Department of Anthropology, Michigan State University, 655 Auditorium Drive, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA.
College of Osteopathic Medicine, Michigan State University, 909 Wilson Road West Fee Hall, Room 317, East Lansing, MI, 48824, USA.
J Bioeth Inq. 2021 Sep;18(3):477-497. doi: 10.1007/s11673-021-10119-x. Epub 2021 Sep 6.
While pharmaceutical industry involvement in producing, interpreting, and regulating medical knowledge and practice is widely accepted and believed to promote medical innovation, industry-favouring biases may result in prioritizing corporate profit above public health. Using diabetes as our example, we review successive changes over forty years in screening, diagnosis, and treatment guidelines for type 2 diabetes and prediabetes, which have dramatically expanded the population prescribed diabetes drugs, generating a billion-dollar market. We argue that these guideline recommendations have emerged under pervasive industry influence and persisted, despite weak evidence for their health benefits and indications of serious adverse effects associated with many of the drugs they recommend. We consider pharmaceutical industry conflicts of interest in some of the research and publications supporting these revisions, and in related standard-setting committees and oversight panels. We raise concern over the long-term impact of these multifaceted involvements. Rather than accept industry conflicts of interest as normal, needing only to be monitored and managed, we suggest challenging that normalcy, and ask: what are the real costs of tolerating such industry participation? We urge the development of a broader focus to fully understand and curtail the systemic nature of industry's influence over medical knowledge and practice.
虽然制药行业参与生产、解释和规范医学知识和实践已被广泛接受和认为可以促进医学创新,但行业倾向的偏见可能导致将企业利润置于公共卫生之上。以糖尿病为例,我们回顾了四十年来 2 型糖尿病和糖尿病前期的筛查、诊断和治疗指南的连续变化,这些变化极大地扩大了开处糖尿病药物的人群,创造了十亿美元的市场。我们认为,这些指南建议是在制药行业普遍存在的影响下产生的,并一直持续存在,尽管这些建议对健康的益处证据不足,而且它们推荐的许多药物都存在严重的不良反应迹象。我们考虑了支持这些修订的部分研究和出版物,以及相关的标准制定委员会和监督小组中存在的制药行业利益冲突。我们对这些多方面参与的长期影响表示关注。我们不认为接受行业利益冲突是正常的,只需要进行监测和管理,而是建议挑战这种常态,并提出:容忍这种行业参与的真正代价是什么?我们敦促更广泛地关注,以充分了解和遏制行业对医学知识和实践的系统性影响。