University Will Scrutinize Professor For Conflicts
The University of Cincinnati will increase scrutiny on psychiatry professor Melissa DelBello for failing to report all corporate research money she received from AstraZeneca during the last decade, The Cincinnati Enquirer reports. DelBello now has to review all her industry interactions with her department chairman, UC vp of research Sandra Degen tells the paper.
DelBello’s teaching and research haven’t been restricted, but the fact that she didn’t tell the university about some outside income has been detailed in her personnel file, the paper writes. “It’s to protect her,” Degen tells the Enquirer. “Basically, we were documenting that there were some discrepancies in what was reported.”
You may recall that DelBello became the focus of controversy after Chuck Grassley, the Iowa Republican on the US Senate Finance Committee, singled her out for receiving grants from the NIH and large fees from AstraZeneca while working on a study of the drugmaker’s Seroquel antipsychotic. At issue was whether the NIH and the university were monitoring such conflicts, and Grassley also raised questions about the amounts DelBello reported.
In an October 12, 2007, letter Grassley sent to university president Nancy Zimpher, he noted the university reported DelBello received amounts that, in some years, differed from what the drugmaker reported to the committee. A copy of the letter was obtained by Pharmalot from the university through Ohio’s Open Public Records Act (no, we haven’t had it scanned yet). For instance, in 2005….(keep reading to see figures)…
…In 2005, DelBello received less than $50,000 from AstraZeneca, according to the university, but the drugmaker told the committee she was paid nearly $96,000, the letter states. In 2006, the university claimed DelBello received $46,000, compared with more than $75,000 that AstraZeneca maintains she was paid. And last year, the university claimed she was paid “little to no income,” while the drugmaker reported nearly $67,000.
Grassley, by the way, also criticized a company DelBello started, called MSZ Associates, that received payments from AstraZeneca, which she reportedly didn’t tell the university. DelBello declined to answer questions about her research funding or Grassley’s criticism. Degen, however, maintains that there is no evidence the money had any impact on the substance of DelBello’s research, according to the paper. DelBello didn’t respond to the Enquirer for comment; we are awaiting a reply ourselves.
Last year, the university’s researchers received $8.7 million from companies, and $178.1 million from the federal government. With federal support stagnant, the university is encouraging professors to solicit corporate funds and start companies so they can pay for their research, the paper writes. “It’s a well-accepted fact that (companies) go out to the world’s experts to study diseases with no strings attached,” Degen tells the Enquirer. “The main point is how the perceived conflict of interest is disclosed. As long as you disclose it, then it’s fine.”
UC now prohibits gifts from drugmakers and forbids industry representatives from being on campus without a specific appointment. But Degan insists the changes were planned before Grassley’s requests.
Hat tip to Pharmagossip
Duane Sherry
Ed,
Good to see someone is watching these ‘researchers’, and psychiatry ‘professors’.
Great post!
Thanks,
Duane
DeWaarheid
I recall sitting in on the IRB section of a P&T meeting at a hospital in my area sometime ago. The director of P&T and the director of Pharmacy were red-faced over the number of “projects” going on within the instituion without approval of the hospital IRB committee. The doctors were lining their pockets with the monies from these projects while using hospital resources (nurses, administrators, telecom, supplies, etc) and effectively opening the hospital up to liability which it may not have been aware of. I hear advertising on the radio daily to participate in clinical trials. I know that my dad has been involved in at least two in the past few years. And apparently there is a sub-culture of professional “trial subjects.” Giving blood is one thing, but constantly rolling the dice on new meds is another.
Unfortuantely, pharma’s deep pockets have created ethical issues for everyone.
andy
How Ezetimibe (Zetia) was tested:
(CHERYL CORNACCHIA The Gazette Tuesday, February 24, 2004):
‘When a company contacted Colin Rose and offered to pay him $6,000 to refer patients to a drug study, they had the wrong doctor. Rose, a cardiologist at the Montreal General Hospital, not only said no, but he passed the written offer to the College des Medecins du Quebec, suggesting it investigate the ethics of paying doctors to refer patients. ‘
I’m about the last one on Earth they should have contacted,’ Rose said yesterday. It turns out that the physicians’ college doesn’t investigate those kinds of cases, but the doctor is no less upset by the offer to send patients to the study, which was sponsored by Merck Frosst. Rose, who is also an assistant professor of medicine at McGill University, is outspoken about what he sees as an increasingly cozy relationship between doctors and drug companies. He says it undermines doctors’ will to suggest alternatives like lifestyle changes instead of prescription drugs.
The hypercholesterolemia and coronary heart disease study to which Rose referred is being conducted by the Clinical Research Consultant Group at the Seaforth Medical Building on Cte des Neiges Rd. The group’s letter to Rose, dated Nov. 18, 2003, detailed how he would receive an honorarium of $6,000 if he referred at least one patient being treated for high cholesterol and heart disease. He would have been required to perform a physical exam of the patients at the beginning and end of the study and write the initial prescription. ‘
Nurses employed by the group would do the rest - seeing patients throughout the 12-week study. The study is evaluating the cholesterol-lowering efficacy of a 10-milligram dose of a drug called Ezetimibe when given with a 10-milligram or 20-milligram dose of Atorvastatin, another cholesterol-lowering drug. Both drugs are approved for use in Canada.
Rose later received an e-mail from Bernice Pynn, the lead researcher of the drug study, saying ‘at this time there is no discussion of publication’ of the study results. Pynn, a biochemist, was unavailable for comment yesterday. However, an assistant at the clinical research group confirmed the multisite study is sponsored by Merck Frosst. So far, she said, 15 patients are enrolled in Montreal. Vincent Lamoureux, a spokesperson for Merck Frosst in Kirkland, said doctors are sometimes compensated for their time. However, he said, he was unfamiliar with the study Rose cited, even though ‘there definitely seems to be a link to some of what we do.’
Copyright 2004 Montreal Gazette
LILLI
Congress gets reports from the Government Accountability Office, but they allow the conflict of interest to continue. Read this report GAO-04-31 University Research and the other constant reports. Why do elcted officals alloiw this to happen?
For a duration this has been rported and why doesn’t congress discipline the guilty? Because they are also guitly!
Jim
I also comment on Andy’s take each week and emal him directly with no response, EVER. Must be a very busy man to not care about looking at the FDA Adverse reporting system to see that there are now more than 2200 adverse event reports regarding hernia mesh and that is not the Kugel Mesh or the Bard Composix, those 2200 reports are for the various other hernia meshes that are being implanted into patients. Ed Keep up the good work, your site is very imformative, But we could use your help to get the word out about what these meshes are doing to people.
Jim
LILLI
I tnink pharmalot has a special group correspoding with each other for resons not really related for the concern of people.
Paul
So, here are the facts in this case:
1) The university is seeing that their funding from the federal government is flattening and may shrink
2) The federal government has been, year after year, putting less money into health research and education
3) The university tells its faculty and researchers to go look for industry money
4) Some academics do exactly that
…and now…
5) The government is very critical of anyone going after industry money
6) The university is critical of its people getting industry money (yes, not disclosing completely, but they still wanted the money)
…talk about hypocrisy and in consistency.
Prescription Project » Blog Archive » Blogbytes
[...] of a university enforcing its policy of financial disclosure for physicians. Pharmagossip and Pharmalot posted on a story in The Cincinnati Enquirer that the University of Cincinnati has a closer eye on [...]