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.

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.

ChatGPT for Automated Cross-Checking of Authors' Conflicts of Interest Against Industry Payments.

OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services "OpenPayments" database tracks industry payments to US physicians to improve research conflicts of interest (COIs) transparency, but manual cross-checking of articles' authors against this database is labor-intensive. This study aims to assess the potential of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT to automate COI data analysis in medical publications. STUDY DESIGN: An observational study analyzing the accuracy of ChatGPT in automating the cross-checking of COI disclosures in medical research articles against the OpenPayments database. SETTING: Publications regarding Food and Drug Administration-approved biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab. METHODS: First, ChatGPT evaluated author affiliations from PubMed to identify those based in the United States. Second, for author names matching 1 or multiple payment recipients in OpenPayments, ChatGPT undertook a comparative analysis between author affiliation and OpenPayments recipient metadata. Third, ChatGPT scrutinized full article COI statements, producing an intricate matrix of disclosures for each author against each relevant company (Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline). A random subset of responses was manually checked for accuracy. RESULTS: In total, 78 relevant articles and 294 unique US authors were included, leading to 980 LLM queries. Manual verification showed accuracies of 100% (200/200; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 98.1%-100%) for country analysis, 97.4% (113/116; 95% CI: 92.7%-99.1%) for matching author affiliations with OpenPayments metadata, and 99.2% (1091/1100; 95% CI: 98.5%-99.6%) for COI statement data extraction. CONCLUSION: LLMs have robust potential to automate author-company-specific COI cross-checking against the OpenPayments database. Our findings pave the way for streamlined, efficient, and accurate COI assessment that could be widely employed across medical research.

Evaluation of financial conflicts of interest and quality of evidence in Japanese gastroenterology clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines assist healthcare professionals in providing evidence-based care. However, pharmaceutical companies' financial interests often influence guideline content. This study aimed to elucidate the magnitude of financial ties among Japanese gastroenterology guideline authors and the pharmaceutical industry. METHODS: Using pharmaceutical company disclosed payment data, we evaluated financial conflicts of interest (COI) among Japanese Society of Gastroenterology guideline authors between 2016 and 2021. Additionally, we assessed the evidence quality supporting guideline recommendations and associations with financial COI. Finally, we evaluated author COI management during guideline development against global standards. RESULTS: Overall, 88.2% (231/262) of guideline authors received a median of $12 968 (interquartile range [IQR]: $1839-$70 374) in payments between 2016 and 2019 for lectures, writings, and consulting. Chairpersons received significantly higher payments (median: $86 444 [IQR: $15 455-$165 679]). Notably, 41 (15.6%) authors had undeclared payments exceeding declaration requirements. Low or very low-quality evidence supported 41.0% of recommendations. There was a negative association between the median 4-year payment per author and the proportion of recommendations based on low-quality evidence (odds ratio: 0.966 [95% confidence interval [95% CI]: 0.945-0.987], P = 0.002) and positive association with moderate-quality evidence (odds ratio: 1.018 [95% CI: 1.011-1.025], P < 0.001). Still, the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology guideline development process remains less transparent, with insufficient COI policies relative to global standards. CONCLUSION: There were extensive financial COI between pharmaceutical companies and guideline authors, and more than 40% of recommendations were based on low-quality evidence. More rigorous and transparent COI policies for guideline development adhering to global standards are warranted.

Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and the practice, knowledge and beliefs of medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: No previous review has assessed the extent and effect of industry interactions on medical oncologists and haematologists specifically. METHODS: A systematic review investigated interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and how these might affect the clinical practice, knowledge and beliefs of cancer physicians. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched from inception to February 2021. RESULTS: Twenty-nine cross-sectional and two cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. These were classified into three categories of investigation: (1) extent of exposure to industry for cancer physicians as whole (n = 11); (2) financial ties among influential cancer physicians specifically (n = 11) and (3) associations between industry exposure and prescribing (n = 9). Cancer physicians frequently receive payments from or maintain financial ties with industry, at a prevalence of up to 63% in the United States (US) and 70.6% in Japan. Among influential clinicians, 86% of US and 78% of Japanese oncology guidelines authors receive payments. Payments were associated with either a neutral or negative influence on the quality of prescribing practice. Limited evidence suggests oncologists believe education by industry could lead to unconscious bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial evidence of frequent relationships between cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry in a range of high-income countries. More research is needed on clinical implications for patients and better management of these relationships. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO identification number CRD42020143353.

The Big Pharma: a indústria bilionária farmacêutica na berlinda

Em entrevista a Lucas Mendes, a médica e professora da Harvar Medical School, Marcia Angell diz que a indústria farmacêutica não inventa nada de novo, abusa de patentes e transforma a medicina em produto descartável em nome da ganância obsessiva.

Mapping conflict of interests: scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To identify all known ties between the medical product industry and the healthcare ecosystem. DESIGN: Scoping review. METHODS: From initial literature searches and expert input, a map was created to show the network of medical product industry ties across parties and activities in the healthcare ecosystem. Through a scoping review, the ties were then verified, cataloged, and characterized, with data abstracted on types of industry ties (financial, non-financial), applicable policies for conflict of interests, and publicly available data sources. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Presence and types of medical product industry ties to activities and parties, presence of policies for conflict of interests, and publicly available data. RESULTS: A map derived through synthesis of 538 articles from 37 countries shows an extensive network of medical product industry ties to activities and parties in the healthcare ecosystem. Key activities include research, healthcare education, guideline development, formulary selection, and clinical care. Parties include non-profit entities, the healthcare profession, the market supply chain, and government. The medical product industry has direct ties to all parties and some activities through multiple pathways; direct ties extend through interrelationships among parties and activities. The most frequently identified parties were within the healthcare profession, with individual professionals described in 422 (78%) of the included studies. More than half (303, 56%) of the publications documented medical product industry ties to research, with clinical care (156, 29%), health professional education (145, 27%), guideline development (33, 6%), and formulary selection (8, 1%) appearing less often. Policies for conflict of interests exist for some financial and a few non-financial ties; publicly available data sources seldom describe or quantify these ties. CONCLUSIONS: An extensive network of medical product industry ties to activities and parties exists in the healthcare ecosystem. Policies for conflict of interests and publicly available data are lacking, suggesting that enhanced oversight and transparency are needed to protect patient care from commercial influence and to ensure public trust.

French pediatricians' views on industry-sponsored clinical trials: Toward stronger research on ethics?

INTRODUCTION: There is a crucial need to perform clinical trials in pediatrics due to an increased prescription rate of unapproved drugs. Since pediatricians are the gatekeepers of clinical trials, the primary objective of the current study was to evaluate, for the first time in France, pediatricians' views on performing clinical trials. The second objective was to identify the factors that influence their perceptions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In 2017, pediatricians who were members of the French Pediatric Society completed an online survey comprising 27 questions. Fisher's exact test was performed to evaluate possible correlations between pediatrician characteristics (age, sex, parenthood, professional experience, status, type of practice, previous participation in clinical trials, ethics education) and personal views on clinical trials. A value of P≤0.001 was considered statistically significant. RESULTS: Overall, 207 pediatricians completed the questionnaire. Almost all participants (96.6%) were in favor of performing clinical trials. Pediatricians with teaching experience at university hospitals were more reluctant to propose children's participation in clinical trials for fear of increasing parental stress (P<0.001), or the occurrence of serious adverse reactions (P<0.001). Pediatricians with coordinator or investigator experience considered that one of the ethical drifts in pediatric clinical trials is the risk of child exploitation (P<0.001). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest a favorable position of pediatricians concerning clinical trials, despite numerous concerns. Another outcome is the need to create an educational system of research in ethics in France dedicated to pediatricians in order to guarantee good clinical practice in research.