1
00:00:00,360 --> 00:00:06,450
I'm going to talk to you about conflicts of interest in medicine and that this toolkit posed a number of questions.

2
00:00:06,450 --> 00:00:12,149
I just want you to think about where your position is, what you think about some of the issues,

3
00:00:12,150 --> 00:00:18,600
whether you think the relevant, whether you think they're important, and particularly at the end, what we should do next.

4
00:00:19,470 --> 00:00:24,810
So this is I'm going back in to 99, 2000.

5
00:00:24,810 --> 00:00:29,520
I qualified as a doctor, as a health officer in the John Ratcliffe Hospital.

6
00:00:30,210 --> 00:00:38,190
And at the time, Jeff Aronson, who's here with my consultant at the time when I was a health officer and for about a few years,

7
00:00:38,190 --> 00:00:48,270
that and one of the treatments that was very visible and coming to the market at the time was this treatment, which is roughly cock sip or Vioxx.

8
00:00:48,660 --> 00:00:55,740
It was known at the time. And one of the things about Vioxx is it was similar to non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs,

9
00:00:56,160 --> 00:01:04,170
but it was promoted because it reduced the risk of gastrointestinal bleeds, but was marketed as an effective pain relief.

10
00:01:04,170 --> 00:01:10,260
And this is one of the seminal papers published in the time it's called the Vigo Study Group.

11
00:01:10,260 --> 00:01:13,319
You can see that in 2000 in the New England Journal of Medicine.

12
00:01:13,320 --> 00:01:16,410
And I just wanted to tell you a little story about some of the things that

13
00:01:16,410 --> 00:01:23,040
happened in the trial and what life was like in the 2000 in seems like yesterday,

14
00:01:23,040 --> 00:01:32,399
but 20 years ago. So one of the things about the Vioxx trial is Michael Warren was actually worked as a rheumatologist

15
00:01:32,400 --> 00:01:37,290
at the Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston and he became chair of the safety panel.

16
00:01:37,290 --> 00:01:41,640
So any trial has a safety panel, but at the time, nobody knew this.

17
00:01:42,030 --> 00:01:48,749
At the time, he owned £73,000 of Merck stock who were involved in producing roughly Cox.

18
00:01:48,750 --> 00:01:55,890
Then he participated also in the Merck Speakers Bureau and gave presentations in the summer of that year.

19
00:01:56,610 --> 00:02:04,440
And not only was he the safety monitoring the chair at that meeting also and this came out after nobody knew this in 2000,

20
00:02:04,740 --> 00:02:08,280
they had a merck employee present on the chairing panel.

21
00:02:09,300 --> 00:02:17,070
Now, one of the things is with roughly Coke said is it was not more effective in leaving symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis,

22
00:02:17,070 --> 00:02:24,510
but did halve the risk of GI events, which is important because if you had a similar treatment like that and it reduce your risk of bleeding,

23
00:02:24,510 --> 00:02:32,280
it would be very important for people who had debilitating pain at the time and rheumatoid arthritis at that time is before the immunotherapy.

24
00:02:32,280 --> 00:02:34,920
So there were lots of people with debilitating problems,

25
00:02:35,460 --> 00:02:43,500
but there was also this evidence of an increased risk of myocardial infarction, a relative risk of five, five, ten fold more likely.

26
00:02:43,500 --> 00:02:52,440
And it was statistically significant. Now, when this result came out, it went to Edward Skolnick, the company's chief scientist,

27
00:02:52,830 --> 00:02:58,500
who wrote in an email and this is all came out about five years later in terms of litigation.

28
00:02:59,010 --> 00:03:04,470
It is a shame, but it is a low incidence and it is a mechanism based as we worried it was.

29
00:03:04,590 --> 00:03:08,460
So they sort of thought there was a mechanism in there in terms of thrombotic.

30
00:03:09,000 --> 00:03:13,379
But you were on an introduction to be a see cause evidence based practice.

31
00:03:13,380 --> 00:03:21,270
So here's some of the things that actually happened and here's how this result didn't make it into the New England Journal paper.

32
00:03:21,840 --> 00:03:28,350
Did you think which of these are appropriate? The first thing is the interim analysis had different termination dates.

33
00:03:29,010 --> 00:03:33,720
The GI events were accounted for one month longer than the cardiovascular events.

34
00:03:34,830 --> 00:03:40,920
Three additional images occurred in the roughly cocktail group in the month after, when the data was not collected for the CV events.

35
00:03:41,160 --> 00:03:49,680
They were not reported in the paper harm with further minimised by post-hoc subgroup analysis on indication for aspirin prophylaxis.

36
00:03:49,680 --> 00:03:54,630
So did a subgroup of people who were on aspirin and were on aspirin.

37
00:03:55,320 --> 00:04:00,060
They also presented the hazard ratio. Instead of saying it's five times more likely,

38
00:04:00,300 --> 00:04:03,990
they flipped it the other way around and said Naproxen was the intervention group and

39
00:04:03,990 --> 00:04:10,380
the relative risk with point to 0.120.7 and didn't give the absolute number of events.

40
00:04:10,710 --> 00:04:17,130
And although the other results were presented a profiler of the intervention group, so they flipped it for that result.

41
00:04:17,700 --> 00:04:23,940
They also proposed in the paper a naproxen hypothesis suggesting that roughly Cox SIP had not been harmful,

42
00:04:24,240 --> 00:04:32,010
but that manipulates into being protective and therefore naproxen is a treatment of choice because it's cardiovascular protective.

43
00:04:32,790 --> 00:04:41,099
Now, coming back to Weinblatt, one of the things about one about remember he had said we need to approve this plan and how we prevent a revolt.

44
00:04:41,100 --> 00:04:48,570
He's on the safety committee now. He was told about the Cut-off date one month before the study ended.

45
00:04:48,720 --> 00:04:52,080
Weinblatt agreed. As a result of the Cut-off date,

46
00:04:52,080 --> 00:04:58,050
three of the 20 heart attacks among the five patients weren't included when wrote up the study in the New England Journal.

47
00:04:58,470 --> 00:05:02,190
And it looked safer than. Lee was so not doing the five times it came down.

48
00:05:02,190 --> 00:05:09,240
So soon after agreeing to the plan, Weinblatt signed a new consultant contract to sit on a merck advisory board,

49
00:05:09,990 --> 00:05:14,250
paid him $5,000 a day for 12 days over a two year period.

50
00:05:14,550 --> 00:05:18,870
He received an initial check for $15,000 a few weeks later.

51
00:05:19,620 --> 00:05:24,359
Now, this never came out until four or five years later because at the time we didn't have the

52
00:05:24,360 --> 00:05:28,110
same competing interests that we even thought he was involved with Merck at the time.

53
00:05:28,710 --> 00:05:32,490
It's not a bad paycheque, is it? If you can get it $60,000 a year.

54
00:05:32,940 --> 00:05:41,999
12 to 80 is not bad. Now, one of the things that then happened is the FDA took quite another time.

55
00:05:42,000 --> 00:05:47,190
They took another year. So it was until 2001 till the FDA started to get their act together.

56
00:05:47,670 --> 00:05:53,129
But Merck had a relentless series of publications, press releases and time.

57
00:05:53,130 --> 00:06:02,640
Merck reconfirmed favourable cardiovascular safety of Vioxx, complemented by numerous papers with a million reprints by the New England Journal paper.

58
00:06:03,240 --> 00:06:11,610
And the company sponsored countless medical education events and symposium at national meetings to debunk the concerns about Vioxx.

59
00:06:12,480 --> 00:06:17,670
And it was this message with reinforce that roughly. COX It had no cardiovascular toxicity.

60
00:06:17,940 --> 00:06:27,089
Rather Naproxen was cardioprotective. And I can remember that message carrying on into about the middle of 2001 two.

61
00:06:27,090 --> 00:06:29,850
And then all the studies started to become published.

62
00:06:30,150 --> 00:06:37,979
There were serious issues, and it took about another four years to about two, four, five for people to really go to town.

63
00:06:37,980 --> 00:06:45,060
And this is in 2008 from people like Catherine DeAngelis, who was editor in chief of John I think at the time.

64
00:06:45,450 --> 00:06:48,989
And you can see Jo Roth, who still works in the US,

65
00:06:48,990 --> 00:06:53,129
that most of the trials were written by Merck scientists or go go through written

66
00:06:53,130 --> 00:06:57,570
by contract workers disguised the names of academically affiliated doctors,

67
00:06:57,570 --> 00:07:04,560
recruited as named authors. And that was my journey for like the 20 year journey of thinking.

68
00:07:04,570 --> 00:07:13,800
Competing interest really do make a difference. I've been involved in the direct prescribing of violence in 2000 2001.

69
00:07:14,070 --> 00:07:21,150
I can tell you there were significant numbers of pharmaceutical representatives camped in hospitals,

70
00:07:21,420 --> 00:07:29,670
taking junior doctors out for lunches and dinners. And I think it's interesting that evolution and here's a paper in 2000 in JAMA

71
00:07:29,670 --> 00:07:33,510
showing that there was quite a significant amount of evidence already emerging.

72
00:07:33,990 --> 00:07:43,050
There were 29 studies that had already found that were looking at competing interests in the issue of physicians in the pharmaceutical industry.

73
00:07:43,290 --> 00:07:48,779
Is it gift, image of the gift? And one of them it is worth having a look at.

