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.
The full article is accessible to AMA
members and paid subscribers.
Login to MJA or subscribe now.
- 1. Tattersall MHN, Dimoska A, Gan K. Patients expect transparency in doctors’ relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. Med J Aust 2009; 190: 65-68. <MJA full text>
- 2. Britt H, Miller GC, Charles J, et al. General practice activity in Australia 2007–08. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2008. (General practice series no. 22. AIHW Cat. No. GEP 22.)
- 3. Steinbrook R. Online disclosure of physician–industry relationships. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 325-327.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.
Brad Dalton has received consultancy fees from Amgen Australia, Sanofi-Aventis, Roche Products, AstraZeneca, Actelion Pharmaceuticals, Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute, the Australasian Gastrointestinal Trials Group, Gilead Sciences, the National Stroke Foundation of Australia, and Renal Research Tasmania. He was also involved with coordination of the meeting described in this letter. Deborah Richards is employed within the pharmaceutical industry.