Tc
Mon, Jan-22-07, 17:16
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=388a48d-
f-81cc-4f09-95ec-be166896871d
Concerns raised over doctors' ties to drug companies Problem
of pharmaceutical firms paying physicians 'swept under the rug
in Canada,' one researcher says View Larger Image Pfizer
Canada, the maker of Nicorette, pays physicians to promote the
gum as a product that can help smokers quit by reducing
nicotine cravings. Photograph by : Bruno Schlumberger, CanWest
News Service Article Tools Printer friendly E-mail Font: * * *
* Carly Weeks, CanWest News Service Published: Monday, January
22, 2007 OTTAWA -- To celebrate the launch of its new
flavoured nicotine gum, Pfizer Canada hired "brand
ambassadors" dressed in ski suits to give out free samples in
Calgary and Toronto and published promotional material that
touted the benefits of the new product.
The company's press release declares: "using Nicorette ice
mint coated gum can help smokers quit by reducing nicotine
cravings and withdrawal symptoms and significantly improve
their chances to quit smoking."
The promotional quote isn't attributed to a Pfizer staff
member, but to a Toronto-based general practitioner, who the
company says was paid for participating in the promotion.
Canadians expect doctors to provide sound, neutral advice
about treatment for health issues. But information is emerging
that indicates some are paid to publicize and promote smoking
cessation medication, possibly influencing the way smokers
approach their battle to quit.
"There's enormous connections between what the drug companies
do and what and how doctors practice and what they say and
what they write," said Dr. Jerome P. Kassirer, professor at
the Tufts University School of Medicine and editor-in-chief
emeritus of the New England Journal of Medicine.
Pfizer regularly pays physicians in Canada in exchange for
testimonials and research into its smoking-cessation aids
without publicly disclosing those ties.
In the last year, there have been growing calls within the
medical community for a change in rules to limit relationships
with drug companies that could impact a doctor's impartiality.
"These companies, who are very shrewd, are not doing all this
out of benevolence. They're doing it because they know that by
using these methods, they're increasing the sales of their
product -- which is what they want to do," said Dr. David
Korn, senior vice-president for biomedical and health sciences
research at the Washington-based Association of American
Medical Colleges.
Korn is part of an expert task force examining new rules and
conflict-of-interest restrictions in the hopes of ending
questionable relationships between drug companies and the
physicians they fund.
Although the issue doesn't receive the same level of attention
in Canada, the problem is alive and well here, according to
medical experts.
"I think it's been swept under the rug in Canada," said
Kassirer, who recently wrote a book on the subject called On
the Take: How Medicine's Complicity with Big Business Can
Endanger Your Health. "I think it's a problem in Canada."
The trouble with smoking cessation medication doesn't lie with
product safety -- most experts agree they can help some people
quit smoking. But there are growing concerns doctors funded by
the drug industry may overly promote the benefits to encourage
more people to buy the medication.
Doctors are featured repeatedly in Pfizer's promotional
material and often speak to the media about the benefits of
nicotine replacement therapy products, such as those produced
by the company. Johnson & Johnson recently purchased Pfizer
Consumer Healthcare, a branch of the parent company that is
responsible for nicotine replacement therapy products and
other non-prescription medication.
The company uses doctors to speak about its products because
hearing from a credible member of the medical community
reminds people about the grave problems associated with
smoking, said Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Krista Scaldwell.
"It's the seriousness of tobacco dependence," she said. "It is
an addiction, rather than a habit ... Using doctors can make
that differentiation."
But others see it as doctors bending the rules of their public
contract to be honest, clear and unbiased in order to do the
bidding for drug companies.
"I believe that when someone has a financial conflict of
interest, that they are influenced, even subconsciously, to
think in terms of the gift that they're getting from the
company," Kassirer said.
There is evidence to suggest physicians funded by drug
companies have a favourable bias toward nicotine replacement
therapy products and other smoking cessation aids. A recent
Canadian study found researchers who receive money from
pharmaceutical companies are more likely to conclude nicotine
replacement therapy has a better chance of helping people quit
than those without drug company funding.
"It's possible that because of the way science has been
conducted that some of the benefits have been overestimated
somewhat," said Paul McDonald, a health studies professor at
the University of Waterloo, who conducted the study.