74
00:07:48,780 --> 00:07:53,130
And that just came out a year later with this one of principles and pens.

75
00:07:53,670 --> 00:07:57,170
Quite nice, nice title, isn't it, for a study actually.

76
00:07:57,420 --> 00:08:01,800
Attitudes and practices of how staff working towards industry promotions.

77
00:08:02,280 --> 00:08:08,040
So what this study is, what it did is we looked at about 117 residents and did a survey of them and

78
00:08:08,040 --> 00:08:12,210
started to ask them about some of the stuff that was going on across the board.

79
00:08:12,690 --> 00:08:19,140
So interesting. The first is this is is it appropriate or somewhat appropriate for you to receive this gift?

80
00:08:19,950 --> 00:08:22,920
Okay. Top nine types of promotion assist.

81
00:08:23,400 --> 00:08:31,830
So you can see receiving an antibiotic card, about 90% said, okay, conference, lunch, dinner, lecture, article ten, all scored very highly.

82
00:08:32,160 --> 00:08:39,630
Then you get to about 60 70% for a social outing seminar attended to say yes textbook and see me trip

83
00:08:40,230 --> 00:08:47,490
and then I was right down here about 15% think it's alright to have luggage what that luggage is for,

84
00:08:48,300 --> 00:08:51,690
I'm not sure. But the next slide though is incredibly interesting.

85
00:08:52,500 --> 00:08:57,300
Now this is the perceived influence of representative sample prescribing practice.

86
00:08:57,870 --> 00:09:03,060
So I receive money. Yeah, I'm the grey box.

87
00:09:03,630 --> 00:09:09,120
Yeah. So if it's. If I'm receiving a gift, I think there's no influence on me.

88
00:09:10,080 --> 00:09:14,160
However, if you receive a gift, you're in the bullet box.

89
00:09:15,300 --> 00:09:21,030
So if you receive a gift, it causes a lot of influence on you, but it never causes any influence on me.

90
00:09:21,750 --> 00:09:25,409
And I think that's a really interesting because anybody you'll ever talk to

91
00:09:25,410 --> 00:09:30,270
about competing interest in conflict will always say It has no effect on me,

92
00:09:32,040 --> 00:09:36,300
but boy, does it have an effect on you. The comp of can't be right, can they?

93
00:09:36,840 --> 00:09:42,480
And so of course it cannot be the only other people are influenced by promotion and not me.

94
00:09:43,500 --> 00:09:50,770
And so there's also data at the time and I remember this and there may be there probably only for everybody.

95
00:09:50,770 --> 00:09:58,890
It's a bit younger 20 years ago in the room, but what they'll remember at the time is as you walk around a hospital, many of the things that you.

96
00:09:59,200 --> 00:10:04,780
On a daily basis was somehow given to you. And one of the things that I would remember were tourniquets.

97
00:10:05,170 --> 00:10:09,850
So we would carry lots of items and we'd have our white coats and be stuffed full of items.

98
00:10:10,120 --> 00:10:18,489
And actually what you can see in their mittens when they start this residence in the Kiama also they found the percentage that actually had commercial

99
00:10:18,490 --> 00:10:29,080
branding on and so 30% a reflex hammers had some commercial branding on and there were all these even a stethoscope tab with up to 50% penlight.

100
00:10:29,080 --> 00:10:34,870
And you can see by the time you get to a reference book, somebody had given it for free and it had a commercial branding on.

101
00:10:35,140 --> 00:10:42,700
So we were like basically we were like, when you see the motor drive nowadays with commercial stock all over us, that's what we were.

102
00:10:43,930 --> 00:10:49,150
Now, even more so when you look at the this the disparity between patients and physicians.

103
00:10:49,720 --> 00:10:55,180
So when we talk about the percentage that consider the gift inappropriate, whatever that gift is,

104
00:10:55,390 --> 00:11:03,910
you can always see that patients think it's far more likely to be inappropriate compared to physicians and that when they think it's influential,

105
00:11:03,910 --> 00:11:07,210
patient, think it's far more influential than clinicians do.

106
00:11:07,810 --> 00:11:13,900
And I think there's a complete disparity in how the public viewed what's going on compared to

107
00:11:13,900 --> 00:11:19,540
within when clinicians take a guess whether it's influential or whether it's inappropriate.

108
00:11:20,830 --> 00:11:27,970
Now, this is the pit that comes in within the pit, and I think this is the cat's paper in 2003,

109
00:11:28,180 --> 00:11:33,010
all gifts large and small towards an understanding of the ethics of pharmaceutical industry gifts.

110
00:11:33,940 --> 00:11:40,540
The obligation to directly reciprocate whether or not the recipient is conscious of it tends to influence behaviour,

111
00:11:41,050 --> 00:11:45,490
feelings of obligation and not related to the size of the initial gift or favour.

