Centre for Clinical Brain Sciences, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
PLoS Biol. 2014 Jan;12(1):e1001768. doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001768. Epub 2014 Jan 21.
We know that clinical trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry are likely to exaggerate benefit and minimise harms. But do these biases extend to their sponsorship of non-human animal research? Using systematic review and meta-analysis Bero and colleagues show that, in the case of statins, things are a little more complicated. While the conclusions of industry-sponsored studies were indeed more enthusiastic than warranted by their data, the data themselves painted a picture more conservative than was seen in non-industry-sponsored studies. This behaviour is consistent with maximising the return on investment, seeking robust data before embarking on a clinical trial, and, once that investment has been made, making every effort to "prove" that the drug is safe and effective if this is at all credible. The findings suggest that there is something different about industry-sponsored non-human animal research, perhaps reflecting higher standards than is the case elsewhere. Perhaps the academic community can learn something from our colleagues in the commercial sector.
我们知道，制药业资助的临床试验可能夸大益处，最小化危害。但是这些偏见是否延伸到他们对非人类动物研究的资助呢？贝罗和同事们通过系统回顾和荟萃分析表明，就他汀类药物而言，情况稍微复杂一些。虽然行业资助研究的结论确实比其数据所表明的更为乐观，但数据本身描绘的情况比非行业资助研究更为保守。这种行为符合最大化投资回报的原则，即在进行临床试验之前寻求可靠的数据，一旦进行了投资，就尽一切努力“证明”药物是安全有效的，如果这是可信的话。研究结果表明，行业资助的非人类动物研究有所不同，这可能反映了比其他地方更高的标准。也许学术界可以从商业部门的同行那里学到一些东西。
