Saturday, July 28, 2012

Lancet accused of industry bias.


The Lancet, Volume 380, Issue 9839, Page 340, 28 July 2012

doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61250-1Cite or Link Using DO
I
The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry has issued a new guideline1 to promote collaboration with doctors. It urges health-care professionals not to be “tempted to accept the negative myths about cooperating with industry”. Endorsed by many, including the British Medical Association, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, and the Department of Health, among other major UK bodies, The Lancet's logo was used to support claims that “Industry plays a valid and important role in the provision of medical education” and that “Medical representatives can be a useful resource for healthcare professionals”.1
Such assertions contradict the evidence.23 Worse than believing that sales representatives or medical education can have an unbiased and valid role, The Lancet has ignored the effect of drug promotion in the new social media which is now the freeway for marketing.4
Acknowledging the importance of the pharmaceutical industry is not an excuse for spreading positive myths. If all companies had a core ethic to avoid harming patients, why would GlaxoSmithKline have recently agreed to pay US$3 billion to settle civil and criminal investigations into its sales practices for numerous drugs, the fourth such case since April, 2008, and surpassing Pfizer's earlier record of $2·3 billion in 2009?5
Why did The Lancet endorse this guidance? Was it a considered matter of “supping with the devil with a long spoon” or a concern about losing advertising and reprint revenue?
SB is a committee member of Healthwatch, a charity “for treatments that work”. PM's organisation Healthy Skepticism aims to improve health by reducing harm from misleading health information. The other authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

References

1 Association of the British Pharmaceutical IndustryGuidance on collaboration between healthcare professionals and the pharmaceutical industryhttp://www.abpi.org.uk/our-work/library/guidelines/Pages/collaboration-guidance.aspx(accessed April 14, 2012).
2 Steinman MALandefeld CSBaron RBIndustry support of CME-are we at the tipping point?N Engl J Med 20123661069-1071CrossRef | PubMed
3 Fugh-Berman AAhari SFollowing the script: how drug reps make friends and influence doctorsPLoS Med 20074e150.CrossRef | PubMed
4 Greene JAKesselheim ASPharmaceutical marketing and the new social mediaN Engl J Med 20103632087-2089CrossRefPubMed
5 Braillon ADrug industry is now biggest defrauder of US governmentBMJ 2012344d8219CrossRef | PubMed
a Public Health Consultant, 80000 Amiens, France
b King's College London, London, UK
c UK Cochrane Centre, Oxford, UK
d Healthy Skepticism, Willunga, SA, Australia
e School of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto, ON, Canada
f Waikato Clinical School, University of Auckland, Hamilton, New Zealand
g Kazan Federal University, Kazan, Russia
h University Hospital, Toulouse, France

No comments: