Academic Physicians Confront a Hostile World: The Creation of ACRE

Abstract

Academic physicians are under attack in the United States. Federal and state politicians, the lay media, some regulatory agencies, medical journals, and even medical schools have voiced strong concerns over the relationships between academic physicians and the pharmaceutical and device industries. These industries have been accused of corrupting medical research, education, and practice; and so, by extension, academic physicians who participate in these activities have become a focus of unfriendly attention. In their clamor, critics have not been reluctant to use the pejorative and misleading term conflict of interest in describing these academic-industry relationships. Physicians are notoriously slow to react, but in the end a group of academics from diverse medical specialties met at Harvard in late July to conduct the inaugural public meeting of a new organization: The Association of Clinical Researchers and Educators (obviously now known as ACRE). And, in the interests of transparency, let me immediately state that not only do I participate in research and educational services supported by industry, but that I was one of the founders of ACRE and took part actively at the Harvard meeting. Why in the United States—and throughout much of the world, for that matter—have academic physicians and industry forged their collaborations? In reality, a large part of medical research and education in contemporary times is based on this relationship. Dr Jeffrey Flier, Dean of Harvard Medical School, acknowledged at the ACRE meeting that his school’s mission to promote medical education and research requires interaction with industry.1 Most of the major advances in recent decades in conditions such as cancer and heart disease, and their incorporation into medical practice, have resulted from this partnering between academia and industry. Academic physicians are uniquely qualified to identify unmet medical needs and, working collaboratively with industry colleagues, to devise and conduct the types of basic research and clinical trials that lead to therapeutic breakthroughs. It is not difficult to understand why our critics have come to question this relationship, including legitimate concerns about preserving the independence of academic physicians. But one of the dominant motivations for this negativity comes from the costs—admittedly, often quite high—of new developments in patient care. Government agencies with limited budgets and commercial health plans with financial obligations to investors understandably look with dismay as relatively more costly tests, procedures, and therapies are developed and made available by industry and its academic advisors. From the perspective of health plan operators, the situation only gets worse when academic physicians teach their practicing colleagues about the attributes of these new developments. ACRE’s first meeting, which played to a packed house in the Bornstein Amphitheater at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital, attracted a wide range of speakers. There were representatives of medical societies, including such disciplines as diabetes, lymphoma, myeloma, and hypertension. As well, there were representatives of patient advocacy groups passionately committed to preserving the productive academia-industry collaboration needed to address unmet needs across a broad range of serious illnesses. An important insight came from a nationally recognized medical ethicist, Lance Stell, who is a professor of philosophy and Director of the Medical Humanities Program at Davidson College. “Conflict of interest” in the medical context has a clear meaning. Specifically, it occurs when practitioners accept personal rewards (such as fees, grants, awards, or recognition) in return for actions that could violate their professional obligations. In essence, to accuse a clinician of conflict of interest would require empirical proof that, in return for a reward, an action was taken that resulted in diminished care or even harm to patients. Clearly, such occurrences are extraordinarily rare in the conduct of medical research and education activities. There are words that are more accurate and less emotive than “conflict,” and we are starting to see a preference for such terms as duality, concordance, or alignment of interests. It is ironical that another speaker at the ACRE meeting discussed how certain actions in the medical setting, which perhaps really do represent true conflicts of interest, go without criticism. For instance, some commercial health plans offer practitioners direct monetary rewards for switching their patients from more expensive to less expensive drugs, or, possibly, for reducing their use of tests, referrals, and therapies so as to minimize the insurers’ outlays. Much of the information received by practicing clinicians comes from events that are funded, directly or indirectly, by industry. Partly, this is by default. After all, who else has both the responsibility as well as the resources to provide ongoing education in the clinical sciences? Inevitably this type of sponsorship has been criticized on the grounds that industry is not providing support out of altruistic principles, but rather is more intent on marketing its products. Apart from unrestricted grants that industry can provide to medical schools or hospitals to support educational ventures of their own choosing, there are two main types of industry-supported education. The first of these comes under the heading of promotional activities, and the second is labeled as continuing medical education, or CME. Each of these has its share of critics. Promotional education programs can take place in hospitals, medical offices, or at outside venues such as restaurants and are designed to provide information directly about a company’s product. These types of activities are regulated by such agencies as the Food and Drug Administration. In the case of a pharmaceutical agent, the information presented must be balanced, providing information about risks as well as benefits, and must conform largely to what is stated about the drug in its approved product label. Claiming a desire to comply with these rules, many pharmaceutical companies have tightly scripted the content of these presentations, typically demanding that presenters faithfully use a company-provided slide set without allowing them the option to add, delete, or make any other changes. This requirement obviously creates fundamental problems for academic physicians invited to present at such events. After all, how can well-regarded experts stake their reputations, not to mention the reputations of their academic institutions, on material that has been created by unknown persons at the behest of a pharmaceutical company? Not surprisingly, some major medical schools have now instructed their faculty members not to give such