| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Medicine - Cancer Forum » Most Cancer Patients Unconcerned About Doctors' Ties to Drug
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| E.Nigma |
 Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 3:40 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/29/AR2006
112901387.html
Research Reviewers Also May Often Have Links to Industry
By Rick Weiss
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 30, 2006; A11
The vast majority of cancer patients participating in studies of
experimental drugs do not care if the doctor running the study has
financial ties to the drug's maker, according to a new survey that
undermines "full disclosure" as a central tenet of clinical research.
Medical and professional societies have increasingly urged doctors to
reveal all such conflicts of interest so patients can judge whether
their doctor may have more than their health at heart. But perhaps
because they are already overwhelmed by the challenges of their
disease, most patients said they did not need to know those details
and trusted that rules were in place to protect them.
That trust, however, may be misplaced, according to a second survey,
published alongside the first in today's issue of the New England
Journal of Medicine.
In that survey of "institutional review board" members -- who decide
whether proposed clinical studies are ethical and reasonably safe --
about one-third of those who were asked to judge a proposal in which
they had a financial stake had not disclosed that conflict to the
board's chairman and did not consistently recuse themselves, in
apparent violation of federal rules.
In addition, more than 40 percent of review board members did not
know if the board they served on had a formal definition of what
constituted a conflict of interest.
"You'd think they'd be asking, 'How do I know when to do things and
when not to?' " said Eric G. Campbell, of the Institute for Health
Policy at Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School,
who led the survey of review board members with co-worker Edward Greg
Koski.
"My sense is that relationships with industry are a fundamental part
of the modern life-science enterprise," Campbell said. "They are not
universally bad and not universally good. But you can't manage what
you don't know about."
The surveys highlight issues arising from the growing presence of
for-profit medicine in the academic and clinical research arena,
which in decades past was largely free of corporate ties.
Virtually all major medical centers and research universities now
have collaborations with pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies.
The research centers provide expertise, academic cachet and willing
patients for companies developing drugs, while the companies provide
income for the institutions and, in many cases, for doctors and
faculty members serving as consultants, officers or board members.
That poses a conflict of interest for doctors and review board
members, whose first responsibility is to protect patient health and
safety. That is why the American Medical Association, the World
Medical Association and other prestigious institutions have called
for full disclosure to patients of such relationships.
To find out whether patients cared, a team led by Ezekiel J. Emanuel
and Lindsay A. Hampson of the Department of Clinical Ethics at the
National Institutes of Health in Bethesda surveyed 253 cancer
patients enrolled in clinical trials at five U.S. medical centers.
Eighty percent said they were "not worried at all" that the doctor
leading the study may have a stake in the company that could profit
from the tested drug. About 70 percent were similarly unworried about
links between the cancer center and the drug company.
More than 60 percent of patients said it was acceptable for
researchers to own stock in the company whose drug they were testing;
70 percent said they did not mind if doctors received royalty
payments; and 80 percent said the same about consulting fees.
Most patients said they opposed bans on such relationships and some
said they would be more likely to participate if a company were
involved.
Patients with the highest education levels tended to be more
concerned about conflicts of interest. But even though most of those
surveyed were well educated and economically privileged, less than
one-third said they wanted to know about potential conflicts.
"They said they don't want this information and it's not going to
affect their decisions," Emanuel said. In many cases, when the
information is there, it is buried in dense consent documents, he
added.
What patients do want, however -- and what 62 percent of them said
they presumed is in place -- is an oversight system for those issues.
And in that regard, said Campbell of Harvard, some may be
disappointed to learn the truth.
In his survey of 574 institutional review board members, 15 percent
had in the past year been called upon to judge a proposal in which
they had a financial stake. Of those, about a third said they "never"
or "rarely" disclosed such conflicts, and a similar proportion said
they "always" or "sometimes" vote on such proposals, a breach of
federal research rules.
David Korn, a senior vice president at the Association of American
Medical Colleges, said the finding that concerns him most is board
members' apparent lack of understanding of the rules.
"If it were my institution, I'd want to make sure my IRB members damn
well knew what a conflict was and how to deal with them," Korn said,
adding that review boards need to be sensitive not only to financial
conflicts but also to professional and academic rivalries that could
affect decisions.
But he said it would be wrong to conclude from the patient survey
that patients should not be informed of potential conflicts.
"They may decide it doesn't matter to them, but I think they have a
right to know," Korn said. "What if they find out later? Then it
becomes a worm of mistrust."
==========
E.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP Personal Privacy 6.5.3
iQEVAwUBRW8sM9AqdZr/mrO9AQG+qAf+J4Y9epL3kSHjB22/qn5Qrz8lkHAX0Tt7
yEerjxTs/o1JnT3chJ7p/qmrqrO9pGE0lo6peWuD9lBMQDtRuNgwszyrTLn+Gwbk
B3DLjCIKnySy9fdviJnQn9pVnQrQZZ8by/GORapVNnEAzXeiG7c0crQFD0SQf/b/
NKVVPiNXRkYiAkexFLBrxw/UsDe5Tg9EOtfU0nMonkx+29SpoRVPb4De9FdtD/cg
UzWdtUAoRPw85ahd0cHu6yvII8OixIcpZLPauk/Twi6cZidxWwMuiDTYu/ABndKE
bRGmxbCCdSyTVtEbr580sUnd3xyYyXp7N0az1k7WprBu02LI5aqw8Q==
=dBB8
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.eu.org
for abuse and hashcash info. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:03 pm
|
|
