FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2116733840> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2116733840 endingPage "274" @default.
• W2116733840 startingPage "274" @default.
• W2116733840 abstract "Back to table of contents Previous article Next article CommentaryFull AccessConflict of Interest— An Issue for Every PsychiatristRobert Freedman M.D., Editor-in-ChiefDavid A. Lewis M.D., Deputy EditorRobert Michels M.D., Deputy EditorDaniel S. Pine M.D., Deputy EditorSusan K. Schultz M.D., Deputy EditorCarol A. Tamminga M.D., Deputy EditorNancy C. Andreasen M.D., Ph.D.Kathleen T. Brady M.D., Ph.D.David A. Brent M.D.Linda Brzustowicz M.D.Cameron S. Carter M.D.Leon Eisenberg M.D.Howard Goldman M.D., Ph.D.Daniel C. Javitt M.D.Ellen Leibenluft M.D.Jeffrey A. Lieberman M.D.Barbara Milrod M.D.Maria A. Oquendo M.D.Jerrold F. Rosenbaum M.D.A. John Rush M.D.Larry J. Siever M.D.Patricia Suppes M.D., Ph.D.Myrna M. Weissman Ph.D.Michael D. Roy Editorial Director, American Journal of PsychiatryJames H. Scully Jr., M.D., Medical Director and CEO, American Psychiatric AssociationJoel Yager M.D., Vice-Chairperson, APA Steering Committee on Practice GuidelinesRobert Freedman M.D., Editor-in-ChiefSearch for more papers by this authorDavid A. Lewis M.D., Deputy EditorSearch for more papers by this authorRobert Michels M.D., Deputy EditorSearch for more papers by this authorDaniel S. Pine M.D., Deputy EditorSearch for more papers by this authorSusan K. Schultz M.D., Deputy EditorSearch for more papers by this authorCarol A. Tamminga M.D., Deputy EditorSearch for more papers by this authorNancy C. Andreasen M.D., Ph.D.Search for more papers by this authorKathleen T. Brady M.D., Ph.D.Search for more papers by this authorDavid A. Brent M.D.Search for more papers by this authorLinda Brzustowicz M.D.Search for more papers by this authorCameron S. Carter M.D.Search for more papers by this authorLeon Eisenberg M.D.Search for more papers by this authorHoward Goldman M.D., Ph.D.Search for more papers by this authorDaniel C. Javitt M.D.Search for more papers by this authorEllen Leibenluft M.D.Search for more papers by this authorJeffrey A. Lieberman M.D.Search for more papers by this authorBarbara Milrod M.D.Search for more papers by this authorMaria A. Oquendo M.D.Search for more papers by this authorJerrold F. Rosenbaum M.D.Search for more papers by this authorA. John Rush M.D.Search for more papers by this authorLarry J. Siever M.D.Search for more papers by this authorPatricia Suppes M.D., Ph.D.Search for more papers by this authorMyrna M. Weissman Ph.D.Search for more papers by this authorMichael D. Roy Editorial Director, American Journal of PsychiatrySearch for more papers by this authorJames H. Scully Jr., M.D., Medical Director and CEO, American Psychiatric AssociationSearch for more papers by this authorJoel Yager M.D., Vice-Chairperson, APA Steering Committee on Practice GuidelinesSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:1 Mar 2009https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09010093AboutSectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail To many psychiatrists’ dismay, unresolved conflicts of interest between parts of our profession and the pharmaceutical industry continue to be a focus of concern. It is not our purpose to examine individual allegations; as in most investigations, some have been verified but others have not. Rather, this editorial addresses the context in which serious conflict of interest occurs. The impact of investigations of conflicts of interest extends beyond their targets and potentially affects the credibility of all psychiatrists. Psychiatry is reexamining its standards and ethical boundaries for interactions with the pharmaceutical industry. Our standards should address not only the conduct of high-profile opinion leaders, but also our responsibility as individual physicians to deliver to our patients the highest-quality evidence-based medicine.Conflicts arise when interests that once seemed congruent begin to diverge. For the pioneers of psychopharmacology, the pharmaceutical companies were invaluable allies. Pharmaceutical companies had the latest information on new drugs such as imipramine, chlorpromazine, and diazepam that offered unprecedented therapeutic efficacy for depression, psychosis, and anxiety. Educational programs, advisory boards, and research grants supported a network of opinion leaders who informed clinicians about how to use these revolutionary new treatments. However, as psychopharmacology has matured, education about biological treatment has often narrowed to carefully orchestrated marketing of specific drugs that may have only marginal advantages over other drugs in the same class. As the differences have become smaller, the amount of money involved in marketing has become greater. Research and educational roles blur into this marketing. There is no clearer example of conflict of interest than the participation of prominent psychiatrists in pharmaceutical company speakers bureaus, which supply academic opinion leaders to deliver company-approved presentations that market their drugs to their clinical colleagues in the guise of medical education. Because development of drugs at present relies solely on the pharmaceutical industry, the American Journal of Psychiatry publishes industry-supported clinical studies of new drugs, when the reviewers and editors judge that they contribute new information that is important for clinicians to consider and that is not available from any other source. Many APA members with world-leading expertise in psychopharmacology are employed by pharmaceutical companies to develop new drugs, and their papers contain valuable data for our readers. In the review process, our expert reviewers, including dedicated statistical reviewers, endeavor to ensure that the methods, results, and interpretation are accurately and completely described. An independent editorial accompanying the article assesses the findings and their importance for clinical practice, along with realistically appraising their limitations. These clinical research articles are a unique part of the education of psychiatrists about new drugs. They offer readers the opportunity to make their own decisions about the merits and results of a study supporting the use of a new drug, because they can inspect the methods and data for themselves. Many new drugs have made psychiatric and other medical treatments safer and more acceptable to patients. However, there are also unfortunate examples of prominent companies failing to report important information about drugs that is critical for their safe use. The problem for psychiatry and indeed for all of medicine is how clinicians can obtain unbiased, up-to-date information on newly approved drugs. The interacting system of industry-supported clinical trials, advisory boards, and speakers bureaus not always, but nonetheless too often, has resulted in conflicts of interest that have demeaned both psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry. Mechanisms exist for academic and clinical consortia and the National Institutes of Health to work jointly with pharmaceutical companies on premarketing drug trials; the National Cancer Institute has used this mechanism for the development of cancer chemotherapeutics. A similar collaborative effort involving industry and nonindustry investigators, sponsored and monitored by the National Institute of Mental Health, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, or the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, should be required by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for at least one study of any new drug, to restore more openness and credibility to the approval process. The information that is obtained can then be disseminated through articles written by nonindustry investigators with access to all the data and through continuing medical education (CME) efforts that do not involve pharmaceutical company speakers bureaus to dictate what is presented.The development of better treatments is an urgent need for our patients. Strong academic-industrial collaborations help ensure that pharmaceutical companies develop new treatments guided by the discoveries of academic researchers. There is a danger that conflict of interest concerns may discourage these collaborations, which are crucial if our field is to develop the next generation of treatments based on discoveries in genetics and neurobiology. Thus, psychiatrists who participate in the development of new treatments and in education about their use have special responsibilities to be transparent and circumspect about any conflicts of interest. Academic positions and leadership in our organizations convey similar responsibilities. The American Association of Medical Colleges has adopted a model code of conduct that allows for reasonable reimbursement from pharmaceutical companies for research and educational activities. Most medical schools are now adopting their own versions of this code. The model code leaves to the discretion of each faculty physician the assessment of whether specific activities are truly education and research or whether his or her participation is being unreasonably compensated because it fulfills the marketing aims of the companies. Reliance on self-judgment is risky if personal income is potentially involved. The code of conduct will be more effective when it is coupled with a peer review system, similar to the ethics committees of APA district branches that help enforce ethical standards for clinical practice. As individual practitioners, we may feel that we are not affected by public concern over these issues, which often focuses on the acts of a few of our colleagues. Congressional hearings and articles in the New York Times or Boston Globe are far removed from our own practices. But our profession suffers from these episodes and, more important, our patients do as well, because the public and private resources available for the care of our patients depend upon the public perception of the integrity of our profession as a whole. Therefore, each of us has a personal stake and a professional role in the conflict of interest issue. Most of us may never receive a check from a pharmaceutical company. However, by allowing companies to pay for and thus dictate our CME, we support the marketing context in which these acts occur. Our ethical principles as physicians are designed to protect our patients in many ways— primum non nocere, confidentiality, prohibitions of boundary violations. We now need to protect our patients from conflicts of interest in the selection of their treatment. The FDA has already taken leadership in limiting gifts and other inducements that historically were part of drug marketing. Guidelines for the type of pharmaceutical industry support that we each accept for our professional activities, including CME, and how our receipt of this support is shared with our patients when we prescribe drugs need to be more precisely defined by APA and our other professional organizations. APA ethical guidelines currently take into account the considerable expense of CME and journal publication and therefore allow pharmaceutical company support for these activities. Advertising in the American Journal of Psychiatry is separated from editorial functions by a strict fire-wall to assure that it does not influence editorial decisions or intrude into our medical content, but display advertisements seem increasingly incongruous with our standards for unbiased medical information. Pharmaceutical companies themselves are decreasing these advertisements, because they do not meet all their marketing needs, and instead are increasing direct-to-consumer advertisements. Industry-supported CME symposia at the APA annual meeting and other professional and academic settings are also carefully regulated, but many presentations are closely related to their sponsors’ products, and the enticement of food is often added. It is timely to reexamine and revise these practices. More acceptable alternatives—industry support of education through unrestricted gifts to APA, universities, or other public institutions and journal advertising that resembles sponsorships on public television rather than network prime time commercials—will likely result in less financial support than we currently receive for our professional activities, because this financial support would no longer be assumed by the companies as part of their marketing strategy. The subsidy that each of us has been receiving is part of what has fueled the excesses that are currently under investigation. Accordingly, in the future it may cost more to attend meetings, to earn CME credits, and to receive journals. Pharmaceutical companies may continue to hire their own speakers and to offer subsidized CME and publications to clinicians through their marketing divisions and private medical education companies. Each of us must acknowledge—in the choices that we make—our own responsibility to limit conflicts of interest in order to preserve the integrity of the field that is so important to us all. Address correspondence to Dr. Freedman, American Journal of Psychiatry , American Psychiatric Association, Suite 1825, 1000 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22209; [email protected] (e-mail). Commentary accepted for publication January 2009 (doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09010093). Disclosure of the authors’ competing interests appears elsewhere in this issue. FiguresReferencesCited byDetailsCited byEthical Issues in Clinical Child Neurology9 June 2020Pharmaceutical industry interactions of psychiatric trainees from 20 European