Medicine fights pharmaceutical influence - East Valley Tribune: Business

Medicine fights pharmaceutical influence

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Saturday, September 13, 2008 7:10 pm | Updated: 9:06 pm, Fri Oct 7, 2011.

TRENTON, N.J. - Just about every segment of the medical community is piling on the pharmaceutical industry these days, accusing drug makers of deceiving the public, manipulating doctors and putting profits before patients.

Recent articles and editorials in major medical journals blast the industry. Medical schools, teaching hospitals and physician groups are changing rules to limit the influence of pharmaceutical sales reps. And three top editors of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine last month publicly sided against the drug industry in a U.S. Supreme Court case over whether patients harmed by government-approved medicines may still sue in state courts.

As more voices have called for change, new guidelines for how drug makers and doctors should interact are coming from both industries, and doctors say some abuses of the past have ended. But the industries’ dealings remain fraught with potential conflict because the sectors depend on each other so much — medicine on drug makers’ research dollars and drug makers on the credibility researchers give them.

“The influence that the pharmaceutical companies, the for-profits, are having on every aspect of medicine ... is so blatant now you’d have to be deaf, blind and dumb not to see it,” said Journal of the American Medical Association editor Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, a longtime industry critic. “We have just allowed them to take over, and it’s our fault, the whole medical community.”

In an April editorial in her journal, DeAngelis noted two studies that indicated reports about Merck & Co.’s withdrawn pain reliever Vioxx frequently were penned by ghostwriters and that reports on some Vioxx studies minimized the risk of death.

Merck has denied the charges.

“Manipulation of studies and publications by the pharmaceutical and medical device industries is either increasing or there has been more exposure of these practices,” she wrote.

She said industry influence includes swaying doctors with gifts, funding research at top teaching hospitals but keeping control of the studies and results, failing to disclose study authors’ conflicts of interest, even taking over the continuing medical education system for doctors by running courses on new treatments. Critics say such courses are taught by company-paid speakers who often promote expensive new drugs over older, cheaper ones.

“We should all get together and say, 'Enough!’ ” DeAngelis said.

Already, top journals are listing study authors’ conflicts of interest, and dozens of medical schools and medical specialty societies are barring gifts to doctors and limiting their other financial ties to industry. Some schools bar professors from being paid drug-company speakers. And one expert noted that drug makers have stopped giving cash prizes to medical students for presenting favorable research on their drugs at conferences.

Still, no one is suggesting anything as drastic as cutting off industry funding for academic research on new drugs. Those billions help pay lab and other expenses at virtually all U.S. teaching hospitals, medical schools and affiliated practices, while giving the drugs’ developers the cachet of having big-name academic researchers running their studies.

The industry’s trade group, in an apparent response, in July revised its 2002 “Code on Interactions with Health-care Professionals” to ban giving out pens, mugs and other noneducational gifts, taking doctors to restaurants and giving them tickets for shows or sports events. Bringing meals to their offices and donating anatomical models and textbooks will still be allowed when the voluntary code takes effect in January.

“America’s pharmaceutical companies devote many years and billions of dollars to researching and developing life-saving medicines,” and help drive progress and economic growth, said Diane Bieri, general counsel for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. “We will always face criticism and at times deserve it but our companies remain committed to listening to and learning from parties with divergent points of views.”

Hollie Gilroy, spokeswoman for the HealthCare Institute of New Jersey, a trade group including many top drug makers, said the industry is an easy target, but criticisms about gifts to doctors, beyond logo-bearing pens and similar items, are either outdated or exaggerated. She said the industry is quick to police itself and tries to keep high ethical standards when dealing with health-care professionals.

But pharmaceutical analyst Steve Brozak of WBB Securities said drug makers will find ways to adapt to new rules.

“The earlier you can hook one of these doctors, the more loyal they are” to a brand, Brozak said.

Medical groups have been fighting industry influence harder since a 2006 JAMA editorial by 11 prominent doctors urged teaching hospitals to lead in cleaning up conflicts of interest between medicine and industry.

David Rothman, president of the Institute on Medicine as a Profession, said about one-fourth of U.S. medical schools now have policies on industry gifts “that really pass muster.” Some bar sales reps from giving doctors drug samples — but allow donations to a central supply office — and don’t let them wander their halls to speak to doctors.

“You’re not being bribed, you’re being gifted,” doctors may think, but industry freebies influence prescribing patterns, Rothman said.

At University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, possibly the strictest, pharmaceutical reps since February have had to get a perfect score on an online training program about its rules to get appointments. Some reps have been warned about infractions, but none have been banned, said Dr. Barbara Barnes, head of industry relations.

Rothman said there’s a new effort to “clean up” continuing medical education of doctors, the only professionals he knows who don’t pay for it themselves.

In June, the Association of American Medical Colleges put out guidelines that bar drug makers from paying for continuing medical education sessions on specific topics but allow donations to a central fund.

The Council of Medical Specialty Societies, which represents 32 specialty groups, this summer started collecting each group’s best practices on disclosure and limitations on speaking and other activities.

Meanwhile, Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, an industry critic, is sponsoring a bill to require drug makers to report all payments made to doctors — from buying meals to flying them to conferences at resorts.

Doctors say they see an impact.

Dr. Marc Siegel, an internist and associate professor at New York University School of Medicine, said the school has fewer drug maker-sponsored events, and he no longer gets offers of baseball tickets or paid junkets as a consultant at a doctors’ meeting — things he turned down anyway. He said some colleagues no longer let drug sales reps in their offices, but he does.

“I don’t mind — I like my staff to get a free lunch,” Siegel said. “I don’t think it influences one iota what I prescribe.”

  • Discuss

'EV Women in Business'

A PDF of the Tribune special section, featuring a mix of sponsored content from our loyal advertisers and newsroom coverage of the East Valley business community.

Your Az Jobs