Journal Mobile Options
Table of Contents
Vol. 75, No. 3, 2006
Issue release date: April 2006
Section title: Regular Article
Psychother Psychosom 2006;75:154–160
(DOI:10.1159/000091772)

Financial Ties between DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry

Cosgrove L. · Krimsky S. · Vijayaraghavan M. · Schneider L.
aUniversity of Massachusetts, Boston, Mass., and bTufts University, Medford, Mass., USA

Do you have an account?

Register and profit from personalized services (MyKarger) Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information









I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

Register and profit from personalized services (MyKarger) Login Information

Please create your User ID & Password





Contact Information









I have read the Karger Terms and Conditions and agree.

To view the fulltext, please log in

To view the pdf, please log in

Buy

  • FullText & PDF
  • Unlimited re-access via MyKarger (new!)
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
  • Reduced rates with a PPV account
read more

Direct: USD 38.00
Account: USD 26.50

Select

Rent/Cloud

  • Rent for 48h to view
  • Buy Cloud Access for unlimited viewing via different devices
  • Synchronizing in the ReadCube Cloud
  • Printing and saving restriction apply

Rental: USD 8.50
Cloud: USD 20.00

Select

Subscribe

  • Automatic perpetual access to all articles of the subscribed year(s)
  • Unlimited re-access via Subscriber Login or MyKarger
  • Unrestricted printing, no saving restrictions for personal use
read more

Subcription rates


Select


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Regular Article

Published online: 4/21/2006

Number of Print Pages: 7
Number of Figures: 4
Number of Tables: 0

ISSN: 0033-3190 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0348 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/PPS

Abstract

Background: Increasing attention has been given to the transparency of potential conflicts of interest in clinical medicine and biomedical sciences, particularly in journal publishing and science advisory panels. The authors examined the degree and type of financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry of panel members responsible for revisions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM). Methods: By using multimodal screening techniques the authors investigated the financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry of 170 panel members who contributed to the diagnostic criteria produced for the DSM-IV and the DSM-IV-TR. Results: Of the 170 DSM panel members 95 (56%) had one or more financial associations with companies in the pharmaceutical industry. One hundred percent of the members of the panels on ‘Mood Disorders’ and ‘Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders’ had financial ties to drug companies. The leading categories of financial interest held by panel members were research funding (42%), consultancies (22%) and speakers bureau (16%). Conclusions: Our inquiry into the relationships between DSM panel members and the pharmaceutical industry demonstrates that there are strong financial ties between the industry and those who are responsible for developing and modifying the diagnostic criteria for mental illness. The connections are especially strong in those diagnostic areas where drugs are the first line of treatment for mental disorders. Full disclosure by DSM panel members of their financial relationships with for-profit entities that manufacture drugs used in the treatment of mental illness is recommended.


Article / Publication Details

First-Page Preview
Abstract of Regular Article

Published online: 4/21/2006

Number of Print Pages: 7
Number of Figures: 4
Number of Tables: 0

ISSN: 0033-3190 (Print)
eISSN: 1423-0348 (Online)

For additional information: http://www.karger.com/PPS


Copyright / Drug Dosage

Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher or, in the case of photocopying, direct payment of a specified fee to the Copyright Clearance Center.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in goverment regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.

