The Hidden Costs of Financial Conflicts of Interest in Medicine

Financial medicine: A multi-dimensional concept moving towards contextually specific working definitions for use in the South African prehospital setting

Introduction

The phenomenon that has been described as Financial Medicine has been occurring within the South African Healthcare sector for at least the last decade. Despite the ongoing effect of this phenomenon, there is no organised body of knowledge or formulated working definitions to guide knowledge sharing and theorisation within this research focus area. The practice of Financial Medicine exerts a deleterious effect on the South African prehospital healthcare system, and represents an area in dire need of focused research efforts. Establishing appropriate working definitions and associated taxonomy is an important first step in supporting further research efforts into this aspect of South African prehospital healthcare systems.

Methods

A qualitative research methodology following a constructivist grounded theory design was used. Participants voluntarily consented to be enrolled into one-on-one in-depth interviews, and were selected using purposive and theoretical sampling techniques. Data was subjected to validated coding procedures and analysed using the constant comparative analysis approach, analytical diagramming, and supported by researcher theoretical sensitivity.

Results

A working definition for Financial Medicine is provided. Six new terms are introduced, with associated working definitions, namely Financial Medicine Practices, Treatment-based profiteering, Cost-of-care-aversion, Personal-gain-at-patient-expense, Money-racketeering-in-healthcare, and Impoverishing-healthcare-earning.

Conclusion

The working definitions and suggested taxonomy presented in this article are the first step in formally conceptualising and theorising the phenomenon of Financial Medicine, in order to support further research and collaboration in this space.

No benefit of antidepressants in inpatient treatment of depression. A longitudinal, quasi-experimental field study

RATIONALE

Antidepressants (AD) are mostly considered indispensable for the treatment of major depression. The vast majority of depressive inpatients are treated with AD. However, there is a growing body of studies indicating that the effectiveness of AD is greatly overestimated due to methodological issues with the AD efficacy studies (e.g., publication bias, unintentional unblinding, confusion between withdrawal symptoms and relapse).

OBJECTIVES

The benefit of the additional use of AD in the inpatient treatment of depression with intensive cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) has been investigated in a naturalistic design.

METHODS

Depressiveness was assessed using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-II) during a preliminary interview (T0), at admission (T1), at discharge (T2), and at a 6-month follow-up (T3). Two study phases were compared: During Phase A, AD were recommended in accordance with the German guideline. In Phase B, AD were no longer recommended, and they were only prescribed upon explicit request from patients. In phase A (N = 574), 60.3% of all patients were taking AD at discharge. In Phase B (N = 424), 27.9% of patients were on AD at discharge. Apart from the difference in AD usage, the two treatment conditions were similar, and the samples did not significantly differ in terms of age, sex, diagnoses, history of suicide attempts, comorbid anxiety disorders, and unemployment.

RESULTS

In both study phases, BDI-II scores were strongly decreased at T2 and T3, respectively, compared with T1. The BDI-II scores of the two phases did not differ at any of the measurement time points. Depression changes were similar in both phases. In sequential multiple regression analyses with the total sample, AD were no significant predictors for the reduction of depression at either T2 or T3.

CONCLUSIONS

The inpatient CBT was effective in depression. The effectiveness of CBT is not improved by the additional use of AD. The current prescribing practices of AD should be questioned.

Re-Analyzing Phase III Bremelanotide Trials for "Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder" in Women

Kingsberg et al. described results from two 24-week Phase III trials of bremelanotide for treating hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in women. 72.72% of protocol-listed outcomes were not reported by Kingsberg et al., who provided results of 15 secondary measures which were not listed in the study protocols. None of their efficacy outcomes were reported in line with CONSORT data reporting standards and no secondary outcome had a stated rationale or cited evidence of validity. My meta-analysis of the trials' data, based on the FDA New Drug Application, found similar results to Kingsberg et al. However, Kingsberg et al. did not report that a) adverse event-induced study discontinuation was substantially higher on bremelanotide: OR = 11.98, 95% CI = 3.74-38.37, NNH: 6 or b) participants preferred placebo, measured by the combination of both 1) completing a clinical trial and 2) electing to participate in the follow-up open-label study (OR = 0.30, 95% CI = .24-.38, NNH: 4). Bremelanotide's modest benefits on incompletely reported post-hoc measures of questionable validity in combination with participants substantially preferring to take placebo suggest that the drug is generally not useful. Kingsberg et al.'s data reporting and measurement practices were incomplete and lacked transparency.

Barriers to university-industry collaboration in an academic university department in London, United Kingdom

Purpose

University-industry collaboration yields numerous advantages resulting in potential benefits in funding research and innovation. Despite the numerous benefits, there are various perceived disadvantages of such collaboration especially in the field of child and adolescent psychiatry in prominent academic institutes in London, UK. The purpose of this study is to explore the perceptions, opinions, beliefs and attitudes of the academics and clinicians in an academic university department towards industry collaboration.

Design/methodology/approach

Two methods were applied, quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative method used an online questionnaire of four-point Likert-Scale, the link of which was emailed to 80 members of the department with a response rate of 32%. The qualitative method included a one-to-one interview with eight researchers from the department to garner in-depth information on the attitude of researchers in child and adolescent psychiatry towards industry collaboration.

Findings

The online questionnaire was completed by 26 researchers, the vast majority perceived industry as biased to favour their product and as having a bad or mixed reputation. One-on-one interviews with eight prominent researchers allowed us to share their perception and attitude towards industry collaboration, although the researchers believe that availability of funding was the major advantage of working in collaboration with industry, many did not know how to access such grants and some raised concerns about industry’s record of presenting partial results.

Research limitations/implications

Because of the chosen research approach, the research results may lack generalisability. Therefore, researchers are encouraged to test the proposed propositions further.

Practical implications

This paper will shed light on how prominent researchers perceive collaboration with industry.

Originality/value

Although researchers are very reluctant to collaborate with industry because of its public opinion and sometimes unethical and lack of integrity among the industry, with rigorous ethical guidelines and policies, the pharmaceutical industry can be a potential and significant source of funding of high-quality research and innovation.

[Impact of conflicts of interest on guideline recommendations : Empirical study within the second update of the German interdisciplinary S3 guidelines on fibromyalgia syndrome]

BACKGROUND

The impact of conflicts of interest (COI) in general and of academic COI in particular on guideline recommendations in pain medicine has not yet been studied. Whether the inclusion of patients and of representatives of all relevant healthcare professions into a guidelines group is protective against a systematic bias of decisions of a guidelines group is currently unknown.

METHODS

All members of the guidelines group declared their COI before the consensus conferences by a standard form according to the rules and standards of the Association of the German Medical and Scientific Societies. The acceptance or rejection and the strength of consensus of recommendations of the second update of the interdisciplinary guidelines on fibromyalgia syndrome was analyzed twice by first including and then excluding the votes of the guideline group members with COI related to a recommendation from the results of anonymous voting via an internet platform.

RESULTS

A total of 42 persons from different healthcare professions and patients participated in the online voting on recommendations. Of the participants 29% had no COI according to the predefined criteria, 53% met the criteria of academic and 33% the criteria of financial COI. In the case of exclusion of participants with a COI related to a specific recommendation, 2 out of 23 recommendations (homeopathy, tramadol) were not accepted. In all votes, there were more participants without COI than with COI.

CONCLUSION

Academic COI were more frequent than financial COI in the second update of the German interdisciplinary guidelines group on fibromyalgia syndrome. The impact of COI on guideline recommendations was low. The inclusion of patients and of all relevant healthcare professionals into a guidelines group is a protective factor against the influence of COI on guideline recommendations.

Clinical Pharmacopsychology: Conceptual Foundations and Emerging Tasks

The aim of this critical review was to outline emerging trends and perspectives of clinical pharmacopsychology, an area of clinical psychology that is concerned with the psychological effects of medications. The historical development of clinical pharmacopsychology is outlined, with discussion of its most representative expressions and reference to current challenges of clinical research, with particular reference to clinimetrics. The domains of clinical pharmacopsychology encompass the clinical benefits of psychotropic drugs, the characteristics that predict responsiveness to treatment, the vulnerabilities induced by treatment (side effects, behavioral toxicity, iatrogenic comorbidity), and the interactions between drug treatment and psychological variables. Its aim is to provide a comprehensive assessment of the clinical important changes that are concerned with (a) wanted and expected treatment effects, (b) treatment-induced unwanted side effects, and (c) the patient's own personal experience of a change in terms of well-being and/or quality of life. Clinical pharmacopsychology offers a unifying framework for the understanding of clinical phenomena in medical and psychiatric settings. Research in this area deserves high priority.

What psychologists need to know about psychotropic medications

Despite the fact that today most of the patients with psychological disturbances assume some form of psychotropic drug treatment, clinical psychologists may have little familiarity with psychopharmacology and are substantially unaware of subtle and yet pervasive potential effects of medications in clinical presentations. In their training, psychologists are generally exposed, at best, to some general principles of drug action. Standard psychopharmacology textbooks tend to omit the subtle psychological changes that may occur during psychotropic drug treatment. Clinical pharmacopsychology consists of the application of clinical psychology to the full understanding of pharmacological effects. The domains of clinical pharmacopsychology encompass the clinical benefits of psychotropic drugs, the characteristics that predict responsiveness to treatment, the vulnerabilities induced by treatment (side effects, behavioural toxicity, iatrogenic comorbidity), and the interactions between drug treatment and psychological variables. The DSM-5 refers to a patient population that no longer exists: subjects who display various manifestations of psychological distress who do not receive any form of drug treatment for it. Any type of psychotropic drug treatment, particularly after long-term use, may increase the risk of experiencing additional psychopathological problems that do not necessarily subside with discontinuation of the drug. The changes may be persistent and not limited to a short phase, such as in the case of withdrawal reactions, and cannot be subsumed under the generic rubrics of adverse events or side effects.

Reviving Cochrane's contribution to evidence-based medicine: bridging the gap between evidence of efficacy and evidence of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness

Throughout the quarter century since the advent of evidence-based medicine (EBM), medical research has prioritized 'efficacy' (i.e. internal validity) using randomized controlled trials. EBM has consistently neglected 'effectiveness' and 'cost-effectiveness', identified in the pioneering work of Archie Cochrane as essential for establishing the external (i.e. clinical) validity of health care interventions. Neither Cochrane nor other early pioneers appear to have foreseen the extent to which EBM would be appropriated by the pharmaceutical and medical devices industries, which are responsible for extensive biases in clinical research due to selective reporting, exaggeration of benefits, minimization of risks, and misrepresentation of data. The promise of EBM to effect transformational change in health care will remain unfulfilled until (i) studies of effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are pursued with some of the same fervour that previously succeeded in elevating the status of the randomized controlled trial, and (ii) ways are found to defeat threats to scientific integrity posed by commercial conflicts of interest.

Evidence-based medicine was bound to fail: a report to Alvan Feinstein

John Ioannidis has provided a lucid account, in the form of a report to David Sackett, of how evidence-based medicine (EBM) was hijacked to serve vested interests: major randomized controlled trials are largely done by and for the benefit of the industry; meta-analyses and guidelines are flooded with conflicts of interest; national and federal research funds are unable to address basic clinical questions. Nonetheless, EBM would remain a worthwhile goal. In this paper, in the form of a report to Alvan Feinstein, it is argued that current developments were largely predictable. EBM certainly gave an important contribution to questioning unsubstantiated therapeutic claims. Time has come, however, to become aware of its considerable limitations, including overall reductionism and insufficient consideration of problems related to financial conflicts of interest. EBM does not represent the scientific approach to medicine: it is only a restrictive interpretation of the scientific approach to clinical practice. EBM drives the prescribing clinician to an overestimated consideration of potential benefits, paying little attention to the likelihood of responsiveness and to potential vulnerabilities in relations to the adverse effects of treatment. It is time to substitute the fashionable popularity of a strategy developed outside of clinical medicine with models and research based on the insights of clinical judgment and patient-doctor interaction, as Feinstein had outlined.