Politics and Medicine - Medical journals begin cracking down on fraudulent studies funded by drug companies

Author

Medical journals begin cracking down on fraudulent studies funded by drug companies

Jan Drew

2006-10-20, 4:30 pm

http://www.newstarget.com/z020808.html

NewsTarget.com printable article
Originally published October 18 2006
Medical journals begin cracking down on fraudulent studies funded by drug
companies
(NewsTarget) Medical journals across the United States have begun initiating
stricter ethics codes for publishing research funded by pharmaceutical or
medical device-makers, including many journals that have instituted
zero-tolerance policies for study authors with financial ties to drug
companies.
Last year editors of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) charged that
drug giant Merck had inappropriately excluded important information from a
study the journal published on the painkiller Vioxx, which was withdrawn
from the market in September 2004. Merck denied any wrongdoing, but NEJM
editor-in-chief Dr. Jeffrey M. Drazen said he has become more wary of study
authors with drug company ties.

Public concern about conflicts of interest among medical authorities is on
the rise following the federal charges brought against former FDA
commissioner Lester M. Crawford for allegedly owning stock in the companies
his agency regulated. Such concerns have led many journals to demand
detailed disclosures from study authors on any and all compensation they
receive from drug or device companies, and other journals are more closely
scrutinizing research produced by academic and company scientists together.

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) recently adopted a
policy that requires all studies funded by pharmaceutical firms or medical
device makers to undergo a second review by a statistician with no ties to
the funding company. The policy change came after JAMA printed four
paragraphs of corrections in its June 7 issue disclosing financial conflicts
that had been left out of a previously published study. JAMA editor-in-chief
Dr. Catherine D. DeAngelis said the journal's new efforts are in part to
avoid publishing faulty information on "the next Vioxx."

The journal Neuropsycho-pharmacology, formerly edited by Dr. Charles B.
Nemeroff -- who resigned after his journal published a paper he'd
co-authored on a medical device without revealing he had financial ties with
the company -- has also moved closer toward a zero-tolerance policy on
financial ties.

Though many companies have adopted stricter policies, some have found it
difficult to entirely exclude scientists with financial links to drug firms.
In 2002, NEJM relaxed its conflict-of-interest policy, citing an inability
to find physicians who hadn't accepted something from a drug company. Former
NEJM editor Dr. Jerome P. Kassirer was angry at the journal's decision to
loosen its policy. "Too difficult to find people without financial
conflicts?" Kassirer said. "You just have to look harder."

Consumer health advocate Mike Adams says medical journals have historically
been "the propaganda mouthpieces of Big Pharma," lending apparent
credibility to drug company-funded studies.

"Medical journals have willingly published fraudulent medical studies
authored by researchers with strong ties to drug companies for decades,"
Adams said. "Pharmaceutical companies are the journals' biggest advertisers.
Now that the medical journals have been caught publicizing junk science
papers with undisclosed conflicts of interest, they've decided to be a
little more discerning about what they publish."

Max C.

2006-10-20, 4:30 pm

It's nice to see that the journals are making an attempt to revive
their credibility. I can't help but wonder how much the Vioxx scandal
has to do with these decisions.

Jan Drew wrote:
> Though many companies have adopted stricter policies, some have found it
> difficult to entirely exclude scientists with financial links to drug firms.
> In 2002, NEJM relaxed its conflict-of-interest policy, citing an inability
> to find physicians who hadn't accepted something from a drug company. Former
> NEJM editor Dr. Jerome P. Kassirer was angry at the journal's decision to
> loosen its policy. "Too difficult to find people without financial
> conflicts?" Kassirer said. "You just have to look harder."

Of that entire article, this one paragraph stands out to me. If the
NEJM is having a hard time finding untainted scientists, that fact
gives a good clue as to how much influence big pharma has over science.

Max.