Tc
Mon, Jan-22-07, 17:16
http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/news/story.html?i-
d=08898d50-5b21-4d53-b74d-701afe9903ac&k=30068
Code of conduct sought to govern doctors and drug companies
Article Tools Printer friendly E-mail Font: * * * * Carly
Weeks, CanWest News Service 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 that 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.
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
d=08898d50-5b21-4d53-b74d-701afe9903ac&k=30068
Code of conduct sought to govern doctors and drug companies
Article Tools Printer friendly E-mail Font: * * * * Carly
Weeks, CanWest News Service 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 that 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.
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