ARSI PR wars: Nubeqa (Bayer) vs Erleada (J & J) lawsuit

@brianjarvis But you have to ask yourself: Where is the data coming from? Aren’t these tables based on the data that the drug manufacturers are reporting?

@heavyphil asked ❝ Aren’t these tables based on the data that the drug manufacturers are reporting?❞

My test is this: would the researchers have released the findings if they didn't go the way the funding drug company hoped?

In the case of a major phase 3/4 trial, it's virtually impossible to suppress results because major trials are announced in advance, discussed at public conferences at every stage (including before any results are known), and run by scores of researchers at different institutions over many years. If TITAN hadn't shown the result Janssen/J&J hoped for, for example, they might not have trumpeted the results in their PR, but they wouldn't have been able to prevent them from getting out.

A restrospective or other small study run by a single research team (inside or outside the company itself) is different: the pharma company may be able to apply enough soft pressure to influence more the way the research is done and prevent or stall release of unfavourable findings. I'm not saying they always (or even often) do that, but they *could.*

@northoftheborder Oh boy, COULD they, and DID they. The J&J tell -all reads like total fiction…until, that is, you hear the sworn depositions of whistleblowers, fired or resigned researchers, and salespeople (yes, even them) who expose the blatant lies, fraud and bribery rampant in J&J’s culture.
The saddest thing about the book is the idea that J&J was ‘the most admired and respected company in the world’ and that its virtues were indistinct from that of the country it called home.
Phil

@heavyphil Up until 2023 — including the period of Apalutamide's development and the TITAN trial — Janssen, while fully owned by J&J, was a fairly autonomous organisation headquartered in the EU (Belgium). It was not without its share of drug-marketing scandals of course (as with all big pharma) — one even happened in cahoots with Bayer via a partnership.

But J&J has now assumed more-direct control and replaced what had been Janssen with "Johnson and Johnson Innovation Medicine." So I won't be surprised if it starts to resemble its parent company even more going forward. 😕

But honestly, I think it's important to focus just on the big trials — which are well-monitored and highly visible — and ignore the marketing hype and little boutique studies or hypothetical benefits from all the big pharma companies. Trust the science, ignore the spin.

@northoftheborder In theory you are quite correct: the science tells the facts, not the spin.
But most doctors never READ the science - they’re too busy. And the drug companies know this.
This is why they spend more $$ on marketing, seminars and their sales force than they do on R&D.
The drug rep hands out crates of free samples with a box of brochures for the waiting room; he then tells the doctor that he and the Mrs. are going to Cancun in February, all expenses paid, to attend the company’s seminar on whatever drug(s) they’re pushing.
The pumping starts right there in your doctor’s office and in turn, right onto you!
The big trials - usually double blind in nature - do offer the most concrete benefit for distinguishing the efficacy of one drug to the next - that’s for sure…but it’s those little, rigged boutique studies palmed off as ‘fact’ that really get those sales going…As usual, Caveat Emptor…
Phil

@brianjarvis Exactly! Actually looking at the data takes time and expertise that most of us don't have.

Those PowerPoint-style slides you shared are "data storytelling" (as we called it in my international-aid work) using carefully-curated key figures, rather than a deep dive into the messy source research and data.

Data storytelling makes the information more accessible for cancer patients — which is a very good thing — but it also introduces the biases of the person or org creating the slides, and removes the key figures from their original contexts (including the researchers' varying goals, methodologies, and caveats). You can tell many different stories using the same data, depending on what you decide to highlight.