countries15 April 2020 | European Psychiatry, Vol. 30, No. 2Ethical considerations in pediatric neurologyPsychodynamic Psychiatry, Vol. 40, No. 3Psychiatric EthicsJournal of Nervous & Mental Disease, Vol. 199, No. 8Psychiatrists’ Relationships with Industry: The Principal-Agent ProblemHarvard Review of Psychiatry, Vol. 18, No. 5Tegenstrijdige belangenKind en Adolescent, Vol. 30, No. 3Biased Public Health Perspective on Depression Treatment: Media Bias on Publication BiasROBERT M. POSTM.D.,1 August 2009 | American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 166, No. 8Publication Bias: Calling Academic Physicians to AccountSANDRA STEINGARDM.D.,1 August 2009 | American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 166, No. 8Drs. Mathew and Charney ReplySanjay J. Mathew, M.D.Dennis S. CharneyM.D.,1 August 2009 | American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 166, No. 8 Volume 166Issue 3 March, 2009Pages 274-274THE AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY March 2009 Volume 166 Number 3 Metrics PDF download History Published online 1 March 2009 Published in print 1 March 2009" @default.
• W2116733840 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5004959719 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5009515693 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5010195025 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5011631937 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5012501900 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5013246959 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5014654741 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5017204389 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5022045937 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5023075925 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5023252875 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5026663183 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5032893667 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5036627459 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5039949601 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5042745285 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5045818277 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5062175945 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5068953682 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5069369115 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5075093461 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5077815451 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5080851216 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5082581034 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5082847636 @default.
• W2116733840 creator A5084351153 @default.
• W2116733840 date "2009-03-01" @default.
• W2116733840 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
• W2116733840 title "Conflict of Interest— An Issue for Every Psychiatrist" @default.
• W2116733840 doi "https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ajp.2009.09010093" @default.
• W2116733840 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/4430107" @default.
• W2116733840 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19255048" @default.
• W2116733840 hasPublicationYear "2009" @default.
• W2116733840 type Work @default.
• W2116733840 sameAs 2116733840 @default.
• W2116733840 citedByCount "13" @default.
• W2116733840 countsByYear W21167338402012 @default.
• W2116733840 countsByYear W21167338402013 @default.
• W2116733840 countsByYear W21167338402015 @default.
• W2116733840 countsByYear W21167338402020 @default.
• W2116733840 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5004959719 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5009515693 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5010195025 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5011631937 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5012501900 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5013246959 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5014654741 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5017204389 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5022045937 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5023075925 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5023252875 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5026663183 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5032893667 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5036627459 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5039949601 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5042745285 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5045818277 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5062175945 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5068953682 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5069369115 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5075093461 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5077815451 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5080851216 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5082581034 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5082847636 @default.
• W2116733840 hasAuthorship W2116733840A5084351153 @default.
• W2116733840 hasBestOaLocation W21167338402 @default.
• W2116733840 hasConcept C11171543 @default.
• W2116733840 hasConcept C118552586 @default.
• W2116733840 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W2116733840 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W2116733840 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W2116733840 hasConcept C2777276634 @default.
• W2116733840 hasConcept C542102704 @default.
• W2116733840 hasConceptScore W2116733840C11171543 @default.
• W2116733840 hasConceptScore W2116733840C118552586 @default.
• W2116733840 hasConceptScore W2116733840C15744967 @default.
• W2116733840 hasConceptScore W2116733840C17744445 @default.
• W2116733840 hasConceptScore W2116733840C199539241 @default.
• W2116733840 hasConceptScore W2116733840C2777276634 @default.
• W2116733840 hasConceptScore W2116733840C542102704 @default.
• W2116733840 hasIssue "3" @default.
• W2116733840 hasLocation W21167338401 @default.
• W2116733840 hasLocation W21167338402 @default.
• W2116733840 hasLocation W21167338403 @default.
• W2116733840 hasLocation W21167338404 @default.
• W2116733840 hasOpenAccess W2116733840 @default.
• W2116733840 hasPrimaryLocation W21167338401 @default.
• W2116733840 hasRelatedWork W1884192967 @default.
• W2116733840 hasRelatedWork W1970375414 @default.
• W2116733840 hasRelatedWork W1980428795 @default.
• W2116733840 hasRelatedWork W1988207302 @default.
• W2116733840 hasRelatedWork W2063253103 @default.
• W2116733840 hasRelatedWork W2604825721 @default.
• W2116733840 hasRelatedWork W2989457324 @default.

• next