‘Interests’ in medicine and the inadequacy of disclosure

Abstract

Many papers published in the academic press sink without a trace, making no impression on clinical practice, health policy or public discourse. While the narrative review of melatonin-based therapies for depression published in the Lancet by Professor Ian Hickie and Associate Professor Naomi Rogers (2011) is unlikely to generate significant changes in clinical practice, it has generated enormous professional and media debate about the extent and impact of conflicts of interest in medicine arising from the relationships between health professionals and the pharmaceutical industry. In the disclosure accompanying the review, which highlighted the potential worth of the drug agomelatine, manufactured by Servier, both authors disclosed financial and professional links with Servier. The responses to this review, and to the disclosures made by the authors in the Lancet, on health media websites, in the lay press and in social media, have been largely critical – making either empirical claims, that the authors misreported the tolerability and/or efficacy of agomelatine, or moral claims, that the authors were conflicted or biased, had not adequately disclosed the extent of their interests, or that they or Elsevier (the publisher of the Lancet) may have gained some benefit from the publication (Barbui and Cipriani, 2012; Carroll, 2012; Dunlevy, 2012; Griffiths, 2012; Howland, 2012; Jureidini and Raven, 2012; Lloret-Linares et al., 2012; Serfaty and Raven, 2012). In a spirited response, the authors defended both their analysis and their professional ethics, arguing that they had appropriately attended to the processes of disclosure required by the Lancet for all contributors (Hickie and Rogers, 2012).