Public release date: 22-Oct-2007

Studies of inhaled corticosteroids, medications frequently prescribed for asthma and other respiratory problems, appear less likely to find adverse effects if they are funded by pharmaceutical companies than if they are funded by other sources, according to a report in the October 22 issue of Archives of Internal Medicine, one of the JAMA/Archives journals.

“Remarkably, type of funding was a major determinant of the authors’ interpretation of the adverse effects,” the authors write. In studies that did find a significant association between corticosteroids and adverse effects, authors of manufacturer-funded studies were more likely to conclude the drugs were safe than authors of studies with no pharmaceutical funding

Because the interpretations are subjective, it is difficult to determine if studies funded by the manufacturer are too positive or studies with no pharmaceutical funding are too cautious, the authors note. “However, we postulate that having information on source of funding will help readers of these studies have a better informed and balanced judgment on the authors’ interpretations,” they conclude. “Disclosure of conflicts of interest should be strengthened for a more balanced opinion on the safety of drugs.”

***Ralph’s Note- You can perform the most non bias clinical trial. Still you have to pay some one to interpret those results. That is where the corruption begins. As in the case of the hormone replacement craze.