Conflicts of Interest Anesthesia Practice: Relationships with Industry, Responsibility to the Health Care System, and Research Integrity.

Conflicts of interest (COIs) between clinical obligations and other roles and responsibilities occur throughout health care, including anesthetic practice. In some circumstances, these conflicts are unavoidable. This article describes some of the potential conflicts and explores approaches to managing them in 3 key areas: relationships with industry, responsibility to the health care system, and obligations in research. Although working with industry has many benefits, COIs may arise from financial arrangements, potential biases that may go unrecognized, prioritization of commercial interests and even guideline development.

Exploring bias risks in artificial intelligence and targeted medicines manufacturing.

BACKGROUND: Though artificial intelligence holds great value for healthcare, it may also amplify health inequalities through risks of bias. In this paper, we explore bias risks in targeted medicines manufacturing. Targeted medicines manufacturing refers to the act of making medicines targeted to individual patients or to subpopulations of patients within a general group, which can be achieved, for example, by means of cell and gene therapies. These manufacturing processes are increasingly reliant on digitalised systems which can be controlled by artificial intelligence algorithms. Whether and how bias might turn up in the process, however, is uncertain due to the novelty of the development. METHODS: Examining stakeholder views across bioethics, precision medicine, and artificial intelligence, we document a range of opinions from eleven semi-structured interviews about the possibility of bias in AI-driven targeted therapies manufacturing. RESULT: Findings show that bias can emerge in upstream (research and development) and downstream (medicine production) processes when manufacturing targeted medicines. However, interviewees emphasized that downstream processes, particularly those not relying on patient or population data, may have lower bias risks. The study also identified a spectrum of bias meanings ranging from negative and ambivalent to positive and productive. Notably, some participants highlighted the potential for certain biases to have productive moral value in correcting health inequalities. This idea of "corrective bias" problematizes the conventional understanding of bias as primarily a negative concept defined by systematic error or unfair outcomes and suggests potential value in capitalizing on biases to help address health inequalities. Our analysis also indicates, however, that the concept of "corrective bias" requires further critical reflection before they can be used to this end.

Ethical and Practical Considerations for an Agreement to Ensure Equitable Vaccine Access Comment on "More Pain, More Gain! The Delivery of COVID-19 Vaccines and the Pharmaceutical Industry's Role in Widening the Access Gap".

This paper discusses the potential of an international agreement to ensure equitable vaccine distribution, addressing the failures witnessed during the COVID-19 pandemic. COVAX was unable to prevent vaccine monopolization and unequal distribution, which led to significant disparities in vaccination rates and avoidable deaths. Any future agreement on equitable vaccine distribution must address ethical and practical issues to ensure global health equity and access. The proposed agreement should recognize healthcare as a human right and consider vaccines beyond mere commodities, emphasizing the social responsibility of pharmaceutical companies to prioritize affordability, availability, and accessibility, particularly for low-income countries (LICs). Voluntary licensing agreements are suggested as a means to enhance access to essential medicines. The paper also outlines the necessity of international cooperation, with robust compliance mechanisms, to effectively enforce such an agreement and mitigate future health crises.

Nancy Olivieri: Sometimes, truth has only one face.

Nancy Olivieri is a senior haematologist and professor at the University of Toronto, Canada. In the early 1990s, she was conducting investigator-initiated research of an experimental drug, deferiprone, in children with thalassaemia, for which a pharmaceutical company, Apotex, started giving some supplemental support. In the course of her work, Dr Olivieri found that deferiprone might not be very effective and was also possibly toxic. When she signalled her intent to disclose the risks to participants, the trials were immediately shut down and she was threatened with "all legal remedies" should she disclose her concerns. This led to 18 years of attacks from the CEO of Apotex as well as fabricated charges and harassment from the University and the Hospital for Sick Children where she worked.

Industry Payments to Cardiology Fellows and Early-Career Cardiologists.

This cohort study evaluates marketing payments from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to physician trainees before and after fellowship graduation.

Opioid promotion in Canada: A narrative review.

