Opinion

What do clinical trials and patient-level data have in common?

What do clinical trials and patient-level data have in common?

I would say, not a lot if you look at how much benefit the public get from the launch of drugs which seem to promise so much but deliver so little.

Of course, I should have no right to say this, You can argue that we do see correlation and connections between the two. But is it really justified when you see published claims in clinical trials against those that they actually benefit. Drugs that are passed must at least show incremental value???? surely?

But why aren't people getting better? Why do people stop taking their medication course as a result of not seeing any benefits?

I'm usually a strong advocate of the pharma industry, they are, after all, my bread and butter. But I find this most concerning. We all know the cost, time and resource implications of having a drug fail.

So do we still 'cherry-pick' our clinical data? I hope not.
Do we handpick our clinical patients that we know will give us better results? I hope not.
Do we scew our placebo or comparison drug results to make our drug look better or their drug look worse or to avoid the issue? Which Merck (allegedly) did with tragic consequences for Vioxx. Let's all hope not.

So the question should be, Are we at fault for failing to provide the appropriate data as oppose to the drugs themselves? Are we still cost-focussed as oppose to patient-focussed. Are we essentially comparing two different markets. The clincial trials being our own placebo and the real-world being the actual results of our drug???

Is this reason why adherence and compliance is so low?
Is this reason why we still have a lack of credibility with physicians?

Sorry, I've posed too many questions, maybe you can help me answer them?

Thanks ;-)