112
00:11:46,330 --> 00:11:56,890
That position is eroded by a significant number of people who receive gifts, considering there is no relationship and no reciprocation.

113
00:11:57,310 --> 00:12:00,850
And I think these messages were clear in the early days.

114
00:12:02,830 --> 00:12:11,560
Now it was discussed and if you're not really sold on, the idea of, well, industry sponsorship has an impact.

115
00:12:12,160 --> 00:12:18,040
I think this paper by Deborah Barnes and Lisa Breaux is one of the best examples of why it matters.

116
00:12:18,370 --> 00:12:24,190
And this is a review articles on the health effects of passive smoking that reach different conclusions.

117
00:12:24,490 --> 00:12:29,800
And then conclusions is passive smoking is not harmful or passive smoking is harmful.

118
00:12:31,660 --> 00:12:36,549
Now, if you look at the data, you can see that passive smoking harmful.

119
00:12:36,550 --> 00:12:40,270
If you consider it's harmful. Out of 31 offered,

120
00:12:40,630 --> 00:12:50,530
only two who are affiliated to the tobacco industry think it's harmful compared to 87% who are not affiliated to the tobacco industry.

121
00:12:51,340 --> 00:12:58,090
The passive smoking is not harmful. You can say it's the other way around and if you calculate the odds ratio on that,

122
00:12:58,390 --> 00:13:08,080
you end up with an odd ratio of 84 or affiliation being the most likely impact on the results of whether it's harmful or not.

123
00:13:08,830 --> 00:13:17,229
And I think, you know, we all think now, well, the regulations change something in the regulatory position if we don't smoke in places because

124
00:13:17,230 --> 00:13:22,480
we are pretty clear that passive smoking is not a good idea and it has significant impact.

125
00:13:22,750 --> 00:13:27,370
But this is what was being fought again 20 years ago to establish these positions.

126
00:13:28,480 --> 00:13:37,870
Now, when you think about the position and one of the things I've done is try to understand where do we made decisions along this pathway?

127
00:13:38,350 --> 00:13:44,200
How do we get to our current regulatory landscape of what makes a difference, what not and what the read?

128
00:13:44,200 --> 00:13:51,880
There's a confusing array of tax legislation and a confusing array of what I call policies and guidance.

129
00:13:52,240 --> 00:13:58,840
So the at the top is actually legal acts that exist in US and other countries down here

130
00:13:59,080 --> 00:14:04,390
is sort of guidelines and policies that try to tell us what we should and shouldn't do.

131
00:14:05,080 --> 00:14:12,340
And most of them are voluntary. But the first one probably is in 1980 is the US Congre Congress Payola Act,

132
00:14:12,700 --> 00:14:17,919
which required investigators to disclose financial conflicts to interested parties,

133
00:14:17,920 --> 00:14:21,580
including regulators, institutional officials and funding agencies.

134
00:14:21,880 --> 00:14:30,910
That was the first one that mandated any legal requirement. But you can see that was quite some time before we get into 2007, the FDA Amendment Act.

135
00:14:31,960 --> 00:14:39,160
But what I wanted to do in these policies and guidance, we thought one of the most probably influential were this 209 Institute of Medicines report,

136
00:14:40,030 --> 00:14:46,389
and they appointed in two over seven the Institute of Medicine appoint the Committee on Conflict of

137
00:14:46,390 --> 00:14:51,610
Interest in Medical Research to examine these conflicts in medicine and trying to somehow think,

138
00:14:51,610 --> 00:14:58,600
what are they? How do we limit them? Because they're out of control and they're out of control because what we've just seen in the fifth to 2000.

139
00:14:58,650 --> 00:15:04,890
Two, 2005. Now, in that report, there are some very revealing pieces of information.

140
00:15:06,330 --> 00:15:08,430
Data suggests that these relationships,

141
00:15:08,430 --> 00:15:13,530
that's the relationship between physicians in the industry may influence physicians to prescribe a company's methods,

142
00:15:13,530 --> 00:15:17,760
and even when evidence indicates another drug would be more beneficial.

143
00:15:19,620 --> 00:15:24,630
Now, also within that is the public health within that for it.

144
00:15:24,780 --> 00:15:28,889
I wanted to go back. I missed one out. As a general rule,

145
00:15:28,890 --> 00:15:32,700
that research should should not conduct research involving human participants

146
00:15:32,700 --> 00:15:36,060
if they have a financial interest in the outcome of the research as well.

147
00:15:36,570 --> 00:15:39,510
And I find that fascinating. That's really quite an interesting.

148
00:15:39,510 --> 00:15:47,040
That's 209 Any institution I've worked in and research institution will have a difficulty in answering

149
00:15:47,040 --> 00:15:53,070
that in the affirmative if they're also in some way conflicted by taking money as a competing interest.

150
00:15:53,850 --> 00:15:59,309
Now also within there is a public needs to be able to trust that physicians decisions

151
00:15:59,310 --> 00:16:03,330
are not inappropriately influenced by their financial relationship with industry.

152
00:16:03,990 --> 00:16:08,750
Now, this is a key principle. If you're going to do research that matters and communicate that matters.

153
00:16:08,760 --> 00:16:10,380
There has to be a sense of trust.

154
00:16:10,680 --> 00:16:17,640
Yet we've shown in the early stuff that the public thinks taking gifts and being involved in industry is influential and not appropriate,

155
00:16:18,000 --> 00:16:26,970
whereas we think it's okay. Now one of the responses to that in the US, which I think was a huge step forward with what's called the US Sunshine Act.

156
00:16:28,170 --> 00:16:32,520
Anybody aware of the US Sunshine Act right now, if appropriate,

157
00:16:32,520 --> 00:16:39,480
on a day like today where Sunshine is in and in the middle of January is called the US Physicians Payment Sunshine Act,

158
00:16:39,780 --> 00:16:44,999
the federal law that requires all pharmaceutical biologics and medical device manufacturers

159
00:16:45,000 --> 00:16:51,930
to disclose payments and transfers of value to the US by the US teaching hospitals.

160
00:16:52,710 --> 00:16:56,750
And one of the things is it makes the interactions more visible.

161
00:16:56,760 --> 00:17:02,549
So it's not the responsibility of me if somebody pays me of a device manufacturer

162
00:17:02,550 --> 00:17:08,640
or a pharmaceutical agent in the US and that payment is a certain amount,

163
00:17:08,940 --> 00:17:12,900
then actually what they have to do is they have to tell me,

164
00:17:13,410 --> 00:17:20,970
yeah, they have to report it what they've paid onto a central database and they have to

165
00:17:21,240 --> 00:17:26,340
submit that to the centres for Medicare and Medicaid services on an annual basis.

166
00:17:26,650 --> 00:17:35,760
Yeah. And including that is all payments of transfers of value over $10 a year would be under $10.

167
00:17:35,760 --> 00:17:39,930
You could transfer me. It could do probably that. I'll give you some change for the both fair.

168
00:17:40,380 --> 00:17:47,390
But over $100 means we have to report everything to the institution and you have to be required to see the bottom.

169
00:17:47,400 --> 00:17:56,040
You have to report research payments made to the institutions, conducting research on the manufacturers behalf, including the names of the parties.

170
00:17:56,550 --> 00:18:00,870
And that appears on a database that you can search freely.

171
00:18:02,070 --> 00:18:06,120
And it includes pretty much every type of payment, whether it's educational or not.

172
00:18:07,320 --> 00:18:16,559
And the impact of this is ProPublica of the proof nowadays proof doctor you get company cash tend to prescribe more brand name met and

173
00:18:16,560 --> 00:18:25,290
what ProPublica did is get the data and look at the relationship of the data for payment and look at the data in relation to prescribing.

174
00:18:25,650 --> 00:18:29,910
And what they found is doctors who receive payments were in general twice as

175
00:18:29,910 --> 00:18:34,110
likely to be high brand name prescriber than doctors who did not receive payment.

176
00:18:34,440 --> 00:18:40,320
That's where you've got a generic equivalent and you could take a branded product that obviously cost you more for no added benefit.

177
00:18:40,770 --> 00:18:47,249
But in addition to that, there is a very high and if you get to the very doctors who receive payment with 2 to 3 times as

178
00:18:47,250 --> 00:18:52,020
likely to have a very high net brand name prescribing than those who did not receive payments.

179
00:18:52,680 --> 00:18:57,389
And what we're seeing is a very small number of doctors can be responsible for a lot of

180
00:18:57,390 --> 00:19:03,150
high level prescribing and have been recently aware of that in the opioid crisis as well,

181
00:19:03,390 --> 00:19:10,260
that actually much of the high prescribing can be down to a very small number of doctors who are highly influenced.

182
00:19:10,770 --> 00:19:16,920
Now, whether that's all of them competing interests or not, we can't tell in this country because we don't have a database like this.

183
00:19:18,690 --> 00:19:25,920
What we did instead is have the A BPI code, the British Pharmaceutical Institute code,

184
00:19:26,280 --> 00:19:32,550
and that required pharmaceutical companies to disclose monetary value of support with a value of £250 or more.

185
00:19:32,760 --> 00:19:36,870
That threshold with report proved in in in 2012.

186
00:19:37,140 --> 00:19:42,030
However, it was voluntary and I was on the way here.

187
00:19:44,100 --> 00:19:48,690
On the way here, Jeff and I was walking out of my office and I ran into Ben Goldacre and I said,

188
00:19:49,020 --> 00:19:58,560
I'm going to I'm going to take your name in vain, Ben, because this letter he wrote to the BMJ, which was in 2014, is problems with.

189
00:19:58,620 --> 00:20:02,610
A BPI proposes to release data on payments to doctors.

190
00:20:03,090 --> 00:20:07,900
And he basically said the plans to release this information through its own website,

191
00:20:07,920 --> 00:20:13,770
it says to provide a one stop service with Web pages for patients visiting to find about their doctors.

192
00:20:13,800 --> 00:20:18,330
In reality, this will mean that a flawed and incomplete dataset is presented to the public.

193
00:20:18,960 --> 00:20:24,140
The reason being is it's completely voluntary. You can have your name redacted and removed.

194
00:20:24,150 --> 00:20:27,420
You have to agree. So the industry has to say, we'll put it out there.

195
00:20:27,630 --> 00:20:34,520
You then have to look at it and say, I'm happy to go there. You can aggregate the data if you want and you can even say, I don't want it.

196
00:20:34,530 --> 00:20:43,280
And what's happened is only about half of the people have agreed to have that data up there, and not many people have agreed to have their name.

197
00:20:43,290 --> 00:20:50,010
So they may put it up there and say, you can see not, but somebody had money from Bayer and it's X, but I'm not going to tell you who it is.

198
00:20:50,940 --> 00:20:54,839
And they even brought another version of this called Disclosure UK,

199
00:20:54,840 --> 00:21:01,319
which is the version three, if you like, if the website plays a vital role in the development,

200
00:21:01,320 --> 00:21:04,380
delivery of life and enhancing in life saving medications,

201
00:21:04,860 --> 00:21:11,730
and this site says we want to ensure that patients and others have confidence that this relation is open and transparent.

202
00:21:12,030 --> 00:21:18,330
And this is why the pharmaceutical industry has taken the lead on disclosing details of payments and other benefits.

203
00:21:18,960 --> 00:21:23,580
I want you to think about that. Now, you could go in the research and find papers like this.

204
00:21:24,360 --> 00:21:33,659
This paper by Chaya Molinari and in 2017, which looked at the disclosure data in 2015 and 16,

205
00:21:33,660 --> 00:21:38,430
it said basically that key deficiencies, there's a huge problem, but you don't really need to do that.

206
00:21:38,700 --> 00:21:43,589
You can do what I did last night. You can go to the database, go into Disclosure UK.

207
00:21:43,590 --> 00:21:51,100
You can look at your institute, as I did for Oxford University, and look at how much money was disclosed to Oxford University.

208
00:21:51,750 --> 00:22:01,440
So in 2006, now minded the the income of medical sciences in Oxford University is about 450 million, I think, right now.

209
00:22:02,070 --> 00:22:13,710
And in 2016, with £478,000 disclosed in industry payments, in 2017, it was £95,000 and in 2018 it £32,000.

210
00:22:14,820 --> 00:22:19,530
Anybody looking at that would either say, hey, we're in deep trouble, we're going out of business pretty quick.

211
00:22:20,520 --> 00:22:26,010
I would look at it and think we're not taking it seriously. I when I call databases, when they're voluntary.

212
00:22:26,250 --> 00:22:32,670
When it first came out in 2016, there's a bit of activity to try and show what you do, and it's the right thing.

213
00:22:32,910 --> 00:22:36,630
That's why it's gone up. A year or two later, people have gone. Nobody cares.

214
00:22:36,870 --> 00:22:41,130
Nobody's looking. There are only one or two people who can be bothered to do what I'm doing right now.

215
00:22:41,280 --> 00:22:46,380
And actually why even bother in 2018? And I suspect by 2019 it be zero.

216
00:22:47,130 --> 00:22:53,820
Therefore, voluntary disclosure, whatever you do, doesn't work and other countries have realised this within the hierarchy.

217
00:22:53,820 --> 00:23:02,370
You can see that many Australia, how many people would know that Australia has its own Sunshine Act, France has its own Sunshine Act.

218
00:23:02,910 --> 00:23:12,960
In fact, right now there is, in addition to the US, Portugal, Denmark, Australia, South Korea and France all have versions of the Sunshine Act.

219
00:23:13,680 --> 00:23:19,740
And for instance, France establishes public accessibility, the transparency in health care database.

220
00:23:19,750 --> 00:23:24,360
But I mean, South Korea has also seen the light in this thinking.

221
00:23:24,360 --> 00:23:32,070
It's important, as we say, for trust to develop a system where people can go and be accountable and look up who's being paid.

