likely to be as broad.
NIH deputy director for extramural research, Dr. Michael Lauer said that the budget is only a part of the reason for fewer NIH-sponsored trials.
“Another critical component is the cost of trials; there is extensive documentation through government-funded reports that trials have become increasingly complex and expensive. The combination of declining budgets and increasing costs would be expected to lead to fewer trials funded.”
Source:
Join the conversation!