Staff in the drug industry want "to help people," academic says
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
Richard Sykes, rector of Imperial College, London, and former chairman of GlaxoSmithKlein, gave a robust defence of people working in the pharmaceutical industry when he appeared before the Commons health committee last week.
"People go to work in the pharmaceutical industry because they have a mission. These are not people driven by greed or avarice, they are driven by a desire to be successful, to do something to help people," he told the committee's ongoing hearing into the influence of the pharmaceutical industry.
But he admitted that the industry had an image problem: "I think the industry has got to get back on track. They have got to get rid of this bad image by being more transparent."
Also giving evidence was Iain Chalmers, editor of the James Lind Library.
Richard Sykes (left), rector of Imperial College, London, and Iain Chalmers, editor of the James Lind Library, gave evidence to MPs
Credit: EPA/PA
Credit: ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSIANS, EDINBURGH
Dr Chalmers outlined some of the weaknesses of current clinical research, including the tendency for research studies to compare a new drug against placebo when a far more useful comparison would be against an existing drug for the same condition.
He said that researchers had no obligation, when they applied for a grant before embarking on a new piece of research, to submit details of existing studies that already examined possible treatments for a condition.
He said that it was indefensible that the research findings used to decide whether to license a treatment were not made public by the agency or its predecessor, the Medicines Control Agency.
He cited the example of the widespread use—and relicensing in 1993—of human albumin for treatment after burns and for other critically ill patients. In the mid-1990s, a systematic review exposed the lack of any evidence that albumin was more effective than saline in preventing death ( BMJ 1998;317: 235-240), a finding that prompted a further large controlled trial, which has confirmed the results of the review ( New England Journal of Medicine 2004;350: 2247-56).
"We need to know what criteria the issuing authority that is meant to be looking after our interests used to decide it was a safe and effective treatment," he said.(Lynn Eaton)
"People go to work in the pharmaceutical industry because they have a mission. These are not people driven by greed or avarice, they are driven by a desire to be successful, to do something to help people," he told the committee's ongoing hearing into the influence of the pharmaceutical industry.
But he admitted that the industry had an image problem: "I think the industry has got to get back on track. They have got to get rid of this bad image by being more transparent."
Also giving evidence was Iain Chalmers, editor of the James Lind Library.
Richard Sykes (left), rector of Imperial College, London, and Iain Chalmers, editor of the James Lind Library, gave evidence to MPs
Credit: EPA/PA
Credit: ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSIANS, EDINBURGH
Dr Chalmers outlined some of the weaknesses of current clinical research, including the tendency for research studies to compare a new drug against placebo when a far more useful comparison would be against an existing drug for the same condition.
He said that researchers had no obligation, when they applied for a grant before embarking on a new piece of research, to submit details of existing studies that already examined possible treatments for a condition.
He said that it was indefensible that the research findings used to decide whether to license a treatment were not made public by the agency or its predecessor, the Medicines Control Agency.
He cited the example of the widespread use—and relicensing in 1993—of human albumin for treatment after burns and for other critically ill patients. In the mid-1990s, a systematic review exposed the lack of any evidence that albumin was more effective than saline in preventing death ( BMJ 1998;317: 235-240), a finding that prompted a further large controlled trial, which has confirmed the results of the review ( New England Journal of Medicine 2004;350: 2247-56).
"We need to know what criteria the issuing authority that is meant to be looking after our interests used to decide it was a safe and effective treatment," he said.(Lynn Eaton)