MPs’ probing frustrated in pharma inquiry
pharmafile | September 9, 2004 | News story | |Â Â Â
A new inquiry into the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in the UK has kicked off with questioning of senior officials from the Department of Health and Department of Trade and Industry – but MPs have been frustrated by their reluctance to highlight areas of concern and conflict of interest.
The inquiry by the MPs on the Commons Health Select Committee has gathered written submissions from all stakeholders and began the public inquiry on Thursday by questioning senior DH figures, including Professor Kent Woods, chief executive of medicines regulator the MHRA as well as a representative from the DTI.
The inquiry has been eagerly anticipated by all stakeholders since its announcement in June, with industry critics seeing it as an opportunity to probe into the controversy surrounding the MHRA's investigation into the safety of GSK's Seroxat and other SSRI antidepressants, which has seen the regulator criticised as well as some of the pharma companies involved.
The ABPI has made its own submission and has welcomed the opportunity to promote its work and set the record straight as it sees it on a number of controversial issues.
The two-hour question and answer session covered a wide range of topics, from the source of drug innovation to the influence of pharma sales reps on prescribing and the NHS' reliance on industry money for training. Despite this, several members of the committee expressed frustration at the civil servant's lack of concern regarding the industry's practices.
Cross-examining, Labour MP Jon Owen Jones said "one of the most striking features" of the testimony from the official had been the lack of any criticism of the industry.
"Either things are going remarkably well or there's a certain reluctance to give specific examples," he said, echoing concerns made by fellow committee members.
Chief pharmaceutical officer Jim Smith responded by saying tighter controls and protocols on rational prescribing meant undue influence was largely a thing of the past.
"I think there have been instances in the past in previous jobs – I have been aware of educational programmes being supported by industry where companies tried to influence the agenda and have been rejected."
He added that the NHS was now able to monitor prescribing patterns "as never before" and said: "If there is any suspicion of untoward influence, the appropriate health body will look into that."
MHRA chief executive Prof Kent Woods defended the agency's record on monitoring drug safety and acting as a watchdog of the industry's product claims.
Meanwhile, on the issue of data confidentiality, Prof Woods underlined that companies are obliged to submit all relevant data to regulators, and indicated his support for this policy in the vast majority of cases.
The issue of data confidentiality has been at the heart of the controversy surrounding GSK's Seroxat and inquiries by the MHRA and US regulator the FDA. The threat of a US lawsuit has spurred GSK to release all data on marketed products, and the whole US industry now looks set to follow suit.
Referring to these developments, Prof Woods said: "There has been a much greater willingness on the part of the industry to put them in the public domain, and I think opinions are moving quite quickly."
The defence of the existing relationship by the civil servants will be welcomed by the industry, but subsequent witnesses are likely to include fierce critics, including Richard Brook, chief executive of mental health charity MIND, who has accused the MHRA of incompetent handling of the SSRI safety issue, resigning from the investigating panel in March, claiming the regulator had listened to pharma's "aggressive promotion" and not patient experience.
The MPs' inquiry will hear testimony from other stakeholders in subsequent sessions, including healthcare professional representative bodies, government ministers and industry body the ABPI, who will shortly publish their submission to the committee.
