Adverse effects of drugs are “neglected, restricted, distorted and silenced”
When someone takes a medicine, it is generally in the hope that it will do some good. However, whether it does or doesn’t is only half of the story: even the seemingly most innocuous of drugs can have adverse effects on health. In an editorial in the Archives of Internal Medicine, Dr John Ioannidis of University of Ioannina School of Medicine in Greece, makes the point that adverse effects from drugs are “neglected, restricted, distorted, and silenced” [1].
Dr Ioannidis’ editorial starts by making the point that new drugs often offer little in the way of benefit over existing treatments. This means that knowledge of their risk profile is essential to be able to make informed choices regarding therapy.
The editorial focuses on an analysis of relevant studies which appears in the same edition of the journal [2]. In this analysis 133 studies published in ‘high-impact’ journals (the most widely-read and respected journals) were assessed in terms of the adverse effect reporting. This analysis showed that “some trials gave absolutely no information on harms, severity was often undefined or vaguely defined, and half the trials reported no information on withdrawal of patients owing to harms. Only 13% reported the reasons why patients withdrew owing to adverse events, information that is of prime clinical relevance.”
Dr Ioannidis also makes the point some trials limit their reporting of adverse effects to ‘statistically significant’ results. The problem is, the most serious adverse effects are generally very rare, and studies may not be large (powered) enough to define serious adverse effects as ‘statistically significant’. Dr Ioannidis claims that the statements such as “no significant differences were found” are misleading. I made a similar point some time ago in the blog post here.
Dr Ioannidis draws our attention to the fact that randomised controlled trials on drugs are primarily used to assess effectiveness, not risk. He asks whether this is perhaps the accepted norm as a result of “conflicts of interest and marketing”. Dr Ioannidis ends by suggesting that the mission of randomised control trials may need to change to include better understanding of the potential harms of medication.
References:
1. Ioannidis JPA. Adverse Events in Randomized Trials: Neglected, Restricted, Distorted, and Silenced. Arch Intern Med 2009;169(19):1737-1739
2. Pitrou I, et al. Reporting of Safety Results in Published Reports of Randomized Controlled Trials. Arch Intern Med 2009;169(19):1756-1761
Published October 30, 2009 . Filed under: Food and Medical Politics
Comments
Write Comment
Get Dr Briffa’s latest book – The True You Diet…
The True You Diet helps you discover and explore your own path to optimal wellbeing. Take a step in the right direction right now and receive the unabridged introduction to the book and a True You questionnaire – FREE! Visit TheTrueYouDiet.com for more info |
See
how the UK’s top nutrition doctor “Makes diets history”,
giving you the low-blurb, high-fact option for the diet and lifestyle
that’s right for YOU - based on your body’s unique and individual
needs.Dr Briffa's free weekly e-newsletter - "A Good Look at Good Health" - delivered straight to your inbox
Sign-up now and get Dr John Briffa's Natural Solutions to Common Ailments - an A-Z guide to over 150 symptoms and conditions absolutely free.
Every week, Dr John condenses some of the most interesting and relevant health news from around the world into our free weekly newsletter that will keep you up to date with some of the most pertinent health stories of the week - delivered straight to your inbox.
Our thank you present - when you sign up for the newsletter, you will also receive a free copy of Dr John Briffa's Natural Solutions to Common Ailments - an A-Z guide to over 150 symptoms and conditions.
A word about the adverts that appear on this site
The adverts on this site come via a service known as Google Adsense. Adverts deemed appropriate to the content on the site appear automatically, and are not selected or vetted by John Briffa or any of the team at drbriffa.com. The site does not endorse any of the adverts that appear on the site nor the products or services they promote.
Ah, yes, ”conflicts of interest and marketing.” Or, to put it another way, profits first, patients second.
October 30, 2009 @ 1:01 pm
I can substantiate this report due to the research I undertook for my dissertation at UEL for the medical herbalism degree.
This is partly why the government is try to ban us and the 2011 EU directive on the supply of plant medicine.
Please write to both the government and your MP objecting to the refusal of the government to implement self regulation of medical herbalists, chinese herbalists and acupuncturists and attend the demo on Nov 2 at Westminster.
for further info contact Pam Bull at CPP address as above
October 30, 2009 @ 8:45 pm
[...] links to are (a) himself and (b) the Telegraph – who are reporting on an unpublished study); adverse effects of drugs, which is cached at: http://backupurl.com/akxnid. Possibly related posts: (automatically [...]
November 2, 2009 @ 1:54 am
This post has left me wondering how much of the concept here can be applied to the food industry? From some of the recent debates I have seen, having seen the documentary Food Inc, & various other bits of reading, I can’t help but think perhaps the food industry, the FDA, etc aren’t also perhaps guilty of a bit of neglect, restriction, distortion, & silence at times, also having a tendency to hide behind statistical significance when it suits?
November 2, 2009 @ 3:42 am
[...] If you’re wondering why you haven’t heard more about the danger of statin drugs, check out another great post Dr. Briffa wrote a couple of weeks ago called Adverse effects of drugs are “neglected, restricted, distorted or silenced”. [...]
November 12, 2009 @ 9:37 pm
[...] From DrBriffa.com: [...]
February 17, 2010 @ 5:21 am