|
Letting the sunshine in on doctor-pharma relationships
Published 11 October 2011
In this Feature article in the BMJ, Andrew Jack writes that drug companies are increasingly obliged to publish details of payments to doctors. The United States is leading the charge, but are we getting the full story in Europe?
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Bitter pills for drug companies
Published 17 September 2010
Melanie Newman reports in the BMJ that after criticism that massive fines are failing to dissuade drug companies from engaging in fraudulent business practices, the US government is turning to more radical enforcement measures.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Disclosing Industry Relationships — Toward an Improved Federal Research Policy
Published 14 July 2010
Eric G. Campbell and Darren E. Zinner writing in the NEJM, review moves for more stringent requirements for academic researchers to reveal industry payments.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Developing good scientific publishing practices: one pharmaceutical company’s perspective
Published June 2010
Sherie A. Dowsett and colleagues explain in CMRO that Lilly has an ongoing commitment to appropriate publishing practices. Sharing company publication principles, policies and practices is one way to demonstrate this commitment and encourage and facilitate open dialogue among all those involved in drug development.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Managing Financial Conflict of Interest in Biomedical Research
Published 16 June 2010
Francis S. Collins, National Institutes of Health, writes in JAMA that as the nation's biomedical research agency, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) must ensure that the research it funds on the behalf of US taxpayers is scientifically rigorous and free of bias. Over the course of more than 65 years and hundreds of thousands of awards, most researchers receiving funds from NIH have proved to be trustworthy stewards. Still, more must be done to retain, and in some instances regain, public trust in the biomedical and behavioral research enterprise.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
US National Institutes of Health proposes new rules on researchers’ ties to industry
Published 4 June 2010
Janice Hopkins Tanne writes in the BMJ that senior figures at the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) have proposed new, stricter rules for funded researchers on showing their ties with industry.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
GSK is accused of trying to suppress editorial on rosiglitazone
Published 19 May 2010
Janice Hopkins Tanne writes in the BMJ that GlaxoSmithKline faces several new issues over its drug rosiglitazone (Avandia) and possible cardiovascular problems and that the company has had to answer reports that it had asked the European Heart Journal not to publish in print an online editorial that was critical of the drug.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Open access publishing: And now, e-publication bias
Published 28 April 2010
A letter by Ane Krag Jakobsen and colleagues in the BMJ concludes that author-paid open access publishing preferentially increases accessibility to studies funded by industry and suggests this could favour dissemination of pro-industry results.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
US specialty societies are urged to adopt code on relations with industry
Published 23 April 2010
The BMJ reports the call from the CMSS to all medical societies to sign up to a code of ethics that would set standards for their relations with drug companies and encourage them to be far more open about their funding.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Doctor groups set new ethics codes to curb pharmaceuticals' influence
Published 21 April 2010
An article in USA Today reports on the newly published Code for Interactions with Companies saying it as the most sweeping move ever taken by the Council of Medical Specialty Societies to curb conflict of interest — a growing concern as private industry bankrolls a greater share of medical research.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
JAMA urges journals to toughen data review
Published 19 April 2010
An article in Americal Medical News reports that the controversy over GlaxoSmithKline's diabetes drug Avandia prompts calls for requiring independent analysis of drugmakers' trial data.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Strengthening the credibility of clinical research
Published 10 April 2010
An Editorial in The Lancet reflects on the story of rosiglitazone which they say is one of death, greed, and corruption...
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Rosiglitazone, marketing, and medical science
Published 7 April 2010
Attempts to play down the potential cardiac risks of a popular diabetes drug raise questions about the need for fundamental changes in drug regulation, writes Ray Moynihan in the BMJ
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Europe’s opportunity to open up drug regulation
Published 30 March 2010
There are more calls for transparency about industry data from Silvio Garattini and Vittorio Bertele’ in the BMJ. They argue that among the priorities for the European health directorate, DG Sanco, as it takes control of the agency in charge of drug regulation should be to end the secrecy surrounding approval decisions.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Ensuring Integrity in Industry-Sponsored Research
Published 24 March 2010
An Editorial in JAMA says given the circumstances surrounding rosiglitazone it is now time for all editors to require that academic researchers have full access to all trial data and that all industry-sponsored trials include independent statistical analysis and assurance. This approach would add powerful support to the fundamental principle that physicians must first do no harm.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Psychiatrists' Relationships With Pharmaceutical Companies: Part of the Problem or Part of the Solution?
