Completely Eliminating Pharmaceutical Company Financial Conflict of Interest

A guest post in Forbes by Dr.Tom Yates, a UK-based physician, challenges the disclosure statements in two review articles on anticoagulant therapies published in the September 2011 edition of the Quarterly Journal of Medicine.  Dr. Yates also seems to dismiss peer-review as a safeguard and essentially suggests that despite disclosure statements and the peer-review process, any funding by sponsors (pharmaceutical companies in this case) of authors or for editorial assistance for review articles will bias the information presented and will result in an unbalanced assessment of the therapies being evaluated.  He doesn’t critique the papers or their conclusions, admitting that that he is “not an anticoagulant expert.”

In the Forbes blog published letter response to the journal, Dr. Yates’ expectations regarding conflict of interest and the potential for bias are reflected in the following statements:

“In answer to Prof Hobbs’ question [2], I believe it is important that clinicians are able to access review articles on this topic. However, they should be written by authors who have no financial relationship with the companies who make the products under discussion.”

I don’t believe Dr. Yates is alone in his thinking.  I do wonder, however,  if  Dr. Yates and his like-minded colleagues have considered the practicalties of completely eliminating the potential for financial conflict of interest.

  1. There are few therapeutic area relevant clinical experts (not just those who are self proclaimed) who could meet his expectations for independence.    As suggested in his statement above, the only people who could publish review articles are those who have never received any financial support from a pharmaceutical company that has a product in the therapeutic category being reviewed.  That would have to include pharmaceutical company sponsored clinical study investigators, consultants, and advisers.
  2. Only clinical studies that have been independently funded (self funded, government funded, or funded by an advocacy group that accepts no pharmaceutical industry support) could be included in the publication of therapeutic reviews. To accept results from pharmaceutical industry funded studies done by investigators supported by the pharmaceutical company in a review would further propagate the conflicts of interest and biases inherent in the original publications.
  3. Only unconflicted, qualified authors (no potentially biasing financial support from any benefiting organization, be it pharmaceutical companies or therapeutic area advocacy group) could initiate the drafting and publishing of reviews and they would have to seek their own editorial support (including graphics and formatting) at their own personal expense.
  4. Peer reviewers for journals would have to be held to the same independence and conflict of interest standards as they have the potential to introduce their personal biases in their feedback and commentary during the peer review process.   Perhaps then these conflicts would also have to be disclosed in the review article as well.

Here are some things to think about in the context of espousing Dr. Yates’ position:

  1. There are probably too few independently funded clinical studies that are large enough to adequately provide data to do a meaningful review for any therapeutic category or class of drugs.
  2.  “… authors who have no financial relationship with the companies who make the products under discussion” probably don’t have sufficient, statistically relevant, independently funded, personally developed  “controlled clinical data” to support their “independent conclusions.”  Peer-review would have to eliminate any inferences or conclusions that reflect personal biases or opinions from their anecdotal clinical experience that are not supported by statistically relevant clinical data.
  3.  As a result of points 1 and 2, very few review articles could be published.  In fact, I’m not sure there has ever been a clinically helpful therapeutic class review article that is completely void of financial conflict of interest and bias as suggested by Dr. Yates.

Unfortunately, history has demonstrated that we can no longer rely on the integrity of investigators, authors, peer reviewers, and editors to assure us that the implications and conclusions in a review article are valid and were not financially influenced.  Therefore, we have to depend on the disclosure statements and rigorous peer-review to mitigate the potential for financial conflict of interest and bias in scientific and medical publications.

Completely eliminating financial conflict of interest might be impossible and even if achieved has its own negative consequences. You would get reviews done by unconflicted experts who have little or no personal,  controlled clinical experience with the products discussed.  This being the case you really have to wonder “are the experts really experts?”   Their conclusions could only be based on their personal interpretation of financially biased industry supported clinical studies, perhaps some small self funded statistically meaningless studies, or worse, their own anecdotal clinical experience.  Where else would they get the data to support their conclusions?

As a result,  I still believe that honest,  full disclosure and rigorous peer review are better solutions than trying to completely eliminate financial conflict of interest.


How to Stop “Off-Label” Marketing and Sales of Prescription Drugs

I’m a little tired of reading about “off-label” promotion of prescription drugs, especially in the context of whistleblower instigated fraud cases and lawyer/patient driven product liability cases.  I’m not a lawyer but here are some solutions that would discourage inappropriate “off-label” promotion and would consume far fewer resources and certainly cost a lot less than is being spent now on litigating these types of offenses.

First, Pharma companies should not promote products for uses that are not approved by the FDA.  If a company is found guilty of “off-label” promotion, in addition to any corporate fines (which should equal total product revenues during the time of illegal promotion) , responsible individuals should be held legally accountable and convicted, with personal fines, disgorgement of incentive compensation during the time of illegal activities, and even incarceration if warranted.  No corporate settlements.  It is very likely that criminally charged front line employees directed or even trained to promote for off-label uses may be more than willing to offer up and provide evidence against culpable higher level executives who encouraged or approved of the promotion.  I’m pretty sure this would increase executive management oversight to ensure compliance.

To remove the financial incentives for “off-label” promotion, government programs (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and states) should not reimburse for unapproved uses of prescription drugs.  If the patient wants to pay for the unapproved use of a prescription drug that a physicians has prescribed, that should be their choice.  At the same time, that choice carries the liability that if something should go wrong; the only legal recourse for the patient should be to hold the prescribing physician and perhaps their healthcare provider accountable.  Because “off-label“ use is an informed decision, neither the patient nor the physician (or healthcare provider system) could sue the pharmaceutical company for any negative consequences resulting from the unapproved use.  Physicians who prescribe for unapproved uses but post a diagnosis that aligns with approved uses just so the patient can get it reimbursed would face fraud charges and be held personally liable.  Similarly, there would be no need for federal or state litigation against pharmaceutical companies for False Claims that inappropriately causing taxpayers to fund unapproved uses.

If physicians and patients have made a choice to use a product “off-label” and private payers (insurance companies, employers, or PBMs) choose to pay for the unapproved use then they should assume the same liabilities as stated above.  They are making an informed decision and the payer is agreeing with that choice by reimbursing for the unapproved use.  The patient could sue the prescribing physician, healthcare system, and perhaps the payer, but they would have no legal recourse against the pharmaceutical company should a harmful event occur from the unapproved use.

But what about all the “medically established” unapproved uses in treating things like cancer?  The same rules and legal liabilities should apply.  Physicians have the choice to prescribe, patients have the choice to take, and payers have the choice to reimburse for the unapproved use if they want to assume the liabilities with the inability to sue the pharmaceutical company.  If the medical experts, patient advocacy groups, or government programs and insurance companies feel a prescription drug should be approved and reimbursable for a particular use, they should petition the FDA and submit their clinical proof of efficacy and safety to obtain an FDA approved label claim for the product.

While preserving physician, patient, and payer choice these recommendations remove a major financial incentive (reimbursement) for pharmaceutical companies and increase the legal consequences for individuals who inappropriately promote for off-label uses of prescription drugs.  More importantly, it appropriately shifts product liability for unapproved uses to healthcare providers and payers.