Pharmaceuticals: A market for producing 'lemons' and serious harm

Aug 17, 2010

The pharmaceutical industry is a "market for lemons," a market in which the seller knows much more than the buyer about the product and can profit from selling products less effective and less safe than consumers are led to believe, according to an analysis that will be presented at the 105th Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Association.

"Sometimes companies hide or downplay information about serious side effects of new drugs and overstate the drugs' benefits," said Donald Light, the sociologist who authored the study and who is a professor of comparative health policy at the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. "Then, they spend two to three times more on marketing than on research to persuade doctors to prescribe these new drugs. Doctors may get misleading information and then misinform patients about the risks of a new drug. It's really a two-tier market for lemons."

Three reasons why the pharmaceutical market produces "lemons" are: Having companies in charge of testing new drugs, providing firewalls of legal protection behind which information about harms or effectiveness can be hidden, and the relatively low bar set for drug efficacy in order for a new drug to be approved, Light said.

According to his study, independent reviewers found that about 85 percent of new drugs offer few if any new benefits. Yet, or misuse of prescription drugs now make prescription drugs a significant cause of death in the United States.

Light's paper, "Pharmaceuticals: A Two-Tier Market for Producing 'Lemons' and Serious Harm," is an institutional analysis of the and how it works based on a range of independent sources and studies, including the Canadian Patented Medicine Prices Review Board, the , and Prescrire International.

The foundation for the paper is the work Light did for a forthcoming book he edited, titled The Risk of Prescription Drugs, which is scheduled for publication this fall by Columbia University Press.

In both his paper and his book, Light describes the "Risk Proliferation Syndrome" that is maximizing the number of patients exposed to new drugs that have relatively low efficacy and effectiveness but have greater risk of adverse side effects. Building on clinical trials designed to minimize evidence of harm and published literature that emphasizes a drug's advantages, companies launch massive campaigns to sell it, when a controlled, limited launch would allow evidence to be gathered about the drug's effects. Companies recruit leading clinicians to try using the drug for conditions other than those for which it is approved and to promote such off-label or unapproved uses. Physicians inadvertently become "double agents" — promoters of the new drug, yet trusted stewards of patients' well-being, said Light. When patients complain of adverse reactions, studies show their doctors are likely to discount or dismiss them, according to Light.

Despite the extensive requirements for testing the efficacy and safety of each new drug, companies "swamp the regulator" with large numbers of incomplete, partial, substandard clinical trials, Light said. For example, in one study of 111 final applications for approval, 42% lacked adequately randomized trials, 40% had flawed testing of dosages, 39% lacked evidence of clinical efficacy, and 49% raised concerns about serious adverse side effects, said Light.

"Just recently, major reports have come out about biased, poor trials for Avandia and Avastin," Light said, who noted that orphan drugs are tested even less well.

"The result is that drugs get approved without anyone being able to know how effective they really are or how much serious harm they will cause," Light said. The companies control the making of scientific knowledge and then control which findings will go to the FDA or be published.

"A few basic changes could improve the quality of trials and evidence about the real risks and benefits of new drugs," Light said. "We could also increase the percentage of new drugs that are really better for patients."

Explore further: Determine patient preferences by means of conjoint analysis

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

New paper from internists calls for increased role for FDA

Sep 24, 2009

A new policy paper that calls for broader authority and increased funding for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was released today by the American College of Physicians (ACP). Improving FDA Regulation of Prescription ...

Recommended for you

Determine patient preferences by means of conjoint analysis

1 hour ago

The Conjoint Analysis (CA) method is in principle suitable to find out which preferences patients have regarding treatment goals. However, to widely use it in health economic evaluations, some (primarily methodological) issues ...

FDA approves hard-to-abuse narcotic painkiller

Jul 25, 2014

(HealthDay)—A new formulation of a powerful narcotic painkiller that discourages potential abusers from snorting or injecting the drug has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Race affects opioid selection for cancer pain

Jul 25, 2014

(HealthDay)—Racial disparities exist in the type of opioid prescribed for cancer pain, according to a study published online July 21 in the Journal of Clinical Oncology.

FDA approves tough-to-abuse formulation of oxycodone

Jul 25, 2014

(HealthDay)—Targiniq ER (oxycodone hydrochloride and naloxone hydrochloride extended release) has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a long-term, around-the-clock treatment for severe ...

Tough-to-abuse formulation of oxycodone approved

Jul 25, 2014

(HealthDay)—Targiniq ER (oxycodone hydrochloride and naloxone hydrochloride extended release) has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration as a long-term, around-the-clock treatment for severe pain when other ...

User comments : 0