Published 24 March 2010
Thomas R. Insel, writes in JAMA that as public trust in the pharmaceutical industry has plummeted, the close connection between leading psychiatrists and the pharmaceutical industry, once a sign of progress for the profession, is now cited as evidence of corrupt influence.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Setting the RECORD Straight
Published 24 March 2010
Steven E. Nissen, in light of his own experience with rosiglitazone, calls in JAMA for all medical journals to require independent outside statistical confirmation of trial results.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
US drug manufacturers will have to disclose payments to doctors
Published 23 March 2010
Ray Moynihan reports in a news article in the BMJ how new rules forcing drug and device manufacturers to disclose all payments to doctors look set to become law in the United States, after the historic healthcare reform bill was passed by the House of Representatives this weekend
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Scientists With Ties To Industry More Likely to Write Nice Things About Drugs
Published 18 March 2010
PharmaLive reviews the BMJ article by Wang and colleagues and reports opinion from industry critics. Over 90 per cent of scientists who wrote positively about the drug Avandia (rosiglitazone) in studies, commentaries and letters published in medical journals had financial relationships with drug companies. It notes that the scientists who did this new study said they couldn’t prove that financial ties provoked the positive reviews. But people who study the influence the pharmaceutical industry wields over scientific publishing were more inclined to draw the link.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Association between industry affiliation and position on cardiovascular risk with rosiglitazone: cross sectional systematic review
Published 18 March 2010
Open access article in the BMJ from Amy T Wang and colleagues, exploring a possible link between authors’ financial conflicts of interest and their position on the association of rosiglitazone with increased risk of myocardial infarction in patients with diabetes.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Serving Two Masters — Conflicts of Interest in Academic Medicine
Published 25 February 2010
Bernard Lo argues in the NEJM, that the public grants the medical profession considerable discretion in setting its own standards because it trusts that physicians will place patients' interests ahead of their own or those of third parties. To maintain this trust, academic health centers should take the lead in addressing conflicts of interest in medicine, rather than merely responding to government requirements and adverse publicity about troubling cases.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
BMJ policy on data sharing
Published 26 January 2010
A News report in the BMJ, reports that a medical journal editor who received millions of dollars from a medical device manufacturer wrote and edited articles favourable to the manufacturer without stating his conflicts of interest to readers.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Harvard Teaching Hospitals Cap Outside Pay
Published 2 January 2010
The New York Times reports that the owner of two research hospitals affiliated with the Harvard Medical School has imposed restrictions on outside pay for two dozen senior officials who also sit on the boards of pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies. The limits come in the wake of growing criticism of the ties between industry and academia. Partners HealthCare is also forbidding speaker’s fees from drug companies for any employee, including nearly 8,000 with Harvard faculty appointments.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Appropriateness of Collaborations between Industry and the Medical Profession: Physicians' Perceptions
Published 23 October 2009
An article by Joseph Ross and colleagues in the The American Journal of Medicine reports that Physicians' broadly perceived most collaboration with the pharmaceutical and medical device industries, and of receiving payment for collaboration, as appropriate.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Accuracy of Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures Reported by Physicians
Published 8 October 2009
Kanu Okike and colleagues report results of their study in the NEJM which exploits the fact that recent public reporting of payments made to physicians by manufacturers of orthopedic devices provides an opportunity to assess the accuracy of physicians' conflict-of-interest disclosures.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Drug industry must be regulated more tightly in recession, says think tank
Published 3 September 2009
Lynn Eaton in the BMJ highlights the conclusions of a new report from the left wing think tank, Compass, which says "Tighter curbs are needed on the influence of the UK drug industry on doctors and patient groups, particularly during a recession". The report itself also dwells on the problems of bias in clinical research and in the publications that arise thereafter.
[Link to original source material]
[Link to Compass report]
|
|
|
Industry Support and Professional Medical Associations
Published 19 August 2009
A series of letters are published in JAMA responding to the article by David Rothman on 1 April calling for sweeping measures to control relationships between Professional Medical Associations and Industry. David Rothman's response is also published.