222
00:23:32,080 --> 00:23:37,290
Well, whether this is a because we think in private payment systems,

223
00:23:37,290 --> 00:23:42,270
it's more important somehow there is a belief in the national health system this can't go on,

224
00:23:42,720 --> 00:23:47,010
whereas in private provider systems it's like, not only are you in the back, you'll be paid more.

225
00:23:47,010 --> 00:23:52,140
If you prescribe these drugs from the manufacturer, you insurance both might be influenced as well.

226
00:23:52,500 --> 00:24:00,750
That could be some reason. But I was asked basically I'm one of the friends French of just published a paper by Boot Goupil and colleagues looked

227
00:24:00,750 --> 00:24:07,800
at the French database and what it showed in the French database is that gifts to French GP's are incredibly common.

228
00:24:08,550 --> 00:24:17,580
88% of GP's have received some gift in France and of course it's linked to poorer prescribing in those that did.

229
00:24:18,090 --> 00:24:20,940
And so once you know that levels going on, you think, wow,

230
00:24:20,940 --> 00:24:26,700
it's incredibly helpful to understand this and it helps the French I think think like where is all prescribing,

231
00:24:26,700 --> 00:24:33,570
what are we actually trying to achieve? So coming to where we are now, look,

232
00:24:33,600 --> 00:24:39,360
there's a wealth of evidence as well that interactions between physicians and the industry generally and

233
00:24:39,360 --> 00:24:45,930
sales representative specifically is associated with physician attitudes and their prescribing habits.

234
00:24:46,140 --> 00:24:53,760
And this is a systematic review published recently in 2017 and what it shows in there, if you can see the behaviours just here,

235
00:24:54,150 --> 00:24:58,500
I think you go down the top one is gif and so it'll tell you where we've got attitude and.

236
00:24:58,540 --> 00:25:01,150
Where you've got direct studies that show you there's an impact.

237
00:25:01,960 --> 00:25:07,900
Drug Sample Pharmaceutical Representative Speak of honorarium research funding, conference,

238
00:25:07,900 --> 00:25:13,810
travel industry paid launches, family sponsorship and interaction with sales representative.

239
00:25:14,170 --> 00:25:18,460
That's what that is. And you can see prescribing behaviour out of them.

240
00:25:19,030 --> 00:25:22,180
Six of them have an impact on prescribing behaviour.

241
00:25:22,420 --> 00:25:27,310
Irrational prescribing is linked to pharma pharmaceutical representative speakers

242
00:25:28,870 --> 00:25:33,009
and you can see doing their conference travel increase in prescribing of the sponsor

243
00:25:33,010 --> 00:25:39,459
drugs increase input with industry paid launches and with CMA sponsorship and

244
00:25:39,460 --> 00:25:44,020
interaction with a representative leads to higher prescription of the company joke.

245
00:25:44,440 --> 00:25:47,469
Therefore, all of them are designed to do what they say they do on the ten.

246
00:25:47,470 --> 00:25:55,000
Otherwise, why would they even bother? Nobody would do any of that funding if it didn't have a direct impact on prescribing behaviour.

247
00:25:55,090 --> 00:25:57,610
That's what the industry knows. That's why they keep doing it.

248
00:25:58,120 --> 00:26:04,720
We haven't even touched on the here within all of this of the impact on guidelines and whether that.

249
00:26:04,930 --> 00:26:08,440
But there is also an impact if we looked here that if you follow the guidelines,

250
00:26:08,620 --> 00:26:12,460
you'll get the decisions you want and the recommendations towards your sponsor's drugs.

251
00:26:14,110 --> 00:26:20,379
Therefore, about just before Christmas, writing with Margaret McCartney in the In Lancet,

252
00:26:20,380 --> 00:26:23,950
we produced this health care conflicted, confused and in need of change.

253
00:26:24,430 --> 00:26:27,790
I have to say, I was slightly surprised that The Lancet took this,

254
00:26:29,500 --> 00:26:35,319
but somehow that means to be potentially a bit of we need to have something in the area, because I think it's coming back.

255
00:26:35,320 --> 00:26:39,190
We had a cycle in 2000 where we started. It was a huge problem.

256
00:26:39,460 --> 00:26:45,790
Many people thought it was solved. But actually the problem is starting to come back in a way in different ways,

257
00:26:45,790 --> 00:26:50,230
whether it's funding research, whether it's funding guidelines, whether it's coming in the back door.

258
00:26:50,800 --> 00:26:56,560
But what we said in that is that we need a statutory declaration of interest by all professionals and individuals,

259
00:26:57,280 --> 00:27:04,750
and that employers and regulators require annual declarations that should simply request it for essential register.

