> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • The Evolution of Race in Admissions
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
News
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

Tamiflu and the Limits of Peer Review

By  Paul Basken
March 4, 2018
Nearly two decades ago, two studies hailed the drug Tamiflu as effectively fighting the flu in nearly three out of four cases. But recent studies have cast doubt on both the drug’s effectiveness and the peer-review system that cleared it.
David Goldman, AP Images
Nearly two decades ago, two studies hailed the drug Tamiflu as effectively fighting the flu in nearly three out of four cases. But recent studies have cast doubt on both the drug’s effectiveness and the peer-review system that cleared it.

For those questioning whether the institution of peer review is really the ideal form of scientific quality control, the medication Tamiflu stands as a textbook example of its failure.

Back in 1999, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reviewed data from two peer-reviewed trials and approved Tamiflu for reducing both the risk and severity of flu. The U.S. and other governments worldwide then spent billions of dollars stockpiling it.

Now, almost two decades later and during an especially brutal flu season, the wisdom of those decisions — and the ability of the peer-reviewed publishing process to serve as a yardstick of reliability — stand in considerable doubt.

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from c950.chronicle.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

For those questioning whether the institution of peer review is really the ideal form of scientific quality control, the medication Tamiflu stands as a textbook example of its failure.

Back in 1999, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration reviewed data from two peer-reviewed trials and approved Tamiflu for reducing both the risk and severity of flu. The U.S. and other governments worldwide then spent billions of dollars stockpiling it.

Now, almost two decades later and during an especially brutal flu season, the wisdom of those decisions — and the ability of the peer-reviewed publishing process to serve as a yardstick of reliability — stand in considerable doubt.

The two initial Tamiflu studies back in 1999 had described the pill as protecting against the flu in 74 percent of cases, and cutting by nearly 50 hours the duration of the flu for those already suffering.

ADVERTISEMENT

But a comprehensive academic analysis in 2014 — covering at least 83 clinical trials of Tamiflu’s effectiveness and net benefits, many never previously published — showed Tamiflu provided an average reduction in flu symptoms of just 20 hours; no reduction in the likelihood of pneumonia, hospital admission, or complications requiring an antibiotic; and serious side effects, including nausea and vomiting. Several other studies using data not disclosed back in 1999 reached similar conclusions.

Much of the $20 billion spent worldwide on Tamiflu therefore may have been thrown away, given the very selective data that were initially made public through the peer-review process, according to the authors of the 2014 analysis, published in the medical journal BMJ.

The Tamiflu case is “an excellent example” of the serious shortcomings of using published peer-reviewed articles as a measure of scientific reliability, says David Moher, an associate professor of epidemiology and public health at the University of Ottawa.

Peer review shouldn’t be worshiped, but judged just as strictly as any other scientific tool, says Moher, who directs the Center for Journalology at the Ottawa Hospital. “If we were to replace the peer-review intervention with a clinical intervention, such as a drug, and the evidence indicated no effect despite the enormous investment in the intervention, there would be a public outcry,” he says.

The limited number of published trials on Tamiflu at the time of its 1999 approval had led some scientists to push the drug’s manufacturer, Roche, to release all its trial data on the drug. After several years, Roche complied. The drug’s approval and sales represent a “multisystem failure,” BMJ editors said in an editorial accompanying the 2014 analysis.

ADVERTISEMENT

Roche still insists on Tamiflu’s value. A company spokesman, Bob Purcell, said in a statement to The Chronicle that Tamiflu’s regulatory approvals “were based on appropriate review of Tamiflu data.” Yet Purcell also said Roche had realized the need to be more transparent. “We have evolved our practices regarding data sharing over time,” he said in the statement.

But others say the waste uncovered in the Tamiflu saga reflects widespread problems that continue to plague academic publishing. Moher is the lead author of a September 2017 article in Nature that analyzed nearly 2,000 biomedical articles from more than 200 low-quality journals, covering data from studies involving more than two million people and 8,000 animals. More than 90 percent of the studies in the sample failed to describe even basic processes, such as their method for creating randomized test groupings.

The waste in time and money attributable to poor peer review, Moher says, is likely to be in “the billions of hours and dollars.”

Paul Basken covers university research and its intersection with government policy. He can be found on Twitter @pbasken, or reached by email at paul.basken@chronicle.com.

A version of this article appeared in the March 9, 2018, issue.
Read other items in this The 2018 Trends Report package.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Paul Basken
Paul Basken was a government policy and science reporter with The Chronicle of Higher Education, where he won an annual National Press Club award for exclusives.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin