The debate over industry funding of continuing medical education took a tense turn earlier this month when the American Heart Association promised to aggressively appeal a rule that would prevent doctors from receiving needed credit for attending medical meetings where industry people talk about their drugs (see background).

Specifically, AHA president Clyde Yancy was incensed that the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education told him his organization shouldn’t have industry speakers at any scientific sessions at its upcoming annual meeting. The ACCME policy was set in 2004 and updated last year, but his vow to appeal undescored opposing views over industry influence on post-graduate medical education and whether it has gotten out of hand. The issue, in fact, will be debated still more on Friday at a Georgetown University conference between industry critics, the FDA deputy commish, an investigator for Senator Chuck Grassley and an NIH official, among others.

Last night, however, the two groups buried their differences. The ACCME issued a somewhat vague statement saying “we recognize this policy addresses complex issues and presents challenges for some accredited organizations. We are engaged in ongoing discussions with them to understand their specific circumstances and to provide support as they develop implementation.” We have since been told that ACCME rules do allow industry employees to speak under certain circumstances, and that talks held revealed AHA procedures meet ACCME standards for independence after all. And here is the AHA statement.

In a brief conversation this afternoon, Yancy tells us the AHA didn’t have to agree to any concessions or changes to win ACCME approval. “Through our Committee on Scientific Session Programs, we strictly and absolutely control the flow of information. For example, once an abstract makes it through the adjudication process, the committee decides the format, which day it will be presented, with which speaker and how it will be presented. This process is insulated from anyone else. Even the presenter can’t influence the manner in which their information can be presented.

“All 25 members of the committee have well recognized expertise in their specific areas and there is no randomness involved in this…And so the independence bar that’s important to the ACCME was reached. I don’t want to speak for the ACCME, but I believe they are now comfortable that the information brought forward (at AHA sessions) is information that is deemed objective and free of bias and appropriate for being vetted at one of the most important scientifc venues in the country.

“We explained that no fewer than eight and as many as 10 peer reviews take place…and only one out of three submitted abstracts get presented in a scientific session. …But no, we didn’t agree to do anything differently. We were able to communicate effectively what we were already doing. We got the guidelines correct, and we understood what was written and the intent of what was written. This only involves, by the way, less than 1 percent of all the abstracts in our sessions, or much fewer than 100 out of 10,000. What was involved here was an issue of principle. From a quantitative standpoint, it’s a small issue, but from a principled point of view, it was a huge issue - nobody wants banning of sicnece.”

However, Yancy was quick to note that the AHA has no input on the content of so-called satellite symposia that are supported by industry. Anything beyond the official AHA meeting, he says, is determined by the CME providers.