lectures unless they have meaningful control over the content. For community practitioners who attend such events, this is an unfortunate development, for it deprives them of beneficial teaching interactions with true medical leaders. Some observers believe that industry lawyers, in imposing this censorship, have overreacted to regulatory requirements, and there is even a suspicion that these rules—rather too conveniently—enable companies to focus more directly on their marketing messages. Rescuing this situation and re-creating collegial educational experiences in the community will require negotiations between industry and academia and, in all likelihood, regulatory agencies as well. CME is a very demanding proposition. On the one hand, industry has a compelling obligation to facilitate high-quality educational opportunities and updates for the users of its products. But, at the same time, CME rules demand that industry has a “hands off” involvement in such events, merely serving as a provider of grants. The contents of CME programs usually are created by academic faculty and are subjected to peer review (similar to an article submitted to a journal) to ensure their objectivity. Even so, some critics still claim that industry can exert a bias on this process simply by selecting which types of programs they will support. But while it is true that pharmaceutical companies are more likely to support CME activities within their areas of medical interest, industry now goes to considerable pains to ensure that its grant decision processes are kept entirely separate from marketing activities. The opponents of industry support for CME activities still claim that, despite the firewalls, industry is still rewarded for its support of CME activities by increased sales of its products. Even if this were true, it is a not unreasonable proposition that if well-balanced data, presented in an unbiased fashion, affects the subsequent utilization of drugs or devices, this will very likely be to the benefit of patients. From the perspective of academic clinicians, rigorously conducted CME events in which they are free to select the content and ideas represent ideal opportunities to enhance practitioner knowledge and patient care. Attempts by legislators (and others who regard medical education as a health–care cost driver) to prevent or limit industry support of CME could have the effect of diminishing the quality of medical practice. Again, it is the responsibility of physicians and organizations like ACRE to argue the value to patients of cooperation between academia and industry in medical education as well as in research. Many medical societies, particularly small specialty organizations, depend on industry support. The operating costs of societies, as well as the cost of meetings, publications, patient education and other professional activities cannot be fully funded by member subscriptions. Support from industry is often essential and comes in the form of corporate memberships, sponsorship of CME or other activities at scientific meetings, exhibit fees, and journal advertising. This support has been criticized by the media as indicative of excess industry influence on professional activities. And, indeed, it might be appropriate for societies to consider whether funding from industry and income from members should be directed selectively to purposes relevant to those funding sources. It is worth noting that the mistrust between the provider of health services and the worlds of academia and industry became a major public issue in Great Britain about 4 years ago. In fact, a committee of Parliament issued a report expressing concern at the failure of the academic community and the health service to work more closely with the pharmaceutical industry to minimize inappropriate or suboptimal use of drugs in clinical practice.2 Subsequently, in a high-profile report issued early this year, the Royal College of Physicians (which represents a broad range of medical specialists) stated that the interests of patients and their clinicians are best served by close cooperation between academia, industry, and the health services.3 It is unfortunate that we have lagged behind on this side of the Atlantic. Indeed, one of the most telling statements made at the Harvard meeting came from Massachusetts State Representative Michael Rodrigues, who helped lead the opposition in the legislature to a now-enacted law that dramatically curtails interactions between physicians and industry in that state. It was particularly discouraging to hear from this representative that he and his colleagues lost their opportunity to block the legislation when local physician leaders gave up the fight and decided to remain silent. The responsibility of ACRE is to re-establish the partnership of academia, industry, clinicians, and patients in the United States. Among its initial goals is educating the lay public as well as the medical community about the value to patients of the research and educational collaborations between academia and industry. This will be no easy task, for so many negative items have already appeared in the media regarding the alleged manipulation of physicians by industry, usually with only weak rebuttals by academic or industry leaders. Indeed, one of ACRE’s main responsibilities will be to develop a public voice that gets heard and quoted when such issues arise. There already has been one such success: Dr Thomas Stossel, one of ACRE’s leaders and the chair of the Harvard meeting, was invited to testify at a high-profile US Senate hearing on CME in late July. Another of ACRE’s main tasks will be to set up codes of conduct or guidelines designed to ensure that relationships between academic physicians and industry are ethical and clearly targeted at improving outcomes for our patients. This, again, will take considerable thought and discussion. As Dean Flier pointed out, we still need to figure out how best to “strike a wise balance” and create “manageable tension” in optimizing productive interactions between academics and industry. From the perspective of the many of us involved in cardiovascular medicine, it is easy to see the dramatic improvements in patient care that have resulted from the academic-industry partnership in recent years. Major clinical events and mortality have been sharply reduced in such areas as hypertension, lipid disorders, diabetes, heart failure, acute coronary syndromes and chronic kidney disease by this collaboration. ACRE’s members, in common with most physicians, no longer find it acceptable to let others unilaterally set up the rules by which we are expected to function in performing these vital tasks. It is long overdue that we take responsibility for our professional activites in research, education, and practice. More information about ACRE can be found on its Web site: http://www.acreonline.org The site also has information about how to become a member.