As I posted yesterday, the increasingly noisy debate about health care reform in the US has not dealt much with the issues we often discuss on Health Care Renewal. These include problems in how health care organizations are led which threaten physicians' and other health care professionals' core values using tactics including perverse incentives, deception, and intimidation.
Last night, however, President Obama held a news conference mostly devoted to health care issues, in which he stressed the importance of changing not just how health insurance works, but how health care decisions are made. As Newsweek's "The Gaggle" blog reported,

Can I guarantee that there are going to be no changes in the health care delivery system? No. The whole point of this is to try to encourage changes that work for the American people and make them healthier. The government already is making some of these decisions. More importantly, insurance companies right now are making those decisions. And part of what we want to do is to make sure that those decisions are being made by doctors and medical experts based on evidence, based on what works, because that's not how it's working right now.

So what the President seems to be advocating is making health care more evidence-based, perhaps in the formal sense of evidence-based medicine.

As a card-carrying evidence-based medicine advocate, I certainly agree, but let me reiterate that evidence-based medicine is not just medicine based on some sort of evidence. As Dr David Sackett, and colleagues wrote [Sackett DL, Rosenberg WM, Muir Gray JA, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. Evidence-based medicine; what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 1996; 312: 71-72. Link here. ]

Evidence based medicine is the conscientious, explicit, and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research. By individual clinical expertise we mean the proficiency and judgment that individual clinicians acquire through clinical experience and clinical practice. Increased expertise is reflected in many ways, but especially in more effective and efficient diagnosis and in the more thoughtful identification and compassionate use of individual patients' predicaments, rights, and preferences in making clinical decisions about their care. By best available external clinical evidence we mean clinically relevant research, often from the basic sciences of medicine, but especially from patient centred clinical research into the accuracy and precision of diagnostic tests (including the clinical examination), the power of prognostic markers, and the efficacy and safety of therapeutic, rehabilitative, and preventive regimens.

Furthermore,

Evidence based medicine is not 'cookbook' medicine. Because it requires a bottom up approach that integrates the best external evidence with individual clinical expertise and patients' choice, it cannot result in slavish, cookbook approaches to individual patient care. External clinical evidence can inform, but can never replace, individual clinical expertise, and it is this expertise that decides whether the external evidence applies to the individual patient at all and, if so, how it should be integrated into a clinical decision.

One can find other definitions of EBM, but nearly all emphasize that the approach is designed to appropriately apply results from the best clinical research, critically reviewed, to the individual patient, taking into account that patient's clinical characteristics and personal values.

So far, so good. I believe the proper application of "real" (as described above) evidence-based medicine has the potential to improve patient outcomes while moderating health care costs. However, we have pointed out how problems arising from concentration and abuse of power in health care threaten the evidence-based medical ideal.

First, there are major problems with the development of the sort of clinical research evidence required by the EBM process. We have discussed how clinical research is frequently manipulated by those with vested interests in producing results that favor the products or services that they sell. The critical review process inherent in EBM is meant to cope with less than optimally designed and implemented research. However, the process was designed to cope with honest mistakes and inevitable trade-offs, not deliberate manipulation by vested interests.

Worse, we have discussed how vested interests may engineer the suppression of research when manipulation fails to produce the desired results. The EBM process assumes that the research on which decisions should be based is an unbiased sample of research that was done (and done to advance science, not commercial or ideological interests). When research whose results are unwanted by vested interests is suppressed, the resulting distortion of the evidence base may irretrievably bias the EBM process.

Finally, we have posted about how vested interests have distorted the discussion, dissemination, and teaching of the results of clinical research. They may develop systematic stealth marketing campaigns, often employing supposed "key opinion leaders," who are paid on the side by marketers, and using "medical education and communication companies"as marketing fronts whose publication strategies include deceptive tactics such as "ghost-writing."

Thus, a rising tide of "pseudo-evidence based medicine" threatens to overwhelm even the most conscientious physicians trying to practice evidence-based medicine.

