Healthy Skepticism Library item: 7372

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: news

Rowland C.
In shift, medical society to hold panel
Boston Globe 2007 Jan 5
http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2007/01/05/in_shift_medical_society_to_hold_panel/

Full text:

The American Society of Hypertension , accused by its critics of stifling debate, has reversed course and says it will host a panel discussion this spring on how pharmaceutical companies influence medical journals and societies.

But while the original panel included only critics of drug companies’ practices, the new lineup will include two prominent industry advocates.

The society said the original session, titled “Conflicts of Interest,” was kept off the agenda of its annual meeting because the proposed lineup of panelists lacked balance.

After the cancellation was reported by the Globe last week, the society’s associate executive director, Melissa Levine , said in an e-mail that the society had now decided to add the panel discussion to the agenda for the May meeting in Chicago.

The society is “committed to conducting a session on conflicts of interest,” Levine said. “Over the next few weeks we will be working to finalize the session and confirm the speakers.”

But the inclusion of drug industry defenders led one of the original invited panelists, Dr. Marcia Angell , former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, to question the society’s motives, even though she is considering taking part in the session.

“It seems to be standing the whole thing on its head,” said Angell.

She said the original intent of the panel had been to provide a counterweight to the drug industry’s sponsorship of scientific papers and physicians at the annual meeting. The American Society of Hypertension represents about 2,400 cardiologists and other physicians who research and provide care related to high blood pressure. It sponsors medical meetings, distributes news about research developments, and publishes two academic journals.

The industry advocates added to the panel are Dr. Thomas P. Stossel and William F. Keane.

Stossel, a Harvard Medical School professor and codirector of the hematology division at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said he has tentatively accepted an invitation to participate. He said he looks forward to the chance to defend drug industry involvement in medical societies.

Keane is vice president of clinical development at Merck & Co. Inc. Merck confirmed yesterday that Keane has been invited to present a lecture on “industry/professional society relationships” but did not say whether he will accept the invitation.

Angell and two other drug industry critics originally invited to participate, all prominent academics in Boston, have also been invited again. Dr. Jerome Kassirer , a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, said he will now be unable to attend because of a schedule conflict. Angell and the third drug industry critic, Dr. Jerry Avorn , a Harvard Medical School professor and physician at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, said yesterday he is considering the second invitation.

“This seems like a very different panel than the one originally proposed,” Avorn said. “Those two individuals will be expressing views that are quite different from those that were originally envisioned.”

Many professional medical societies in the United States are grappling with ethical questions about how much drug industry money their officers, authors, and presenters should accept, and whether those financial relationships taint scientific and clinical recommendations, reports, and medical journals. The societies require speakers at events and continuing medical educational classes to disclose which companies have given them money, but some researchers say that does little to mitigate improper influence.

Stossel said yesterday he would use the panel discussion to argue in favor of continued drug company participation and direct financial support of medical societies and doctors.

“There has been 20 years of unopposed air time of this anti-industry, anticommercial criticism,” Stossel said. “It’s very bizarre, because it has come at a time when industry certifiably is the only reason that medical practice is better than it was when I began as an intern 40 years ago.

“Disclosure is fine, but it has gotten ridiculous,” he added. “It has gotten very intrusive.”