Remember that cholesterol panel flap I blogged about a while back? This article in the Kalamazoo Gazette is another recent examination of the convoluted relationship between top physicians, pharma, and CME, among other things, using this one issue as an example of the pros and cons. One interesting point that it makes is that it might be beneficial notto have the leading lights in a particular field, in this case cardiology, be the sole thought-leaders, speakers, and deciding factors on drug guidelines.
- Financial conflicts aren't the only danger. "Group think" can set in when a panel doesn't include people who can look at the science with different views than cardiologists do.
"These folks made their careers on being aggressive on treating risk factors," but internal-medicine doctors might feel differently, said Dr. Harlan Krumholz, who runs a center for medical outcomes research at Yale University.
I hadn't heard that argument before, at least not in this context.
To comment on this post, click on "comments" below. To receive a weekly update, e-mail Sue.