Clinical Dermatology Trials 101 by Adnan Nasir

Author:Adnan Nasir
Language: eng
Format: epub
Publisher: Springer International Publishing, Cham

2.There is subtle coercion to buy products

3.Not listing the ingredients in a privately labelled product

4.Not informing patients that the product may be more readily accessible at local pharmacies

5.Claiming exclusive selling rights of a product when that is not true

6.Selling products with unsupported claims of benefit

7.Barring patients the opportunity to refill medications unless they be bought from the office

8.Excessively marking up the price of products

Conflicts of interest are also apparent at the level of research institutions [1, 21, 22]. There have been several instances where research-heavy universities have been faulted for accepting sponsorship from non-pharmaceutical industries in exchange for either naming rights or to have their endorsement on products. When Johns Hopkins University acted as a consultant for Klinger Advanced Aesthetics, they initially accepted equity as well as a board position in the company to allow their name and logo to be used on products [23]. Some people were surprised that a well-respected university would agree to endorse a product that they were testing—an example of both conflict of interest as well as disregard of beneficence. Consumers that encounter a product with a Johns Hopkins symbol may be misled into choosing their product over others even if it is not any better than other products or in their best interest. Soon after this incident was made public, Johns Hopkins released a statement announcing that they would revoke any equity and board positions and would discontinue all endorsements on products. Other controversial events include Cornell’s affiliation with Clinique [22], and physicians offering free treatments to journalists in exchange for articles to be written up about them [24]. In all of these instances, the patient’s best interest is second to the personal interests of the physician or institution. One study found that many reputable universities lack strong enough policies to prevent personal investment into companies that they do research with [1]. The article recommends that researchers should not be allowed to hold stocks, stock options, or sit in any of the company’s positions of power.

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.