[Letter from Norman Kahn]
[Letter from Peter C. Lombardo]
[Letter from Walker L. Ray]
[Letter from Robert H. Jackson]
[Letter from C. Daniel Smith]
[Response from David Rothman]
|
|
|
Prepare Now to Avoid the Burn
Published 16 July 2009
The sponsors of clinical trials Sunshine Act legislation are asking for a lot of new rules in the name of transparency. Sondra Pepe, in an article in Pharmaceutical Executive looks at what pharma companies can do to ready themselves for the new regulations.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
A Higher Bar — Vermont's New Law on Marketing Prescribed Products
Published 2 July 2009
Robert Steinbrook describes in the NEJM how as Congress continues to discuss the reform of physician–industry relations, individual states are enacting new laws. In July 2009, regulations on the conduct of pharmaceutical and medical-device manufacturers take effect in Massachusetts,1 as does a Vermont law on the marketing of prescribed products
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Sponsored titles raise impartiality issue
Published 9 June 2009
PMlive.com picks up on the ongoing story about sponsored Journals in Australia. Elsevier's Excerpta Medica has revealed that between 2000 and 2005 its imprint in Australia published six industry-sponsored 'journals', which critics say gave the impression that they were peer-reviewed publications.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Australian research council reviews conflict of interest requirements
Published 9 June 2009
Melissa Sweet reports in the BMJ news section that Australian researchers, universities, and other research institutions are likely to face measures aimed at ensuring conflicts of interest are declared. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) is considering recommendations that would require researchers to publicly declare conflicts of interest on university and other institutional websites.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Elsevier tweaks custom pub rules
Published 4 June 2009
Bob Grant writes in The Scientist about how Elsevier is revising its policies and procedures for partnering with pharmaceutical companies to create custom publications in response to recent media attention over a fake journal, called the Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine (AJBJM), created by the company and paid for by Merck.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Study finds marked conflict-of-interest potential in cancer trials
Published 11 May 2009
PharmaTimes reports that a new study has found a substantial number of published clinical cancer studies are compromised by potential conflicts of interest that may encourage researchers to report outcomes favourable to industry.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
No gifts, please, we’re doctors
Published 7 May 2009
An Observations report in the BMJ from Douglas Kamerow, chief scientist, RTI International, and associate editor, BMJ who notes that the new recommendations from the US Institute of Medicine are broad and deep. He says the most impressive thing about the report is its breadth. As the title only begins to suggest, the committee evaluated and made recommendations about conflicts of interest in biomedical research, medical education, creation of clinical practice guidelines, medical practice, and medical institutions.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Report calls for end of drug promotion to doctors
Published 5 May 2009
News report in the BMJ about the latest US Institute of Medicine recommendations.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Controlling Conflict of Interest — Proposals from the Institute of Medicine
Published 29 April 2009
A Perspective from Robert Steinbrook, M.D in the NEJM on the new report from The Institute of Medicine, in which he notes "there has been no shortage of previous reports and calls for change; the new report lists 16 of the "more prominent reports" that were released between 2001 and 2008 alone. So the institute's proposals could merely provide more fodder for discussion — or perhaps mark a turning point in controlling conflicts of interest in medicine."
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Report calls for industry-doctor ties to be cut, cash-wise
Published 29 April 2009
PharmaTimes reports that the USA’s most influential medical advisory group, The Institute of Medicine, part of the USA’s National Academy of Sciences, has issued a report demanding that “voluntary and regulatory measures” are needed urgently to stop conflict of interest between doctors and the pharmaceutical industry.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Pride and prejudice
Published 22 April 2009
In the BMJ, Des Spence, general practitioner, Glasgow asks can we change doctors’ opinions about relations with the drug industry? A new online training programme, called Pharmalyzer ("Are you prescribing under the influence?"), attempts to do just this (http://pharmedout.org).
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
American Psychiatric Association says no to industry funding for symposiums
Published 6 April 2009
BMJ commentary on the decision by the AMA to phase out sponsorship of symposia at their annual meeting.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Professional Medical Associations and Their Relationships With Industry. A Proposal for Controlling Conflict of Interest
Published 1 April 2009
The authors of this JAMA article propose sweeping measures including a ban on all industry funding (except journal advertising and exhibition stands at meetings); no logos, gifts etc at meetings; no sponsored supplements; no satellite symposia; no industry funding for research or training if strings are attached; no funding for practice guidelines.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Canadian doctors admit earning thousands in trial recruitment fees
Published 6 March 2009
It's reported in the BMJ that several Canadian doctor have admitted, on condition of anonymity, that they earn tens of thousands of dollars each year by recruiting patients for clinical trials.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Pfizer to disclose payments of $500 to healthcare prescribers
Published 18 February 2009
BMJ article on Pfizer's commitment to disclose all payments of more than $500 per year to practising US physicians, principal investigators, major academic institutions and clinical research sites.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Physician-industry relations – will fewer gifts make a difference?
