|
Daily Express Micro Edition August 6, 2000
This item appears in the Daily Express in
the UK (online edition) from Sept 6th. The
story clearly illustrates the conflict of
interest involving the regulatory agency in
the UK responsible for approving drugs when
it's members have investments in or are
being compensated by the very drug companies
in question.
corporations.
The people in the meetings are some of the
leading academics and doctors of their
generation, drawn from universities,
hospitals and medical colleges across the
country.
They advise
the MCA on whether prescription,
over-the-counter,
homeopathic and even veterinary drugs are
safe and effective.
The MCA has the power to give or revoke a
drug's licence.
Medicines
which have taken years of expensive research
to
produce can be banned or withdrawn from sale
if the committees
consider there is cause for concern.
The
pharmaceutical companies know this only too
well and
therefore do their best to cosy up to
members of powerful groups
such as the Committee on Safety of Medicines
and the Medicines
Commission.
Tom Moore, a
former senior executive for AstraZeneca,
told the
Sunday Express that the drug companies go
out of their way to
build strong links. He said: "Their
objective is to get as close as
possible. They are an extremely powerful
lobby group because
they have unlimited resources."
The companies
provide trips abroad to conferences, large
research grants which can keep a university
department
employed for years, and consultancies that
can boost an
academic's humble income.
Charles
Medawar, of Social Audit, the consumer group
which is
campaigning to improve the MCA, believes it
is "unsatisfactory"
that so many members are financially
dependent on the industry.
HE SAID: "This
illustrates our serious concern about how
drugs
are granted approval in this country. There
is a general culture of
members being too close to the industry and
wanting to support
it."
The extent of
those links is widespread. Two thirds of the
248
experts sitting on the Medicines Commission
have financial ties to
the pharmaceutical industry.
And Sunday
Express research shows that 42 members of
the
committees are even more closely linked to
the companies -
because they have invested in their shares.
The size of
the holdings has been kept confidential
until now
because the members are not required to
disclose on the MCA's
register of interest just how many shares
they own.
But our
research - based on the drug companies' own
share
registers - found that several experts have
chose to invest
substantial amounts.
Dr Michael
Denham, a consultant in geriatric medicine
at Harrow,
Middlesex, and a member of the Committee on
Safety of
Medicines External Advisory Panel, owns
£115,000 worth of
shares in SmithKline Beecham.
Dr Denham was
on holiday last week but left a message to
say
that his work for the CSM had been limited
to "only a few cases".
His colleague
on the CSM advisory panel, Dr Richard Logan,
has
up to £30,000 shares in AstraZeneca,
SmithKline Beecham and
Glaxo Welcome. He said he made the
investments because he
knows and understands the pharmaceutical
industry.
Dr Logan's
role on the committee involves examining
cases where
a drug might have to be withdrawn from the
market for safety
reasons. He said: "I would hope that I would
be able to examine
that data without thinking, 'I've got a few
thousands of pounds
of shares - what would it do to my
shareholding?' "I think one
could make a reasonable judgment without
being influenced. In all
honesty, if I knew it (a drug) was about to
be taken off the
market, I would probably sell my holding as
well."
David
Ganderton, a retired Exeter University
professor, used to
work for AstraZeneca and now retains shares
in the company
which are currently worth £91,000. He has
now resigned from the
CSM panel and said he does not recall ever
facing a conflict of
interest during his nine years as an
adviser.
Other members
of the committees with substantial holdings
include: Dr Richard Auty, a former Astra-Zeneca
executive who
has shares in that company worth £110,000;
Dr Brian Evans, a
consultant whose Glaxo Wellcome holding is
worth £28,000; and
Dr Colin Forfar, a cardiologist at the
Radcliffe Infirmary, Oxford,
who has £22,000 worth of Glaxo Wellcome
shares.
Each member is
expected to declare their interest at the
beginning of committee meetings. A
spokeswoman for the MCA
said that the nature of the interest is
considered and then "a
decision is made whether they can stay for
the discussion".
A member with
an interest can be allowed to stay at a
meeting at
the discretion of the chairman.
The
spokeswoman said: "In an ideal world, they
would not have
any shares. But we are utilising their
experience in the interests
of public health and you have to expect that
people will behave
in a professional manner."
But health
campaigners are frustrated that it is very
difficult to
find out whether any of the experts are
involved in discussions on
products that they have an interest in.
The public is
not allowed to know about such discussions,
as the
Medicines Act requires that the meetings are
secret.
Professor Alan
Li Wan Po, a former member of a CSM
sub-committee, is calling for greater
openness within the Medical
Control Agency He would also like to see a
tightening of the rules
on interests.
The professor
said: "I got rid of my shares when I joined
the
committee because I felt it was a potential
conflict of interest. I
think others should do the same."
Companies such
as Glaxo Wellcome have extensive dealings
with
the MCA. Last year four of the company's
drugs were licensed in
the UK.
According to
the MCA's register, Glaxo Wellcome last year
paid
consultancies, fees or research grants to 33
members of the
committees or their departments.
SmithKline
Beecham - which last year welcomed the
Committee
on Safety of Medicine's positive endorsement
of its controversial
MMR vaccine - had financial links with 27
members.
The third
major player in the industry, AstraZeneca,
had ties with
45 members.
But there is
no alternative to the present system, claims
Ben
Hayes, of the Association of British
Pharmaceutical Industries. He
said: "The people who sit on these panels
are experts in highly
specialised fields.
"In this
country there are relatively few of such
people and as a
result they are in high demand both by
industry and the
Government."
© Express Newspapers, 2000
back to Latest News
|
