[ad_1]
Dozens of doctors advising the US government on the authorization of drugs have received several million dollars from the pharmaceutical industry. The two highest-paid physicians received $ 1.4 million and $ 1.2 million respectively
. published . Of the 107 physicians reviewed, 73 physicians received industry benefits for conferences, consultations and research, for a total of $ 26 million. A large part of these payments came from companies whose drugs had been evaluated and were not registered in the official register.
This collusive conflict of interests is all the more urgent as the funds approved by the doctors are not all undisputed. These include an expensive antithrombic agent that adds little to existing medications, but is 25 times more expensive, and an antidepressant, which later proved to be more dangerous than expected. Ethics experts argue in the Science article for tighter rules for doctors who advise on drugs.
As in Europe, drugs in the United States must be licensed by a government agency, in this case the Food and Drug. Administration (FDA). The FDA is advised by scientific committees made up of experts, such as doctors who conduct research in academic centers. These experts must fill out forms on the forms that they have recently received from which pharmaceutical company.
They did not always do it completely, discovered Piller, who, with the data analyst Jia You, examined 28 drugs 2016 has arrived on the market. They found payments that doctors had not reported to the FDA, but for example scientific articles. They also found indirect payments in public databases of the US health sector, such as business research funds for institutes that primarily benefit the physician-researcher.
Of the 73 physicians paid, 40 received more than $ 10,000. , 26 more than $ 100,000 and 7 more than a million dollars. Among the payments to the top-17, in which each doctor received more than $ 300,000 (258,000 euros), 94% came from the company that made the drug that the doctor had judged.
The FDA says in a comment in Science no reason to tighten procedures. The regulator relies on doctors' reports and does not seek to find out if there are other links with the industry. It's a difference with the European Union where the EMA drug supervisor reviews the reports and sometimes spits out further. Conflicts of interest are allowed in Europe but must be reported. The more closely the medical adviser is associated with the admission decision, the more his or her conflict of interest may be limited.
Source link
