U Penn to Disclose (Probably Few) Pharma Ties of Faculty
In the spirit of the transparency zeitgeist, the University of Pennsylvania health system (my postgrad alma mater) will create a searchable web site that discloses the industry relationships of its physicians. The web site is scheduled to launch in the spring of 2009, according to the Philly Inquirer, and follows the example of the Cleveland Clinic, which most recently began providing information about its physicians' financial ties to industry.
The types of potential conflicts to be posted by Penn are not specified; however, the institution has a longstanding reputation for being relatively pristine, providing few (if any) opportunities for its residents and faculty to interact with pharma.* My estimation, if history is any guide, is that there will be little to disclose. Penn already bans its staff from accepting industry gifts, meals, and even drug samples, and the institution does not allow its name to be posted on pharma-supported CME.
Although the Cleveland Clinic discloses pharma-related royalties, equity interest holdings, and speaker or consulting fees (>$5000) received by its physicians, it fails to provide other, potentially relevant information like research grant support or actual dollar amounts received by faculty. For instance, the web page for Steven Nissen—head of cardiology, harsh critic of Vytorin (ezetimibe/simvastatin; Merck/Schering-Plough), and apparent lover of Crestor (rosuvastatin; AstraZeneca)—discloses no "applicable" financial relationships and reports that he donates all honoraria or consulting fees directly to nonprofit organizations. But other sources (eg, here) indicate that Nissen has received research support—life's blood for any academician—from a number of companies, including AstraZeneca.
* From 1986-1991, I never saw a drug rep in the Department of Medicine or Neurology, and I knew of noone who collaborated with industry on research at the time.