The results, which will be made public at a conference in
Texas next month, illustrate the need for better disclosure
and code of conduct rules so Canadians are aware of any
possible influences drug companies may have over research and
public statements by doctors, McDonald said.
"I think it's going to be essential for things like smoking
cessation treatment ... that the funders and program providers
have very explicit policies that enable them to ensure there's
no conflict of interest between whatever donations they might
receive from any source, whether it be a pharmaceutical source
or a government or non-profit organization," he said.
One doctor who has an ongoing relationship with Pfizer agrees
Canada's medical community should adopt improved codes of
ethics, but said receiving money from a drug company shouldn't
suggest a lack of professionalism.
"You've got to make sure as a researcher you don't get
co-opted as the spokesperson for that [medication]," said Dr.
Peter Selby, clinical director of addiction programs at
Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Selby was
featured in a press release on a new smoking cessation pill
developed by Pfizer titled: "Magic pill to get you to quit
smoking!" It was distributed in June 2005 by the Ontario
government-funded Media Network for a Smoke-Free Ontario to
highlight Selby's research.
"It's as easy as open, pop, swig and swallow. Well, at least
it will be," reads the press release.
Selby, who is a vocal supporter of smoking cessation products,
said his relationship with Pfizer doesn't influence his
research. Rather, he stands behind the products because they
provide options for people who want to quit, including those
who may not otherwise have access to counsellors or other
quitting methods.
"We've got to figure out how do we reach half-a-million
smokers who want to quit," he said.
Selby said the system isn't perfect, but that advertising
medication that's readily available to the general public is
better than not providing options to help people quit.
"There needs to be an ethical way of doing that, there
needs to be criteria as to who gets medication and who
doesn't," he said.
McDonald said he's not surprised by his study's findings,
since similar ones done in other countries have indicated the
same, but he's disturbed by the level of research conducted
with the help of private-sector funding and the fact Canadians
are none the wiser.
"What concerns me is an overwhelming majority of the studies
that are being conducted are being conducted in whole or in
part with private-sector funding or pharmaceutical funding,"
he said. "It's just that we need to take that into account in
trying to determine how much confidence to have."
*****
TC
f-81cc-4f09-95ec-be166896871d
Concerns raised over doctors' ties to drug companies Problem
of pharmaceutical firms paying physicians 'swept under the rug
in Canada,' one researcher says View Larger Image Pfizer
Canada, the maker of Nicorette, pays physicians to promote the
gum as a product that can help smokers quit by reducing
nicotine cravings. Photograph by : Bruno Schlumberger, CanWest
News Service Article Tools Printer friendly E-mail Font: * * *
* Carly Weeks, CanWest News Service Published: Monday, January
22, 2007 OTTAWA -- To celebrate the launch of its new
flavoured nicotine gum, Pfizer Canada hired "brand
ambassadors" dressed in ski suits to give out free samples in
Calgary and Toronto and published promotional material that
touted the benefits of the new product.
The company's press release declares: "using Nicorette ice
mint coated gum can help smokers quit by reducing nicotine
cravings and withdrawal symptoms and significantly improve
their chances to quit smoking."
The promotional quote isn't attributed to a Pfizer staff
member, but to a Toronto-based general practitioner, who the
company says was paid for participating in the promotion.
Canadians expect doctors to provide sound, neutral advice
about treatment for health issues. But information is emerging
that indicates some are paid to publicize and promote smoking
cessation medication, possibly influencing the way smokers
approach their battle to quit.
"There's enormous connections between what the drug companies
do and what and how doctors practice and what they say and
what they write," said Dr. Jerome P. Kassirer, professor at
the Tufts University School of Medicine and editor-in-chief
emeritus of the New England Journal of Medicine.
Pfizer regularly pays physicians in Canada in exchange for
testimonials and research into its smoking-cessation aids
without publicly disclosing those ties.
In the last year, there have been growing calls within the
medical community for a change in rules to limit relationships
with drug companies that could impact a doctor's impartiality.
"These companies, who are very shrewd, are not doing all this
out of benevolence. They're doing it because they know that by
using these methods, they're increasing the sales of their
product -- which is what they want to do," said Dr. David
Korn, senior vice-president for biomedical and health sciences
research at the Washington-based Association of American
Medical Colleges.
