The Times
Tom Whipple, Science Editor
Gerry Gajadharsingh Writes:
“Most medical funding into research goes into drug development, Big Pharma is big money. Whilst its important that medication is as safe as it can be, most new drug treatments did little more than existing alternatives, especially in psychiatry where only 1 new drug out of 18 developed between 2011 and 2017 brought additional benefits to patients.
Medication can be invaluable for certain medical conditions, sometimes life-saving. It would be amazing if some of this research funding could be more directed to protocols that help clinicians and patients better understand the interactions of how their lifestyle choices layered on their genetic susceptibility can lead to certain conditions. Sadly, there is no money in this, it’s hard for commercial companies to monetise individual holistic health care. So, let’s not hold our breath.
Over the past few years there is more research focused on lifestyle and its impact on health, but more is needed. Yesterday research flagged up that psychological factors/stress in women had a significant effect of their bone density, who’d have thought it? Actually, I have thought it, but then again, I’m a maverick. Psycho neuro immunology (PNI), helps understand the pathways of how the brain affects the neurological and immulogical systems of the body. Another of my blogs looks at autoimmune conditions, there are at least 80 listed medical conditions that fall under autoimmune. Often a patient will need help from medication to at least control symptoms but there are also ways of helping the patient address the underlying predisposing and maintaining factors that underly many illnesses.”
Pharmaceutical companies are wasting billions of pounds developing needless drugs, according to research that found most new treatments did little more than existing alternatives.
In psychiatry the situation was so bad that only one drug out of the 18 introduced between 2011 and 2017 brought additional benefit to patients.
The study, published in The BMJ, looked at drugs introduced to the German market, where it is mandatory to investigate their efficacy. Of the 216 approved by regulators 58 per cent offered no improvement on those already available.
Since the approval process in Germany uses the European Medicines Agency, the researchers said that the findings probably applied across Europe, including the UK.
The team from the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care in Cologne argued that the findings showed the need for a shift in incentives for drug developers. Rather than simply having to show that drugs are safe and work, regulators should ensure that they fill genuine gaps in need and offer different approaches, they said.
“Since drug development, approval, reimbursement and pricing are highly regulated, the current state of affairs suggests a policy failure,” they wrote, urging action at EU and national levels.
Richard Torbett, of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry, said that the NHS had robust measures to ensure that drugs worked.
“A medicine that can’t demonstrate value is unlikely to be recommended for use,” he said. “Often we find that studies making similar claims invariably take a very narrow view of what constitutes ‘value’ that ignores issues that are important to patients.”