Search results

There is much evidence of bias in research on the effectiveness and efficacy of drugs as a result of the influence of the pharmaceutical industry. The purpose of this paper is to present the views of those involved in a major evidence-based policy initiative from Canada and examine the adequacy of existing academic conflict of interest (COI) rules.

Data came from the Alzheimer’s Drug Therapy Initiative in British Columbia, a coverage with evidence development (CED) initiative, where a form of action research collected insights from the authors’ experiences, combined with qualitative interviews with members of the research team.

The majority of researchers perceive the influence of pharmaceutical manufacturers as problematic. Even when the strictest of COI rules are followed, extending well beyond disclosure, the reach of industry is so great that existing COI rules lag far behind their expanding influence.

The authors support others who call for the funding of independent research, enforcement of existing disclosure rules, and unfettered publication rights. In addition, the authors urge the education of all research team members, including clinicians, on the evidence indicating the variety of forms through which industry influence is exerted. The authors believe that this awareness-raising can help toward minimizing that influence in the analyses that are conducted.

Consideration of pharmaceutical influence on CED research is important. There may be an untrue assumption that CED is functioning at arms-length from the drug companies.