Dataset Information

Declarations of interest by members of Health Canada's special advisory committees and panels: a descriptive study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Health Canada supplements its in-house expertise on pharmacotherapy and pharmaceutical policy through the use of scientific/expert advisory committees and scientific/expert advisory panels. This study was undertaken to examine the interests of the members of these Health Canada advisory bodies. METHODS:This was an observational study of the financial and intellectual interests of members of Health Canada's scientific/expert advisory committees and panels. The following information was extracted from Health Canada websites in December 2018: member's name, name of committee/panel, direct and indirect financial interests, and intellectual interests. Information extracted about the committees and panels included the number of meetings for which a record of proceedings was available and the topics discussed at the meetings. RESULTS:Of 81 unique committee and panel members, 12 declared a direct financial interest, 56 an indirect financial interest and 65 an intellectual interest. Five of 11 committees and panels had people who declared a direct financial interest. All 11 advisory bodies had members who declared indirect financial interests (n = 62) and intellectual interests (n = 81). Six of the 11 committees and panels had a majority of members who declared a direct or indirect financial interest. In the 10 advisory body meetings for which information was available, individual products were rarely discussed but recommendations from all but 1 of the meetings could potentially have affected sales. INTERPRETATION:Only a minority of members of Health Canada's advisory committees and panels declared direct financial interests but the majority of members of a majority of the advisory bodies declared indirect financial and intellectual interests. Because of the lack of individual voting records it was not possible to determine if financial or intellectual interests influenced voting patterns.

SUBMITTER: Lexchin J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6527433 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr-Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Declarations of interest by members of Health Canada's special advisory committees and panels: a descriptive study.

Lexchin Joel J

CMAJ open 20190401 2

<h4>Background</h4>Health Canada supplements its in-house expertise on pharmacotherapy and pharmaceutical policy through the use of scientific/expert advisory committees and scientific/expert advisory panels. This study was undertaken to examine the interests of the members of these Health Canada advisory bodies.<h4>Methods</h4>This was an observational study of the financial and intellectual interests of members of Health Canada's scientific/expert advisory committees and panels. The following ...[more]

PMID: 31110111

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe objectives of this scoping review are to: (1) identify the distribution of and context of the recruitment strategies used, (2) explore the facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical issues of the identified recruitment strategies, (3) distinguish the varying terminology for involvement (ie, panels, boards, individual) and (4) determine if the individual recruitment strategies used were to address issues of representation or bias.DesignA scoping review.SettingThis scoping review follows the framework by Peters et al. Seven electronic databases were explored including Scopus, Medline, PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO (conducted July 2021). The search strategy was codeveloped among the research team, PPI research experts and a faculty librarian. Two independent reviewers screened articles by title and abstract and then at full text based on predetermined criteria.Primary and secondary outcome measuresExplore recruitment strategies used, facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical issues of the identified recruitment strategies. Identify terminology for involvement. Explore recruitment strategies used to address issues of representation or bias.ResultsThe final sample was from 51 sources. A large portion of the extracted empirical literature had a clinical focus (37%, n=13) but was not a randomised control trial. The most common recruitment strategies used were human networks (78%, n=40), such as word of mouth, foundation affiliation, existing networks, clinics or personal contacts. Within the reviewed literature, there was a lack of discussion pertaining to facilitators, benefits, barriers and ethical considerations of recruitment strategies was apparent. Finally, 41% (n=21) of studies employed or proposed recruitment strategies or considerations to address issues of representation or bias.ConclusionWe conclude with four key recommendations that researchers can use to better understand appropriate routes to meaningfully involve patients, carers and members of the public to cocreate the evidence informing their care.

Project description:AimsWe have previously described the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration's guidelines, each for a specific psychiatric indication, on how to design pivotal drug trials used in new drug applications. Here, we report on our efforts over 3 years to retrieve conflicts of interest declarations from EMA. We wanted to assess potential internal industry influence judged as the proportion of guideline committee members with industry conflicts of interest.MethodsWe submitted Freedom of Information requests in February 2020 to access EMA's lists of committee members (and their declared conflicts of interest) involved in drafting the 13 'Clinical efficacy and safety' guidelines available on EMA's website pertaining to psychiatric indications. In our request, we did not specify the exact EMA committees. Here, we describe the received documents and report the proportion of members with industry interests (i.e. defined as any financial industry relationship). It is a follow-up paper to our first report (http://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796021000147).ResultsAfter 2 years and 9 months (November 2022), the EMA sent us member lists and corresponding conflicts of interest declarations from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human use (CHMP) from 2012, 2013 and 2017. These member lists pertained to 3 of the 13 requested guidelines (schizophrenia, depression and autism spectrum disorder). The 10 remaining guidelines were published before 2011 and EMA stated that they needed to require permission from their expert members (with unknown retrieval rate) and foresaw excessive workload and long wait. Therefore, we withdrew our request. The CHMPs from 2012, 2013 and 2017 had from 34 to 36 members; 39%-44% declared any interests and we judged 14%-18% as having industry interests. For the schizophrenia guideline, we identified two members with industry interests to companies who submitted feedback on the guideline. We did not receive declarations from the Central Nervous System (CNS) Working Party, the CHMP appointed expert group responsible for drafting and incorporating feedback into the guidelines.ConclusionsAfter almost 3 years, we received information, which only partly addressed our request. We recommend EMA to improve transparency by publishing the author names and their corresponding conflicts of interest declarations directly in the 'Clinical efficacy and safety' guidelines and to not remove conflicts of interest declarations after 1 year from their website to reduce the risk of stealth corporate influence during the development of these influential guidelines.

Dataset Information

Declarations of interest by members of Health Canada's special advisory committees and panels: a descriptive study.

Publications

Declarations of interest by members of Health Canada's special advisory committees and panels: a descriptive study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets