Medical student views on interactions with pharmaceutical representatives.

OBJECTIVE: In 2006, the Housestaff Association presented the Dean at Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) with a proposal to effectively end the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on campus. The Dean convened a workgroup to examine the issue, and faculty, residents, and medical students were surveyed on their views and interactions. Authors present here the responses from medical students. METHODS: A web-based, anonymous survey was sent to all OHSU medical students in 2007; 59% completed it. The survey included items measuring attitudes about the pharmaceutical industry and interactions with pharmaceutical representatives (PRs). RESULTS: Only 5% of clinical and 7% of preclinical students agreed that PRs have an important teaching role, and fewer than 1 in 6 believed that PRs provided useful and accurate information on either new or established drugs; 54% of clinical students indicated that PRs should be restricted from making presentations on campus, versus 32% of preclinical students, and only 30% of clinical students agreed that accepting gifts had no impact on their own prescribing, versus 50% of preclinical students. Students who acknowledged the influence of PRs and perceived less educational benefit were less likely to accept gifts such as textbooks; however, 84% of clinical students had attended an on-campus event sponsored by a pharmaceutical company in the previous year. CONCLUSIONS: Only a small proportion of OHSU medical students value interactions with PRs, but many still attend events sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

Psychiatric resident and faculty views on and interactions with the pharmaceutical industry.

OBJECTIVE: Sales visits, or detailing, by pharmaceutical industry representatives at academic institutions has been increasingly criticized. The authors surveyed psychiatric residents and faculty members on their views and interactions with representatives of the pharmaceutical industry. METHODS: In 2007, a 46-item online survey measuring attitudes toward and interactions with pharmaceutical industry representatives was sent to 49 faculty psychiatrists and 40 psychiatric trainees (residents and fellows) at a Northwest academic medical center. RESULTS: Sixty-five percent (N=58) of surveys were completed. Two-thirds of respondents did not agree that pharmaceutical representatives have an important teaching role. Only 24% of faculty and 18% of trainees agreed that pharmaceutical representatives provide useful and accurate information on new drugs. Forty-one percent of faculty and 53% of trainees agreed that pharmaceutical representatives should be restricted from making presentations on campus. Trainees were less likely than faculty to agree that they would maintain contact with representatives if no gifts or food were distributed. Nevertheless, most respondents endorsed that pharmaceutical companies supported important conferences, and more than 90% had attended an industry-sponsored event in the previous year. In open-ended questioning, respondents revealed worries that bans would undermine the ability to secure national speakers and to support other activities that residents valued. CONCLUSION: Faculty and psychiatric residents and fellows do not view pharmaceutical representatives as having an important teaching role and mistrust the information they offer but believe that loss of industry financial support does adversely affect educational and other highly valued activities. They favor greater policy restrictions but do not support an outright ban on pharmaceutical support.

The American Psychiatric Association Practice Guideline for the Treatment of Patients With Schizophrenia.

(Reprinted with permission from The American Journal of Psychiatry 2020; 177:868-872).

Vagus nerve stimulation therapy randomized to different amounts of electrical charge for treatment-resistant depression: acute and chronic effects.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is a prevalent, disabling, and often chronic or recurrent psychiatric condition. About 35% of patients fail to respond to conventional treatment approaches and are considered to have treatment-resistant depression (TRD). OBJECTIVE: We compared the safety and effectiveness of different stimulation levels of adjunctive vagus nerve stimulation (VNS) therapy for the treatment of TRD. METHODS: In a multicenter, double blind study, 331 patients with TRD were randomized to one of three dose groups: LOW (0.25 mA current, 130 µs pulse width), MEDIUM (0.5-1.0 mA, 250 µs), or HIGH (1.25-1.5 mA, 250 µs). A highly treatment-resistant population (>97% had failed to respond to ≥6 previous treatments) was enrolled. Response and adverse effects were assessed for 22 weeks (end of acute phase), after which output current could be increased, if clinically warranted. Assessments then continued until Week 50 (end of long-term phase). RESULTS: VNS therapy was well tolerated. During the acute phase, all groups showed statistically significant improvement on the primary efficacy endpoint (change in Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology-Clinician Administered Version [IDS-C]), but not for any between-treatment group comparisons. In the long-term phase, mean change in IDS-C scores showed continued improvement. Post-hoc analyses demonstrated a statistically significant correlation between total charge delivered per day and decreasing depressive symptoms; and analysis of acute phase responders demonstrated significantly greater durability of response at MEDIUM and HIGH doses than at the LOW dose. CONCLUSIONS: TRD patients who received adjunctive VNS showed significant improvement at study endpoint compared with baseline, and the effect was durable over 1 year. Higher electrical dose parameters were associated with response durability.