Medical Research Integrity Blog (MedRIB)
Physicians in training are taught that when ordering tests and prescribing drugs, they should do so based on sound medical evidence, which, by and large, comes from medical journals. But what would be the effect if the evidence in these journals were presented in such a way as to mislead readers? If done cleverly, one might believe that an inferior medication or test was the best medical option. Who would benefit from this? Above all, those with a financial stake in the sale of such tests or drugs. And yet, the implications are serious. Not only could this lead to the provision of substandard care, it also puts at risk the credibility of American research. Is this a problem? This is the question that will be explored in MedRIB.
Seeding Trials
By Bruce W. McNulty, MD
This article is part of our MedRIB project and was published September 17, 2008.
Although long suspected, but difficult to prove, the concept of a ‘seeding trial’ is this: just prior to or at the time of a new drug’s launch into the market, the pharmaceutical companies who developed the drug conduct a ‘study’ that enrolls selected doctors to prescribe a drug to patients under the guise of a research study, when, in fact, the purpose is to fulfill marketing objectives.
We look at a paper published in August 2008 in the Annals of Internal Medicine entitled “The ADVANTAGE Seeding Trial: A Review of Internal Documents,” by Ross et al., which looks at what appears to be a seeding trial by Merck for Vioxx.