260
00:27:05,320 --> 00:27:11,320
That is not that difficult. So if you were a clinician at the point of GMC registration, which occurs annually,

261
00:27:11,530 --> 00:27:16,090
it would not be much to make an annual declaration of your conflicts of interest as a start.

262
00:27:16,810 --> 00:27:23,470
Now I with for if you wanted to be really effective in health care and evidence based health care and taking positions,

263
00:27:23,710 --> 00:27:29,560
you really should just follow things that were a good idea and basically should have been done 15 years ago.

264
00:27:30,250 --> 00:27:34,750
And if you go back to 2005 is the fourth report.

265
00:27:34,750 --> 00:27:42,580
Fashion Influence of the pharmaceutical industry in the House of Commons Health Committee is the report, together with formal minutes,

266
00:27:42,700 --> 00:27:51,430
says in there doctors in particular key opinion leaders should be obliged to declare significant sums or gifts they receive as hospitality.

267
00:27:51,880 --> 00:27:59,080
Professional bodies should maintain a register of these declarations that is now 15 years old.

268
00:27:59,080 --> 00:28:03,159
That statement and has not happened. Therefore, one has to happen.

269
00:28:03,160 --> 00:28:08,170
What's the purpose of the House of Commons? What the purpose of Health Select Committee?

270
00:28:08,170 --> 00:28:11,650
If they make direct recommendations and they're not followed through,

271
00:28:12,160 --> 00:28:15,850
what happens is they get kicked into the future and a few years later there are

272
00:28:15,850 --> 00:28:19,840
other recommendations and these are put on the backburner and hopefully forgotten.

273
00:28:20,860 --> 00:28:25,959
So what could you do in the face of that? I think there are two things you could do.

274
00:28:25,960 --> 00:28:33,310
The first thing is if you go to university pages while we're waiting for this register, you can put all your conflicts of interest and payments.

275
00:28:33,550 --> 00:28:37,930
It's been a mystery to me why universities don't say, Everybody have the bio page.

276
00:28:38,110 --> 00:28:41,740
Why don't you at least keep your own conflict of interest up to date on that site?

277
00:28:42,250 --> 00:28:48,190
Now, it's interesting. There is direct evidence when you go and there's a systematic review of conference proceedings.

278
00:28:48,430 --> 00:28:54,819
And the average time that people put these up for is about 20 seconds and that's at conferences.

279
00:28:54,820 --> 00:28:58,420
So I think when we see this and people say here my conflicts of interest,

280
00:28:58,420 --> 00:29:05,260
it's like I admonish me and moving on is I think the public needs to be able to access and just go, I can see who's paying you.

281
00:29:05,620 --> 00:29:08,859
It's not about me. And you think we're all right.

282
00:29:08,860 --> 00:29:12,310
It's about doing for the public access to know who's paying you or not.

283
00:29:12,820 --> 00:29:18,670
And I think that's important because if the NHS needs payment and I'm saying somewhat about the NHS, I'm conflicted on it.

284
00:29:19,000 --> 00:29:21,850
So that's where you get the transparency of your declaration.

285
00:29:22,420 --> 00:29:30,160
The second thing is this is called Sunshine UK, which Margaret McCartney is developing and I'm slightly involved in and it's going forward.

286
00:29:30,430 --> 00:29:38,710
But what this does is allow you to make your own declaration as a doctor and if you have a GMC number, you can put it on there and I'm on there.

287
00:29:38,890 --> 00:29:42,520
And then it allows people to find a doctor and it's a website,

288
00:29:42,520 --> 00:29:47,530
the holding place while we're waiting for people like the GMC or our government to get their act together.

289
00:29:48,520 --> 00:29:52,450
So I'm going to finish there with where we started.

290
00:29:53,440 --> 00:29:58,120
The question is, where did we start? Should doctors with commercial interest lead research on their.

291
00:29:58,310 --> 00:30:02,690
Photos. Should we forget conflicts and discuss declarations of interest and instead

292
00:30:03,080 --> 00:30:06,470
who shouldn't hold them in ten conflicts of interest registers for doctors?

293
00:30:06,830 --> 00:30:11,090
Should practices and doctors work with the families industry as well as serve on guideline committees?

294
00:30:11,450 --> 00:30:17,250
Should researchers with extensive final interest be disqualified find from studies of their own products?

295
00:30:17,660 --> 00:30:21,620
Those sorts of questions. Right now, in an ever commercial world,

296
00:30:21,920 --> 00:30:28,520
we need to seriously think about and think about what should be done differently because there's a fundamental

297
00:30:28,520 --> 00:30:34,520
problem at the moment if the public just doesn't trust us when it comes to assessing the evidence,

298
00:30:34,520 --> 00:30:38,480
informing them about decisions and making decisions on their behalf.

299
00:30:38,870 --> 00:30:39,650
Thank you very much.