Pyke Stephen, Julious Steven A, Day Simon, O'Kelly Michael, Todd Susan, Matcham James, Seldrup Jorgen
Pfizer Ltd, Clinical Research, Sandwich, Kent, UK.
Pharm Stat. 2011 Jan-Feb;10(1):74-9. doi: 10.1002/pst.429.
Concerns about potentially misleading reporting of pharmaceutical industry research have surfaced many times. The potential for duality (and thereby conflict) of interest is only too clear when you consider the sums of money required for the discovery, development and commercialization of new medicines. As the ability of major, mid-size and small pharmaceutical companies to innovate has waned, as evidenced by the seemingly relentless decline in the numbers of new medicines approved by Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency year-on-year, not only has the cost per new approved medicine risen: so too has the public and media concern about the extent to which the pharmaceutical industry is open and honest about the efficacy, safety and quality of the drugs we manufacture and sell. In 2005 an Editorial in Journal of the American Medical Association made clear that, so great was their concern about misleading reporting of industry-sponsored studies, henceforth no article would be published that was not also guaranteed by independent statistical analysis. We examine the precursors to this Editorial, as well as its immediate and lasting effects for statisticians, for the manner in which statistical analysis is carried out, and for the industry more generally.
对制药行业研究报告可能存在误导性的担忧已多次浮现。当你考虑到新药研发、开发和商业化所需的资金数额时,利益双重性(进而产生冲突)的可能性就显而易见了。大型、中型和小型制药公司的创新能力有所下降,美国食品药品监督管理局(Food and Drug Administration)和欧洲药品管理局(European Medicines Agency)每年批准的新药数量持续减少就是明证。不仅每款获批新药的成本有所上升,公众和媒体也越来越关注制药行业在我们生产和销售的药品的疗效、安全性和质量方面是否公开坦诚。2005年,《美国医学会杂志》(Journal of the American Medical Association)的一篇社论明确指出,由于对行业资助研究的误导性报告深感担忧,此后未经独立统计分析验证的文章将不予发表。我们考察了这篇社论的前因后果,以及它对统计学家、统计分析的开展方式乃至整个行业所产生的即时和持久影响。