Healthy Skepticism Library item: 3171

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: Journal Article

Howie JG.
Doctors and the pharmaceutical industry [1st of 2 letters]
Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 1983 Dec; 33:825

Abstract:

We welcome our College’s recognition that the debate about this should be continuous and open. Dr Donald is surely right to believe there must be a partnership. Dr Schofield is equally right to warn us of the substantial risk of squandering professional respectability by accepting inducements. However, the main purpose of this letter is to express concern over the Medicines Surveillance Committee (MSO) multicentre clinical appraisal of a new analgesic. The first objective is to ‘record the clinical indications’ – the drug is only likely to be used because it is being studied. The second objective is to ‘investigate efficacy, safety and overall acceptability’ – to comment about a study which does not use a standard alternative preparation and is not double-blind must be suspect. The third objective to ‘record the incidence of clinical events’ overlaps with the safety component of the second. Many believe it is unsafe to rely on the chain of events which will be necessary in this study. Surveillance can only be effective if it is substantially more active than is being proposed. We fear that the apparently impeccable credentials of the MSO will lead to its being seen as a prime facilitator for the backdoor launching of unnecessary and otherwise unsellable new products.

Keywords:
*letter to the editor/United Kingdom/