Medical editor wary of cons

Thursday, April 17th 2008

5:00AM Thursday April 17, 2008

Misleading research is often published in major medical journals and doctors are lending their names to it, according to the editor of the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Doctors, regulators, publishers and others are all taking money, information and small presents from pharmaceutical companies and being influenced in the process, said Catherine DeAngelis.

"It goes for all of us," said Dr DeAngelis, whose journal is influential nationally and globally.

Her journal, commonly known as JAMA, published a paper accusing Merck and Co of suppressing data that showed its now-withdrawn pain drug Vioxx was harming patients, and saying that academic researchers had lent credibility to the company's allegedly manipulated research by putting their names on the work. Merck and the independent researchers have denied this and say the journal is mistaken in this case.

But Dr DeAngelis said there was a "gigantic" problem of drug companies influencing doctors and patients. Her journal presents the Merck case as a specific example of one facet of the problem.

"We have given away our profession and we have got to take it back," she said.

Government funds are usually only used for the first stages of research - the rest is left to companies who conduct studies to seek licensing for various drugs. Dr DeAngelis said there is no way around this.

But, she added: "The editors [of medical journals] have to be [careful] watchdogs over what we publish."

- REUTERS