References

  1. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP: Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA2003;289:454–465.
  2. Antonuccio DO, Danton WG, DeNelsky GY, Greenberg RP, Gordon JS: Raising questions about antidepressants. Psychother Psychosom 1999;68:3–14.
  3. Little M: Research ethics and conflicts of interest. J Med Ethics1999;25:259–262.
  4. Gutfield R: Panel urges FDA to act on adviser bias. Wall Street Journal, Dec 9, 1992, B6.
  5. Monbiot G: Guard dogs of perception: corporate takeover of science. Sci Eng Ethics 2003;9:49–57.
  6. Krimsky S: The redemption of federal advisory committees; in Science in the Private Interest. Lanham, Rowman & Littlefield, 2003.
  7. Schroter S, Morris J, Chaudhry S, et al: Does the type of competing interest statement affect readers’ perceptions of the credibility of research? Randomised trial. BMJ 2004;328:742–743.
  8. Stolberg SJ: Study says clinical guides often hide ties of doctors. New York Times, Feb 6, 2002, A17.
  9. Fava GA: Conflict of interest in psychopharmacology: can Dr. Jekyll still control Mr. Hyde? Psychother Psychosom 2004;73:1–4.
  10. Eriksen K, Kress VE: Beyond the DSM Story: Ethical Quandaries, Challenges, and Best Practices. Sage, Thousand Oaks, 2005, p x.
  11. Bodenheimer T: Uneasy alliance: clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med 2000;342:1539–1544.
  12. Angell M: Is academic medicine for sale? N Engl J Med 2000;342:1516–1518.
  13. Goldstein B: APA-pharmaceutical relations. Psychiatr News 2003;38:35.
  14. Scully JH: Advertising revenue helps APA meet its objectives. Psychiatr News 2004;39:4.
  15. American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders: DSM-IV, ed 4, text revision. Washington, American Psychiatric Association, 2000.
  16. Hare-Mustin RT, Marecek J: Abnormal psychology and clinical psychology: the politics of madness; in Fox D, Prilleltensky I (eds): Critical Psychology: an Introduction. Sage, Thousand Oaks, 1997, pp 104–120.
  17. Mental health practitioners and trainees: Mental Health, United States, 2002. Rockville MD: USDHHS Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Center for Mental Health Services. Available at http://www.mentalhealth.samhsa.gov/publications/allpubs/SMA04-3938/Chapter21.asp (accessed February 16, 2005).
  18. Cosgrove L, Riddle B: Constructions of femininity and experiences of menstrual distress. Women Health 2003;38:37–58.
  19. Krimsky S, Rothenberg LS, Stott P, Kyle G: Financial interests of authors in scientific journals: a pilot study of 14 publications. Sci Eng Ethics 1996;2:395–410.
  20. Warner TD, Gluck JP: What do we really know about conflicts of interest in biomedical research? Psychopharmacology 2003;171:36–46.
  21. Boyd EA, Bero LA: Assessing faculty financial relationships with industry: a case study. JAMA 2000;284:2209–2214.
  22. Angell M: The Truth about Drug Companies. New York, Random House, 2004, p 142.
  23. Krimsky S, Rothenberg LS: Conflict of interest policies in science and medical journals: editorial practices and author disclosures.Sci Eng Ethics 2001;7:205–218.
  24. Leading Therapy Classes by Global Pharmaceutical Sales, 2004. Available at www.imshealth.com/ims/portal/front/articleC/ 0,2777,6599_71234024_71234109,00.html (accessed March 24, 2005).
  25. Leading Products by Global Pharmaceutical Sales, 2004. Available at www.imshealth.com/ims/portal/front/articleC/0,2777,6599_71234024_71234109,00.html (accessed March 24, 2005).
  26. Global Market Forecast. Available at www.woodmac.com/pdf/pharmaquantpluspressrelease.pdf (accessed March 24, 2005).
  27. Editorial: Experts and the drug industry. New York Times, March 4, 2005.
  28. Cho MK, Shohara R, Schissel A, Rennie D: Policies on faculty conflict of interest at US universities. JAMA 2000;284:2203–2208.
  29. Rennie D: Fair conduct and fair reporting of clinical trials. JAMA 1999;282:1766–1768.
  30. Korn D: Conflicts of interest in biomedical research. JAMA 2000;284:2234–2237.
  31. Starcevic V: Opportunistic ‘rediscovery’ of mental disorders by the pharmaceutical industry. Psychother Psychosom 2002;71:305–310.
  32. Fava GA: Conflict of interest and special interest groups. The making of a counter culture. Psychother Psychosom 2001;70:1–5.