Last week the Association of American Medical Colleges and three other university associations took aim at the NIH’s proposed rule to tighten disclosure and reporting requirements, departing from their initial support of tightened regs last summer.
Like the AAMC and Association of American Universities (AAU), who joined AAMC in its comments, we voiced our support for reform and suggested ways to strengthen reporting and transparency when the NIH solicited public comment last summer on ways to shore up rules aimed at promoting objectivity in research.
This May, the Institutes issued a proposed rule with many strong reforms (you can read about that here on PostScript.) The rule was amended and the comment period extended after it came to light that an National Institutes for Mental Health director Thomas Insel had recommended psychiatrist Charles Nemeroff for a job at University of Miami, despite Nemeroff’s failure to report large sums he received from GlaxoSmithKline while working on an NIH–backed grant on a GSK drug. That violated NIH rules and led to his resignation from Emory University, but Insel apparently assured Miami administrators that Nemeroff would be eligible for NIH funds at a different university. (Carlat Psychiatry Blog and Pharmalot have the backstory.)
In its newest comments, AAMC asks for reporting exclusions that would significantly weaken the proposal. As currently written, NIH would exempt disclosures only for seminars at institutes of higher ed and government agencies. AAMC suggests exempting all speaking gigs, lectures and seminars at academic teaching hospitals, medical centers, research institutes affiliated with an institute of higher education, and other non-profits involved in research.
They also suggest that travel funds be exempted from reporting requirements, as well as any funding for CME presentations that meet ACCME standards. However, in this compliance-savvy climate, most industry-backed CME presentations in which NIH investigators participate are ACCME accredited – and such accreditation does not eliminate inherent bias in such programs.
Unfortunately, those are pretty big slices of the pie. A lot of research-related dollars are flowing through third parties at this point—including the non-profits and other third parties that AAMC asks to be exempted. Most patient organizations and professional medical associations are non-profits, and the grants money they receive is often passed on to individuals for fellowships, participation in research symposia, or education. As you can see on Pfizer and Lilly’s websites, most grant recipients from the two drug companies listed here are non-profits, and many of those grants seem to be for these research-related purposes. Just because they are issued through a non-profit does not mean these funds cannot somehow influence how an investigator conducts his research.
The AAMC and its cosigners also suggest that NIH should rely first on investigators to decide what to report, based on their judgment of the relatedness of a financial interest to their research.
Well, this is how much of this started – Sen. Grassley and others found that investigators, who decide under current regs what they do and don’t report to their institution, weren’t reporting some pretty big industry payments related to their research. See Nemeroff, Schatzberg, Biederman, et al. In most cases, the medical schools that AAMC represents were the ones to get the bad press and in hot water for these omissions. The NIH proposed rule change would help protect these institutions by taking the evaluative reporting decision away from the investigator. With the Sunshine Act providing a national database of company payments to physicians and teaching hospitals, we don’t want institutions that are accountable to NIH to be caught out if they aren’t aware of a payment to an investigator that shows up in the Sunshine database.
The AAMC also proposes that if undisclosed conduct is discovered, an investigation could be waived. But we support NIH’s proposed mandatory investigation if someone fails to report a Financial Conflict of Interest (FCOI). The new regs were proposed and will be implemented for good reason. There is no current mechanism for NIH or an institution to judge whether an investigator failed to report a FCOI “in bad faith” or whether the unreported interest affected research. Unless you investigate, there is almost no way to uncover intentional and problematic non-disclosures. We can’t count on whistleblowers to enforce this.
Worryingly, the groups frame their comments by calling into question the very need for the reforms.
There is a paucity of evidence that the disclosure and management of financial conflicts of interest affect objectivity and integrity. In the absence of such evidence, onerous regulations are not only unwarranted, but could create a glut of policies that increase activity without adding protections and at the same time erode the trust between the regulators and those being regulated.
We think this is a tough claim to make, since the rule was proposed and amended in large part because of Congressional investigations and media stories that revealed millions of dollars of undisclosed industry funds in the hands of publicly-funded researchers.
While there may be no study yet that links disclosure of FCOIs to research integrity, there is increasing evidence of bias in research and disclosure is one step we can take to try to reduce this bias.
–Kate Petersen and Ian Reynolds, PostScript