Psychiater und pharmazeutische Industrie

Abstract

Relationships between psychiatrists and the pharmaceutical industry have increased in frequency and intensity, both on the individual level and particularly on the institutional level. They extend from necessary and desirable cooperation to questionable practices and to unacceptable misconduct. Especially the latter has provoked a lively discussion and has initiated recommendations as well as guidelines. Their aim is to safeguard the integrity of physicians as well as the industry and to avoid endangering the relationship between the physician and the patient. They will do this by establishing clear norms, unequivocal documentation, and disclosure of relevant relationships in order to build up more mutual trust including that of the public. Based on a detailed review of the literature, 27 recommendations are put forward for discussion. Psychiatric associations should develop explicit guidelines for the relationships between psychiatrists and the pharmaceutical industry.

Declaration of conflicts of interest in scientific publications

“…Physicians' and scientists' conflicts of interest are increasingly considered to be a serious problem, particularly those related to sponsorship by the pharmaceutical industry (Miller et al 1999;Helmchen 2003;Mö ller 2006). In general terms a conflict of interest exists when an author has interests, financial or otherwise, that might inappropriately influence his or her judgement, even if that judgement is not influenced.…”

Ethical aspects of publishing

“…Conflicts of interest can also represent a severe dilemma, in particular the conflict between the sponsor of a study, mostly the pharmaceutical industry, and the authors (Helmchen 2003;Miller et al 1999). The relationship between the author and sponsor and the related financial interests involved on both a personal and research-related level can lead to a biased presentation, which is not a falsification of data in the sense described above, but perhaps a particularly positive depiction of the results to the sponsor's benefit, for example.…”

Long-term treatment with flupentixol results of a post-marketing surveillance study

“…Although post-marketing surveillance studies (PMS) are often subject to criticism (Helmchen, 2003), they actually offer many scientific advantages. These include the ability to systematically monitor both the beneficial and the detrimental effects of a pharmaceutical drug in a large population while allowing for the easy assessment of demographic data, thereby providing a contribution to pharmacoepidemiology.…”