Regulating for Bias in Medical Education – Reaction to the Pharmaceutical Industry Updated EFPIA Code of Practice

Abstract

The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) representing the pharmaceutical industry operating in Europe, introduced three codes of conduct between 2007 and 2013, which had a common goal of self-regulating interactions with healthcare professionals and patient organisations. This former set of rules was appreciated as a first self-regulatory step, although self-regulation itself is still considered by many stakeholders as insufficient to provide thorough transparency. EFPIA agreed to replace the separate codes with a new, consolidated EFPIA Code of Practice. The consolidated Code was broadened to include a new section on medical education that outlines the scope of member companies' engagement in “medical education activities?. This new section is controversial as it explicitly confirms that EFPIA members can be involved in medical education. In our view “independent Medical Education“ per se prevents industry from “organising“ events, i.e. industry must not influence content, presentation, choice of lecturers or publication of results. What is more, only events respecting this key principle (amongst others) can be recognised for purposes of continuing medical education/continuing professional development (CME/CPD). A substantial portion of the medical education is currently funded by the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. This practice carries a significant risk to public and personal health, especially if it is not adequately safeguarded by a high standard of accreditation. We are most concerned by the fact that EFPIA, representing the pharmaceutical industry, is trying to broaden the approach to medical education, to include activities that are not independently evaluated as free from undue influence and conflicts of interest. We believe that in order to preserve scientific integrity and independence, pharmaceutical companies must not be granted the right to influence the content of medical education.

Industry-funded medical education is always promotion—an essay by Adriane Fugh-Berman

“…In June 2019, the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations affirmed that its industry members can organise and provide input to CME activities and fund independent CME activities 23. An alliance between Mental Health Europe and organisations representing healthcare professionals and medical education stakeholders protested that “pharmaceutical companies must not be granted the right to influence the content of medical education.”23…”

Report on Proceedings of the Thirteenth Annual European CME Forum, Held Virtually, November, 2020

“…Day 1 began with a review by Eugene Pozniak, the Forum Director, of key happenings in the world of CPD/CME that had taken place since #12ECF. Significant milestones were the move to virtual meetings, the article in the Journal of European CME (JECME) by Rodzinka et al entitled “Regulating for Bias in Medical Education – Reaction to the Pharmaceutical Industry Updated EFPIA Code of Practice” [ 1 ] and the special collection of 12 papers in the Journal that focused on Outcomes in CME/CPD.…”