Head-to-Head with PhRMA on transparency in the BMJ

July 12th, 2013 by Ben Goldacre in alltrials campaign, bad science, publication bias | 2 Comments »

This week in the BMJ there’s a head-to-head on trials transparency between me and PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry representative body in the US. My article is here, PhRMA’s is here, both articles are open access for one week (since it was press released, them’s the rules at the BMJ…) but mine is open access forever, I think, on this link.

The article from PhRMA is remarkable. Firstly, they imply that people like me, who call for all trial results to be reported, also somehow call for the reckless disclosure of individual patients’ electronic health records online. This is untrue.

More disturbing is PhRMA’s suggestion that the problem has already been fixed. For example, John Castellani says that “information on clinical trials for potential new medicines is already required by US law to be posted on ClinicalTrials.gov“. As I explain in my piece, the best available published evidence on compliance with this law comes from Prayle et al, BMJ 2012: in reality, the legislation here has been very widely ignored.

We need to fix the problem of withheld results. Doctors (and patients, and researchers, and payers, and the public) need access to all the results, of all the trials, on all the uses, of all the treatments currently being prescribed, in order to make informed decisions about which is best.

More in the articles, and for even more on why this matters for patient care, I recommend the first chapter of Bad Pharma.

Enjoy!

www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f1881

www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f1880?ijkey=KJaN2gQyuYf46yS&keytype=ref