To the Editor: Two articles in the 19 January issue of the Journal1,2 and an article on the involvement of pharmaceutical companies in studies of their own products published in The Australian on the same day3 impel me to relate my own experience of attempting to influence my colleagues’ attitudes toward transparency in relationships with the pharmaceutical industry, and my good fortune to be working in a 21st century oncology clinical trials unit.

The relationship between the science of pharmaceutical development and the science of oncology is robust and fruitful. While intending to be only mildly controversial, I caused great offence in my opening address to the Australian and New Zealand Children’s Haematology and Oncology Group annual meeting in 2008 by suggesting that it is no longer acceptable for any of us at the coalface of oncology to deal directly with pharmaceutical salespeople or for medical education to be directly funded by industry.

I note the view of Tattersall and colleagues that “... sponsoring doctors to attend independent conferences is recognised as facilitating continuing medical education ...”.1 In my view, financial support for medical education should come from unaffiliated sources — perhaps competitive grants from the government, who may in turn raise funds from industry.

Similarly, we must be able to deny (not just declare) a conflict of interest in our activities in clinical trials and practice, and teach the difference between clinical trials (phase III cooperative group randomised controlled trials of multidrug treatment, with wide eligibility criteria to benefit as many patients as possible) and drug trials (phase I or II single-agent trials with narrow eligibility criteria, such that adverse effects of new drugs are found quickly). Both groups of trials are essential for the benefit of patients with cancer and leukaemia, as is the need for clinicians to be — and to be seen to be — at arm’s length from industry.

I have been fortunate to work in a clinical trials unit that is supported by a wise medical administration and an ethics committee devoted to the practice of clinical trials as the best evidence-based medicine for patients. Our unit has clinical research associates on staff, is an active member of the United States-based Children’s Oncology Group, and does not partake in trials directly sponsored by industry. Indeed, after 20 years in the field, I know the trade names of less than 10% of the drugs I prescribe. I decline invitations to see pharmaceutical representatives or to attend industry-sponsored events. I followed the leadership of my mentors and senior clinicians. Can I convince today’s trainees to follow suit?

To the Editor: We support the findings of Tattersall and colleagues relating to the disclosure of competing interests by general practitioners to their patients, and we agree that greater transparency in general is required with physician–industry relationships.1 Such relationships have the potential to enhance patient outcomes through quality use of medicines. However, in the interests of a balanced perspective, several points regarding Tattersall et al’s article warrant attention.

First, the 2007–08 BEACH (Bettering the Evaluation And Care of Health) survey suggests that the mean length of GP consultations in Australia is 15.1 minutes.2 Considering this, an adequate discussion or disclosure of industry links to each and every patient is simply not practical. Furthermore, the frequency with which GPs see industry representatives can vary greatly. Given these complexities, perhaps clinics could consider having a simple sign in the waiting room that states “We do/do not see pharmaceutical industry representatives”. Disclosures would be most valuable if interested parties agreed on definitions for categories of relationships and payments, uniform approaches to calculating amounts, and standards for information to be made public. Inconsistent practices could create the impression that some practices are being hidden.3

Second, we want to highlight the potential benefits of physician–industry collaborations. We recently organised a panel of Australian physicians to advise a pharmaceutical company on research initiatives that need to be undertaken in a highly specialised area of medicine. An Advisory Group Charter, describing the purpose of the group, desired outcomes, and remuneration, was developed and agreed upon by all members. In this case, physicians received remuneration for time spent reviewing documents and collecting information for the meeting, and to cover costs associated with non-attendance at clinic. The aim of the Charter and two-way confidentiality agreements was to ensure transparency. After reviewing the published literature, each physician shared information about treatment practices and outcomes. The physicians identified several areas that require further research and have the potential to enhance patient outcomes in the immediate future. However, they suggested that these initiatives could be undertaken without industry support. They advised the company to direct its research funding towards large, population-based research initiatives. This is just one example of how transparent collaborations can result in enhanced patient outcomes and a redirection of funding into areas of greatest need.

While we agree that increased transparency is important for physician–industry relationships, and improvements can be made through such avenues as disclosure, a retreat from physician–industry collaborations is not in the interests of improved patient outcomes or enhanced quality use of medicines.

In reply: We thank Cole for her suggestions. We note the Royal Australasian College of Physicians Guidelines for ethical relationships between physicians and industry state: “Industry sponsorship to attend conferences ... should usually be restricted to those in which the professional anticipates active engagement ... and when attendance without support is not possible”.1

With regard to Dalton and Richards’ first point, our survey asked patients for their views about doctors in general and not specifically about general practitioners.2 We do agree that disclosure would be most valuable if definitions for categories of relationships and payments were agreed on. Unfortunately, the options we presented to patients in our survey did not include disclosure being presented on a website, a method that has recently been launched by the Cleveland Clinic in the United States.3 A US Senate Bill, if enacted, would require health companies to report all their financial links with doctors on a government website.4

The potential benefits of physician–industry collaboration were not presented in our survey. Obviously, having doctors advise the pharmaceutical industry is likely to be beneficial, but is it appropriate to continue relationships where industry is advising or educating doctors?

Notable among the 41 recommendations of a report from a Royal College of Physicians working party in the United Kingdom, chaired by the Editor-in-Chief of the Lancet, are: the promotion of standards for prescribing at postgraduate level; a method for gradually ending the support of the pharmaceutical industry in the education of doctors in training; and any honorarium and fee, commercial or otherwise, paid to a doctor should be declared on a publicly accessible website.5

We strongly support any interventions that enhance the quality use of medicines.