Studies based on the United States Open Payment database have demonstrated an association between the promotion and prescribing of opioids. An equivalent database does not exist in Canada; therefore, I undertook a narrative review of the literature. In 2015, Purdue spent over CAN$4 million promoting a single product and generated over 160 pages of journal advertising. In the current review, I describe each of the six different forms of promotion that companies used to try and influence prescribing behaviour: messages from sales representatives, journal advertisements, company involvement in undergraduate medical education, key opinion leaders, clinical practice guidelines, and the funding of patient groups. Recent regulatory changes have decreased the volume of opioid promotion, but it would be incorrect to assume that it does not continue to influence the prescribing of this class of drugs.

Drug Promotions Between Ethics, Regulations, and Financial Interests.

BACKGROUND: The promotion of the latest medicines produced by the pharmaceutical industry is an important issue both from an ethical point of view (the level of accessibility, the way research is carried out) and from the point of view of marketing and especially from the lobbying issues raised. AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY: The ethical dilemmas raised by the promotion of new drugs revolve between the need to discover new molecules important for treating a wide range of diseases and the need to establish a battery of ethical rules, absolutely necessary for regulations in the field to be compliant with all ethical principles. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted through PubMed, MEDLINE, Plus, Scopus, and Web of Science (2015-2023) using combinations of keywords, including drugs, medical publicity, and pharma marketing plus ethical dilemma. ETHICS AND THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES: The promotion of medicines is governed by advertising laws and regulations in many countries, including at EU level, based on the need for countries to ensure that the promotion and advertising of medicines is truthful, based on information understood by consumers. The ethical analysis of the issues raised is more necessary and complex as the channels used for promotion are more accessible to the population, and the information, easier to obtain, can be the cause of increased self-medication and overeating. Large amounts of money invested in the development of new molecules, but also the risk of scientific fraud through manipulation of data during clinical trials, selective or biased publication of information can have repercussions on the health of the population. CONCLUSIONS: The development of new pharmaceutical molecules is necessary to intervene and treat as many conditions as possible, but marketing must not neglect the observance of ethical principles. The promotion of medicines should be the attribute especially of the medical staff, which should also be a mandatory part of the mechanism for approving the marketing methods and means used by the pharmaceutical companies.

Industry Payments to Physicians Endorsing Drugs and Devices on a Social Media Platform.

This study evaluates adherence to industry and professional standards among physicians endorsing drugs and devices on a social media platform.

The pharmaceutical company-healthcare relationship: much ado about something.

The relationship between the pharmaceutical companies and the healthcare profession, especially doctors, has always been fraught with conflicts of interest (COI). The publication of the influential The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fifth edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR), by the American Psychiatric Society (APA) raised concerns that the financial relationships between pharma and members responsible for DSM could result in bias. This resulted in calls for stricter enforcement of controls on financial conflict of interest (FCOI) [1, 2], which could influence the formulation of diagnostic criteria (resulting in more people being "diagnosable as mentally ill"), creating a larger pool of "patients" who "need" pharmaceutical drugs. Knowingly or unknowingly, they would end up serving the pharmaceutical companies' agenda to sell more drugs and drive up profits [2] .

Physician's perceptions regarding the pharmaceutical industry: a Brazilian national study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to investigate the newly graduated physicians' attitudes and perceptions regarding the medical relationship with the pharmaceutical industry and identify the sociodemographic patterns related to such thinking. METHODS: A structured questionnaire was administered to 4,601 participants selected from a pool of 16,323 physicians who were registered with one of the 27 Regional Medical Councils of Brazil in 2015. Answers were analyzed using two stratification variables: type of medical school (public vs. private) and the sex of the respondents. RESULTS: Out of the participants, 61.8% believed that industry funding could support medical conferences and education, and 48.4% felt that small gifts and conference travel funding were acceptable. Conversely, 64.7% disagreed with industry-sponsored social events. Views on whether pharmaceutical representatives' visits influenced prescriptions were divided. Statistically significant differences were observed between genders and medical school types, with men and private school graduates being more accepting of certain industry interactions. CONCLUSION: The study highlights the nuanced attitudes of new doctors toward industry relationships, indicating the need for clearer ethical guidelines and education in medical schools to align practice with evolving societal values.