corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 19659

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Electronic Source

Ornstein C
Should you care about those conflicts of interest?
Healthy Buzz 2011 Oct 14
http://cornstein.tumblr.com/post/11448311210/should-you-care-about-those-conflicts-of-interest


Full text:

Conflicts of interest between doctors and the pharmaceutical/medical device industry have been the subject of reams of stories, including many in our Dollars for Docs series.

Add two important ones this week. The first, from Cardiobrief, talks about the rampant ties between members of the National Lipid Association’s guideline writing panels and the companies who stand to benefit from the guidelines. Larry Husten writes:

Panel members, along with the NLA itself, have a dizzying number of industry relationships. The chair of the panel, Michael Davidson, “has received research grants from Abbott Laboratories, Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck & Co. and Roche… has received consulting fees from Abbott Laboratories, Aegerion Pharmaceuticals, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Atherotech Inc., Daiichi Sankyo, DTC MD, Esperion, GlaxoSmithKline, Intelligent Medical Decisions, Kinemed, LipoScience, Merck & Co, Novo Nordisk, Roche, Sanofi-Aventis, Synarc, Takeda Pharmaceuticals, and Vindico Medical Education…. has received honoraria related to speaking from Abbott Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline and Merck & Co…. [and] has served on the Board of Directors of DTC MD, Omthera, Professional Evaluation Inc., and Sonogene.”
Also, this week, the British Medical Journal has a study about conflicts of interest on guideline writing panels for diabetes and hyperlipidemia. The results:

Fourteen guidelines met our search criteria, of which five had no accompanying declaration of conflicts of interest by panel members. 288 panel members had participated in the guideline development process. Among the 288 panel members, 138 (48%) reported conflicts of interest at the time of the publication of the guideline and 150 (52%) either stated that they had no such conflicts or did not have an opportunity to declare any. Among 73 panellists who formally declared no conflicts, 8 (11%) were found to have one or more. Twelve of the 14 guideline panels evaluated identified chairs, among whom six had financial conflicts of interest. Overall, 150 (52%) panel members had conflicts, of which 138 were declared and 12 were undeclared.
Here’s a couple of our stories that address this topic:

Financial Ties Bind Medical Societies to Drug and Device Makers

Emails Show Drug Company Used Third-Party Medical Groups to Influence Regulators, Undercut Rivals (By Marian Wang)

Cardiac Society Draws Bulk of Funding From Stent Makers

Is this much ado about nothing? Pushing back, the American Heart Association issued a release this week saying, in part:

We feel the suggestion that individuals with relationships with industry should be completely eliminated from all guidelines writing panels is not constructive because these individuals can provide relevant and informed input on the recommendations unrelated to their industry relationship. The association believes that our policies control the potential for inappropriate bias to influence guidelines development.
It’s impossible to know that a relationship with industry will in fact cause bias. We should not, for example, assume that those without financial ties to industry might not have other conflicts of interest.
What do you think? Do these conflicts concern you?

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909