That’s how researchers Michael Hochman of USC and Danny McCormick of Harvard described medicine’s lack of evidence for many treatments in an opinion piece in the Los Angeles Times that reflects on the authors’ paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association this week. Excerpt of the op-ed piece:
“.. we analyzed 328 medication studies recently published in six top medical journals and found that just 32% were aimed at determining which available treatment is best. The rest were either aimed at bringing a new therapy to market or simply compared a medication with a placebo. Whether the therapy was better or worse than other treatments was simply not addressed.
…Reform is also necessary to ensure that commercially funded research is designed in a way that is more helpful to doctors. Our study showed that two-thirds of commercially funded randomized trials compared medications with a placebo rather than with another active therapy. Though placebos are appropriate when no alternative therapies are available, in many of the trials we examined, we suspect alternative therapies could have been used instead. For this reason, we believe that regulatory agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration should only approve new therapies that have been shown to be at least as good as existing therapies whenever such alternatives exist. Alternatively, though more controversial, some experts have proposed that pharmaceutical companies should be allowed to fund — but not design — clinical studies.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Come on, NY Times; you must do better than this. Important research doesn’t need hype and the “breaking news” BS doesn’t help readers or patients. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2022/03/nyt-proclaims-breaking-news/
Our editorial team was blessed to have Sharon as a contributor during our best years. As this obit states, she was “kind, patient, wise, thoughtful and generous.” Thank you, Sharon; now rest in peace. https://journalism.wisc.edu/news/in-memoriam-sharon-dunwoody-1947-2022/
We’ve written about the hype of liquid biopsies for years (see link in comment below). And now this…. https://www.statnews.com/2022/01/12/medicare-shouldnt-cover-liquid-biopsies-early-cancer-detection/
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
DoctorSH
March 12, 2010 at 7:52 amOK then.
So let us take this one step further.
If I want to purchase a car, average price $20,000, upkeep and maintenance $3-5000 a year, for a total cost of $32,000 over three years, about the amount of time people have held onto cars in the past, then new cars should not be allowed into the marketplace if they have not been proven to be better in some way to other cars.
If we followed this scenario, GM would be out of business!
Choice is important. No matter what a study says, medications have different effects on people, and limiting availability based on whether a study shows it is better than an other medication, would only limit the availability of treatments, decrease competition among manufacturers, and ultimately raise costs.
I am far from a Big Pharma fan, and even further from a fan of government regulators, but new products should be allowed to market if they are proven safe and effective. Then it is up to the manufacturer to try to make a buck.
Dr. Jason
October 25, 2010 at 11:15 amSo, what you are saying is that these drug companies should just keep pumping out medications that may have little or no effect on the symptom but comes with a ton of side effects and then take another drug for that. That is what these companies do. That do not take care of anyone but themselves. People need to have better nutrition and exercise in their lives.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like