Korn is part of an expert task force examining new rules and
conflict-of-interest restrictions in the hopes of ending
questionable relationships between drug companies and the
physicians they fund.
Although the issue doesn't receive the same level of attention
in Canada, the problem is alive and well here, according to
medical experts.
"I think it's been swept under the rug in Canada," said
Kassirer, who recently wrote a book on the subject called On
the Take: How Medicine's Complicity with Big Business Can
Endanger Your Health. "I think it's a problem in Canada."
The trouble with smoking cessation medication doesn't lie with
product safety -- most experts agree they can help some people
quit smoking. But there are growing concerns doctors funded by
the drug industry may overly promote the benefits to encourage
more people to buy the medication.
Doctors are featured repeatedly in Pfizer's promotional
material and often speak to the media about the benefits of
nicotine replacement therapy products, such as those produced
by the company. Johnson & Johnson recently purchased Pfizer
Consumer Healthcare, a branch of the parent company that is
responsible for nicotine replacement therapy products and
other non-prescription medication.
The company uses doctors to speak about its products because
hearing from a credible member of the medical community
reminds people about the grave problems associated with
smoking, said Johnson & Johnson spokeswoman Krista Scaldwell.
"It's the seriousness of tobacco dependence," she said. "It is
an addiction, rather than a habit ... Using doctors can make
that differentiation."
But others see it as doctors bending the rules of their public
contract to be honest, clear and unbiased in order to do the
bidding for drug companies.
"I believe that when someone has a financial conflict of
interest, that they are influenced, even subconsciously, to
think in terms of the gift that they're getting from the
company," Kassirer said.
There is evidence to suggest physicians funded by drug
companies have a favourable bias toward nicotine replacement
therapy products and other smoking cessation aids. A recent
Canadian study found researchers who receive money from
pharmaceutical companies are more likely to conclude nicotine
replacement therapy has a better chance of helping people quit
than those without drug company funding.
"It's possible that because of the way science has been
conducted that some of the benefits have been overestimated
somewhat," said Paul McDonald, a health studies professor at
the University of Waterloo, who conducted the study.
The results, which will be made public at a conference in
Texas next month, illustrate the need for better disclosure
and code of conduct rules so Canadians are aware of any
possible influences drug companies may have over research and
public statements by doctors, McDonald said.
"I think it's going to be essential for things like smoking
cessation treatment ... that the funders and program providers
have very explicit policies that enable them to ensure there's
no conflict of interest between whatever donations they might
receive from any source, whether it be a pharmaceutical source
or a government or non-profit organization," he said.
One doctor who has an ongoing relationship with Pfizer agrees
Canada's medical community should adopt improved codes of
ethics, but said receiving money from a drug company shouldn't
suggest a lack of professionalism.
"You've got to make sure as a researcher you don't get
co-opted as the spokesperson for that [medication]," said Dr.
Peter Selby, clinical director of addiction programs at
Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Selby was
featured in a press release on a new smoking cessation pill
developed by Pfizer titled: "Magic pill to get you to quit
smoking!" It was distributed in June 2005 by the Ontario
government-funded Media Network for a Smoke-Free Ontario to
highlight Selby's research.
"It's as easy as open, pop, swig and swallow. Well, at least
it will be," reads the press release.
Selby, who is a vocal supporter of smoking cessation products,
said his relationship with Pfizer doesn't influence his
research. Rather, he stands behind the products because they
provide options for people who want to quit, including those
who may not otherwise have access to counsellors or other
quitting methods.
"We've got to figure out how do we reach half-a-million
smokers who want to quit," he said.
Selby said the system isn't perfect, but that advertising
medication that's readily available to the general public is
better than not providing options to help people quit.
"There needs to be an ethical way of doing that, there
needs to be criteria as to who gets medication and who
doesn't," he said.
McDonald said he's not surprised by his study's findings,
since similar ones done in other countries have indicated the
same, but he's disturbed by the level of research conducted
with the help of private-sector funding and the fact Canadians
are none the wiser.
"What concerns me is an overwhelming majority of the studies
that are being conducted are being conducted in whole or in
part with private-sector funding or pharmaceutical funding,"
he said. "It's just that we need to take that into account in
trying to determine how much confidence to have."
*****
TC