Sources of Medication Research Funding May Be
Under-Reported
< Oct. 01, 2008 > --
Research published this week finds that the mainstream media often fail to
report when pharmaceutical company funding is used for studies of medications.
Furthermore, there is a tendency among both medical and
mainstream reporters to use brand names, rather than generic names, when
referring to specific medications.
And both of these factors work to skew public and medical
opinion toward commercial interests, according to the review, published in the
Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
News articles represent an important source of medical
information for many patients, and even some physicians. "An increasingly
recognized source of commercial bias in medical research is the funding of
studies by companies with a financial interest in the results," the authors
write.
Little is known about how frequently news articles report
the funding sources of the medical research they report on, or how frequently
news articles use brand medication names instead of generic names, which could
create commercial bias.
The authors of the new study analyzed 306 news articles
about medication research from US newspaper and online sites, and they also
asked 100 editors at the most widely circulated newspapers in the country about
their reporting practices. The studies were published in five major general
medical journals (JAMA, New
England Journal of Medicine, Lancet,
Archives of Internal Medicine, and the
Annals of Internal Medicine).
Forty-two percent of the news articles did not state when
medication research had received funding from the pharmaceutical industry. And
when they did, it was often buried in the text.
Sixty-seven percent of 277 articles that reported on
medications only used the medication's brand name in at least half of the
references to the medication. According to the study authors, up to $9 billion
is spent each year in the US when doctors prescribe brand name medications
although a generic would do just as well.
Yet 88 percent of the responding newspaper editors thought
that articles they published often or always mentioned company funding. And 77
percent of the editors thought their stories referred to medications by their
generic names.
Three percent of the newspapers had formal written policies
regarding disclosure of company funding, and 2 percent had such policies
regarding the use of generic names of medications.
"As a doctor, I am increasingly worried in recent years
that company-funded research can't be trusted in the same way that other
research can be trusted," says study author Dr. Michael Hochman, a resident
physician at Cambridge Health Alliance in Cambridge, Mass. "[Also], all of us,
doctors, patients, journalists, have gotten into a bad habit of referring to
medications by their proprietary brand names. At a philosophical level, I think
we need to be referring to them by the generic name. We want to keep commercial
interests as much out of the doctor-patient relationship as possible."
"Funding sources should be included in every story where
it's relevant," adds Andrew Holtz, past president of the Association of Health
Care Journalists, former CNN medical correspondent, and now an independent
journalist. But, he also points out, the new study itself may be biased because
it only included in its analysis stories of at least 200 words.
"Two hundred words is not a very long story and I didn't
see in the study anything about whether there was a correlation between length
of article and how thorough the article was in mentioning funding and generic
and brand names," Holtz says. Such stories, he adds, may be leaving out other
important information as well, including, for instance, the side effects of a
particular medication.
Peer-reviewed medical journals earlier engaged in a similar
debate and most now require that study authors disclose funding sources.
"News organizations, in my opinion, really should have
explicit written policies that they enforce," Dr. Hochman says. "We always need
to disclose how a medical study is funded. I'm particularly concerned about
commercial studies. We have many examples of how company-led research led us
astray."
As for preferring generic medication names - many of which
are unpronounceable, even for experts - over brand names, Dr. Hochman concedes
that will be an uphill battle.
"It's a problem but we're not going to change it unless we
take the hard step of trying to learn generic names," he says.
The study authors conclude: "Our findings raise several
concerns. For patients and physicians to evaluate new research findings, it is
important that they know how the research was funded so they can assess whether
commercial biases may have affected the results. Additionally, the use of
generic medication names by the news media is preferable so that physicians and
patients learn to refer to medications by their generic names, a practice that
is likely to reduce medication errors and may decrease unnecessary health care
costs."
Always consult your physician for more information.
|
For more information on health and wellness, please
visit health information modules on this Web site.
Generic medications are a therapeutic "copy" of
brand-name medications.
Every year, consumers save an estimated $8 billion to
$10 billion dollars by using generic medications, according to the
Congressional Budget Office.
The US Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) regulates generic medications. They are allowed
on the market only after testing has proved they produce the same effect on
the body as their brand-name counterparts.
Not every medication has a generic version. Generally,
when brand-name medications are first introduced, a patent protects them for
17 years before a generic alternative can be manufactured. Pharmaceutical
companies can apply for extensions of this patent protection period. If the
patent period is not extended, other companies can introduce their version
of the brand-name product after 17 years.
Prescription medications are one of the fastest-growing
areas of US healthcare spending.
One way to reduce the high cost of
prescription medications is to switch to generic medication, which are
priced 25 percent to 80 percent lower than the equivalent brand-name
versions.
One reason generic medications cost less than their
brand-name equivalents is that manufacturers of generics spend less money on
advertising and product development because the brand-name equivalent
already is well-known.
FDA rules state that a
generic medication must be "bioequivalent" to the brand-name medication,
meaning it must have the same active ingredients, strength, dosage form,
safety, quality, purity, stability, and performance. The generic medication
also must be absorbed at the same rate.
Pharmaceutical companies must adhere to strict
manufacturing requirements to earn approval to sell their products. Keep in
mind that generic drugs bought over the Internet from places outside the US
are not regulated by the FDA and may not meet
the same standards for equivalency or safety as those sold in this country.
Differences between brand-name and generic medications
that may make a difference in how compliant a patient is in taking the
medication are the size, shape, and coating. These differences do not affect
the quality, effectiveness or safety of a drug. Other differences between
brand-name and generic medications include taste and inactive ingredients.
Depending on the medications you take and how often you
take them, you could save hundreds of dollars every year by taking generics
instead of brand-name medications.
When your healthcare provider gives you a prescription
for a brand-name medication, ask if he or she can prescribe the generic
equivalent instead. You also can ask if you can switch from brand names to
generics for medications you already take.
In some cases, providers prefer brand names for medical
or technical reasons. If so, your provider should be able to explain why.
Always consult your physician for more information.
|