So, while I applaud President Obama's advocacy of reforming health care to emphasize what the best evidence suggests really works, I do not think this effort will get far unless we deal with the rising tide of pseudo-evidence based medicine. As a minimum, we need full and detailed disclosure of all the relationships among vested interests and medical research and education, and a much greater role for research and education that is not subsidized by corporations bent on using research and education to market their products and services.

We posted earlier this year about how documents produced on discovery and recently unsealed during litigation suggested how AstraZeneca handled clinical research data in the marketing of its atypical anti-psychotic drug Seroquel (quetiapine). A new crop of documents has just been released, providing yet more insights, as reported by the St Petersburg (Florida) Times:

Behind the scenes at the global pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, the team in charge of the blockbuster antipsychotic Seroquel had one mission: make the multibillion-dollar seller even bigger.

To that end, internal company documents released Wednesday show how the British drugmaker hid unfavorable study results, promoted unapproved uses and even considered pitching the drug as less likely to lead to suicidal thinking than competitors'.

In particular,

Documents suggest Seroquel studies were repeatedly subordinated to commercial goals.

When a study in 2002 failed to show that Seroquel's sustained release formula was any more effective than a placebo in treating schizophrenia, orders from the top were to keep the results 'in strictest confidence.'

When a scientist in England wanted to study the weight gain in rats on Seroquel, AstraZeneca declined to fund the research, saying 'we could wind up with results that are not clearly advantageous.'

In one discussion, it was suggested that authors of potentially helpful research reports who raised too many questions, slowing publication, should be asked to step down.

A researcher who pressed for results of an unfavorable trial was rebuffed for weeks before being given 'three or four sentences describing high-level results.'

AstraZeneca marketers were jealous of what they saw as competitor Lilly's ability to cast questionable study results in a positive light. 'They (Lilly) are able to spin the same data in many different ways through an effective publications team,' according to a 2003 memo. 'Negative data usually remains well hidden.'

As Seroquel's sales soared, documents reflect an ongoing struggle between the safety and marketing teams over the potentially damaging issue of weight gain. In 2000, the company's scientists said data did not support the marketing claim that Seroquel resulted in only 'limited' weight gain. Close to 23 percent of the people who took the drug gained more than 7 percent.

Despite the safety team's objections, the word 'limited' remained on Seroquel's label for two more years.

This is a reminder how beleaguered we advocates of evidence-based health care (EBHC) have become. The idea of EBHC was that health care decisions for individual patients, and policies for groups of patients ought to be guided by critical review of the best available evidence from clinical research, guided by knowledge of biology and the biopsychosocial context of health, and informed by patients' values and preferences. The idea still makes sense to me, but it only works if physicians, patients and policy-makers have access to an unbiased sample of clinical research studies, so that studies with are not selectively suppressed to support vested interests. Although critical review can account for inevitable trade-offs, compromises, and errors in how studies are designed, implemented, and analyzed, the clinical epidemiological methods it uses are really not designed to root out falsehoods and deliberate deception.

However, the ongoing story of Seroquel, and many other cases discussed on Health Care Renewal suggest that when clinical research is sponsored by those who can profit from the product or service it evaluates, that research is prone to suppression and manipulation. Although I believe there are many honest scientists who work for pharmaceutical, biotechnology, device, health information technology and other health care corporations, it seems they often have to answer to marketers whose only goal is to sell more product.

As long as clinical research is sponsored and run by the people who can profit directly from selling the products and services the research is meant to evaluate, the ideal of evidence-based health care becomes less attainable.

As we have said before, suppression and manipulation of research amounts to post-hoc abuse of research subjects who volunteered their participation believing that it would advance science and health care.

Furthermore, suppression and manipulation of research can deceive physicians into prescribing tests and treatments that will fail to help, or even harm patients, and deceive patients into thinking that they are getting the best possible tests and treatments, when, again what they are getting is ineffective or even harmful.

In my humble opinion, there is an increasingly strong argument that clinical research should not be controlled, and probably should not be done at all by organizations with vested interests in the research producing results favorable to their products.