To the Editor: We welcome the article by Williams and colleagues on conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines,1 and agree that such conflicts can undermine trust in guidelines, compromise patient care and skew health care spending. One challenge in managing conflicts is the lack of evidence that disclosure minimises their impact. For example, research at the United States Food and Drug Administration found that, despite disclosure, for every committee member with a conflict, there was a 10% greater likelihood of the meeting favouring the drug reviewed.2 Recusal (self-disqualification) is also problematic, especially in Australia where there may be a relatively small pool of experts available. Given these problems, we are concerned that some of the recommendations made by Williams and colleagues lack supporting evidence and fail to adequately address conflicts of interest.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- 1. Williams MJ, Kevat DAS, Loff B. Conflict of interest guidelines for clinical guidelines. Med J Aust 2011; 195: 442-445. <MJA full text>
- 2. Lurie P, Almeida CM, Stine N, et al. Financial conflict of interest disclosure and voting patterns at Food and Drug Administration Drug Advisory Committee meetings. JAMA 2006; 295; 1921-1928.
- 3. Moynihan RA. Medicalization. A new deal on disease definition. BMJ 2011; 342: d2548. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d2548.
- 4. Schwarze ML. Conflict of interest with industry and the challenges for surgical education. J Am Coll Surg 2009; 209: 766-768.
No relevant disclosures.