Stephen Foley: The best prescription for pharma firms
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.US Outlook: It was a legal battering in the US over the depression medicine Paxil that bounced GlaxoSmithKline into setting up an online register of all its clinical trial data, regardless of whether it had pushed to have the results of a study published in a medical journal. The company had been accused of burying studies which showed the medicine was less effective or more dangerous.
The drug industry has come a long way in the six years since then, but not far enough, which was why a couple of announcements this week are welcome, if insufficient, steps towards greater transparency. On Thursday, the industry's international trade body agreed a code of practice that commits companies to publishing all late-stage clinical trials, rather than cherry-picking. And yesterday, major drug companies signed up to share some of the data from trials of experimental Alzheimer's disease treatments, so that their scientists would find it quicker and easier to judge which treatments are working.
Both developments are welcome but incomplete. The international agreement could cover all trials, not just the big Phase III studies. The Alzheimer's collaboration needn't be limited just to data on patients using placebo. Its organisers promise similar agreements on Parkinson's disease work, but it could be extended across most disease areas.
The moral case for greater transparency and co-operation is unassailable: it prevents mischief and speeds up the development of vital new medicines. The business case is also strong and getting stronger: the fact that pharma companies are all duplicating the same basic research is a waste of resources for an industry suffering relentless pressure on costs.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments