Financial conflicts of interest appear to be widespread among the medical experts who write guidelines for U.S. doctors providing heart care.
As The New York Times reports, a new study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine found that 56 percent of the 498 experts involved in writing 17 guidelines in recent years reported a personal conflict of interest. What’s more, among the lead authors of the guidelines, 81 percent reported personal financial links to companies affected by their guidelines.
The 17 clinical practice guidelines written for the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association, which date from 2003 to 2008, influence medical care, government policy and insurance coverage. The financial conflicts reported by the doctors included consulting deals, speaking fees, research grants and owning stock in companies in the health care industry.
Part of the financial conflict problem stems from the longstanding relationships between doctors and drug and medical device companies. “What becomes difficult is some of the experts out there who are well regarded in their field have often conducted research, and some research on devices and drugs is sponsored by companies,” Dr. Ralph L. Sacco, chairman of neurology at the University of Miami medical school and president of the American Heart Association, told the Times.
The study’s senior author, Dr. James N. Kirkpatrick, said the fact that 44 percent of the authors have no financial conflicts cuts against the argument that some business relationship is unavoidable between the authors of the guidelines and the companies in the industry. “The conflicts are quite prevalent, but they’re by no means ubiquitous,” said Kirkpatrick, an assistant professor of medicine at the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania.
In response to the report, the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association released a statement saying that they had modified their rules for doctors writing guidelines in 2010, requiring panel leaders and a majority of panel members to be free of financial ties.
Outside experts agreed with the study’s argument that a change was necessary. “The guy who’s calling balls and strikes should not be a shareholder in one of the teams,” said Dr. David J. Rothman of Columbia University. “It’s so self-evident that if you’re going to be doing guidelines, it should be clean. What’s amazing is that it hasn’t been accomplished yet.”
Related Post:
Despite Academic Policies, Med School Professors Keep Giving Paid Talks for Drug Firms
