A new analysis of reviews and articles about the controversial diabetes drug Avandia suggests what many have already suspected — experts tend to rate a medication more favorably when they are on the drug-maker’s payroll.
In a study published in the British Medical Journal, researchers reviewed 202 articles by 180 authors who wrote articles about Avandia and the risk of heart attack. The reviewers graded each article as favorable, neutral or unfavorable, based on whether the author identified a connection between Avandia and heart attacks and if they recommended continuing its use. The reviewers found a “clear and strong link between the orientation of authors’ expressed views on the rosiglitazone controversy and their financial conflicts of interest with pharmaceutical companies.”
From The New York Times:
Often, authors with favorable opinions of the drug were paid both by Avandia’s maker, GlaxoSmithKline, and by its competitors. Of those who offered favorable views, 87 percent had potential conflicts with Glaxo. Among authors who had unfavorable opinions, only 20 percent had received money from Glaxo.
A Glaxo spokesperson told The Times that the vast majority of the articles reviewed in BMJ were not original scientific research and that many were opinion pieces.
But two of the scientists who favorably reviewed Avandia and are on Glaxo’s payroll acknowledged to The Times last week that the “financing could create an appearance of bias.”
