NZ has socialized medicine, with a central drug buying agency (Pharmac) who tries to save costs where it can. It also has a drug safety agency (Medsafe). Not uncommonly, Pharmac reckons they can save money by switching brands, and Medsafe may raise concerns.
In 2017, Pharmac moved from funding a branded formulation of venlafaxine (Effexor) to a generic formulation (Enlafax). A lot of patients reported issues (almost 2k, which is a fair number given the size of the country), and it was a bit of a black eye for Pharmac. So Pharmac went and paid a researcher at a local university to study brand switches in general and the 2017 venlafaxine switch in particular, and show (hopefully) that the issues weren't real, hadn't caused significant problems, and that it was totally fine to switch psychiatric meds. (Which is relevant now, because Pharmac is looking at switching another medicine, Medsafe has raised strong concerns ("potential significant safety issues", "goes against international consensus", etc.), and Pharmac wants to find a way to move forward while covering their ass in case it turns out Medsafe is right.)
In any case, the result was this study. It could well be right, but uh, do keep in mind the context, which is that the researchers got paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct it by an interested party hoping to save millions of dollars and fend off accusations that they had harmed people and risked lives.
Any study funded by people with such a strong interest in it having a specific outcome that then comes out with the exact outcome should be taken with a grain of salt. Doubly so when the study omits to disclose that funding!
Note: The article says that Petrie received NZ$400k from Pharmac for the study. For anyone wondering if that's right, the answer is: Yes! Although it took the NZ equivalent of a FoI request to find out. See https://www.pharmac.govt.nz/news/oia-response-2018-12-12-res... And note that the study itself disclosed nothing about funding. Given that Pharmac has a very strong and very obvious vested interest in this matter, I find this ethically troubling.
NZ has socialized medicine, with a central drug buying agency (Pharmac) who tries to save costs where it can. It also has a drug safety agency (Medsafe). Not uncommonly, Pharmac reckons they can save money by switching brands, and Medsafe may raise concerns.
In 2017, Pharmac moved from funding a branded formulation of venlafaxine (Effexor) to a generic formulation (Enlafax). A lot of patients reported issues (almost 2k, which is a fair number given the size of the country), and it was a bit of a black eye for Pharmac. So Pharmac went and paid a researcher at a local university to study brand switches in general and the 2017 venlafaxine switch in particular, and show (hopefully) that the issues weren't real, hadn't caused significant problems, and that it was totally fine to switch psychiatric meds. (Which is relevant now, because Pharmac is looking at switching another medicine, Medsafe has raised strong concerns ("potential significant safety issues", "goes against international consensus", etc.), and Pharmac wants to find a way to move forward while covering their ass in case it turns out Medsafe is right.)
In any case, the result was this study. It could well be right, but uh, do keep in mind the context, which is that the researchers got paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to conduct it by an interested party hoping to save millions of dollars and fend off accusations that they had harmed people and risked lives.
Any study funded by people with such a strong interest in it having a specific outcome that then comes out with the exact outcome should be taken with a grain of salt. Doubly so when the study omits to disclose that funding!
Local NZ article with a good roundup of the current controversy, the 2017 issues, and the linked study: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/in-depth/390615/guyon-espiner-inv...
Note: The article says that Petrie received NZ$400k from Pharmac for the study. For anyone wondering if that's right, the answer is: Yes! Although it took the NZ equivalent of a FoI request to find out. See https://www.pharmac.govt.nz/news/oia-response-2018-12-12-res... And note that the study itself disclosed nothing about funding. Given that Pharmac has a very strong and very obvious vested interest in this matter, I find this ethically troubling.