Published 5 February 2009
NEJM article on the influence on doctors of pharma industry gifts.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Online Disclosure of Physician–Industry Relationships
Published 22 January 2009
NEJM article on the policy of the Cleveland Clinic and other organisations to the disclosure of industry payments.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Industry funding
Published 10 December 2008
More from JAMA on the investigations of US senators into industry funding and conflict of interest.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
US psychiatrist is fired from radio programme for not disclosing drug company ties
Published 9 December 2008
The BMJ reports further fall-out from the ongoing investigations of US senators into industry funding and conflicts of interest.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Updated Estimates of Pharmaceutical Company Payments to Physicians in Vermont
Published 5 November 2008
More from JAMA on pharma company payments.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
GlaxoSmithKline to limit payments it makes to US doctors to $150,000 a year
Published 30 October 2008
More from the BMJ on industry payments to doctors.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
US university sets up conflict of interest office after investigation into drug company payments
Published 21 October 2008
More from the BMJ on fall-out from the US Senate Finance Committee investigations into pharma company payments.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Drug funding questioned
Published 8 October 2008
This article in JAMA provides an update on the investigation by the US Senate Finance Committee into pharma company funding of the American Psychiatric Association
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Industry payments: Truly independent research is impossible
Published 2 October 2008
Letter in response to a previous BMJ article questioning the independence of CROs from pharma companies sponsoring research.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Industry support of medical education
Published 3 September 2008 (JAMA, Relman)
End of the free lunch?
Published 26 August 2008 (BMJ, Gould)
Continuing medical education in the 21st century
Published 22 August 2008 (BMJ, Woollard)
A historical perspective of pharmaceutical promotion and physician education
Published 20 August 2008 (JAMA, Podolsky)
Rethinking continuing medical education
Published 14 August 2008 (BMJ, Pisacane)
Is the relationship between pharma and medical education on the rocks?
Published 14 August 2008 (BMJ, Moynihan)
Pharma and CME: view from the US
Published 14 August 2008 (BMJ, Fletcher)
Read five articles from the BMJ and two from JAMA on pharma sponsorship of CME - the hot topic for summer 2008. One of the articles (Gould, BMJ) presents an industry point of view from the medical director of the ABPI and an independent industry consultant.
[Link to original source material] (JAMA, Relman)
[Link to original source material] (BMJ, Gould)
[Link to original source material] (Woollard, BMJ)
[Link to original source material] (JAMA, Podolsky)
[Link to original source material] (BMJ, Pisacane)
[Link to original source material] (BMJ, Moynihan)
[Link to original source material] (BMJ, Fletcher)
|
|
|
New developments in managing physician/industry relationships
Published 3 September 2008
A commentary in JAMA on developments in the US on managing industry payments to doctors.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Any affiliation can lead to bias
Published 11 August 2008
This article responds to a previous BMJ article that describes a list of medical experts without industry associations. It points out that any affiliation, not just those to commercial companies, can lead to bias, and that much high quality, honest work is done outside of academic institutions.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Disclosure of industry payments to physicians
Published 7 August 2008
This NEJM article discusses the US Physician Payments Sunshine Act, whereby pharma and medical device and supplies companies who provide products to Medicare, Medicaid or the State Children's Health Insurance Program may have to declare all payments and gifts made to US physicians.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Naming names: is there an (unbiased) doctor in the house?
Published 23 July 2008
This BMJ article describes a list that aims to provide a source for medical journalists of independent medical experts without industry associations.
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Key opinion leaders: independent experts or drug representatives in disguise?
Published 21 June 2008
This article by Ray Moynihan in the BMJ criticises the use of key opinion leaders by the pharma industry to communicate information on their products. The article is accompanied by an editorial by the BMJ Editor, Fiona Godlee, and a Head to Head debate on the issue with Charlie Buckwell (Complete Medical Group) and Giovanni Fava (University of Bologna).
[Link to original source material]
|
|
|
Researchers fail to reveal full drug pay
Published 8 June 2008
Here, the New York Times reports details of doctors from Harvard Medical School who failed to report considerable payments from the pharma industry.
[Link to original source material]
|
