(Reuters Health)—Some cancer doctors use Twitter to promote drugs manufactured by companies that pay them, but they almost never disclose their conflicts of interest on the social media platform, a new study shows.
Also by this Author
“This is a big problem,” says senior author Dr. Vinay Prasad, a professor at Oregon Health and Science University in Portland. “Doctors are directly telling patients about their views on drugs, and financial conflict plays a role. But they’re not telling patients they have a conflict.”
Prasad and his colleagues analyzed the tweets and income of blood cancer specialists who posted regularly on Twitter and received at least $1,000 from drug manufacturers in 2014.
Of the 156 hematologist-oncologists in the study, 81% mentioned at least one drug from a company that gave them money, and 52% of their tweets mentioned the conflicted drugs, according to a study reported in a letter in The Lancet Haematology, online Aug. 29.1
Only two of the doctors disclosed that they received payments from the drug companies whose products they mentioned on Twitter.
Cancer drugs tend to be toxic, produce debilitating side effects and are frequently only marginally effective, Prasad says in a phone interview.
Pharmaceutical companies routinely pay doctors to assess their products and to speak at conferences and seminars.
Bioethicist Susannah Rose, who was not involved with the study, says it “yet again shows the complex issues related to physicians’ financial relationships with industry.”
She urged disclosure, possibly in physicians’ Twitter profiles, about conflicts of interests.
Rose, who is scientific director of research for the Cleveland Clinic’s office of patient experience in Ohio and was not involved in the study, suggested in email to Reuters Health that doctors should use a common abbreviation in their tweets to indicate conflicts of interest.
Celebrities use the hashtag #sponsored when they tweet about products from companies that pay them, Prasad said.
“Maybe we can learn something from the celebrities here,” he says.
Genevieve P. Kanter, a professor of research at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine in Philadelphia, says she was surprised that hardly any of the studied doctors disclosed their payments from drug companies.
“If a doctor is promoting a drug—whether it’s at a presentation, at a conference, through an op-ed or via a tweet—the audience should be informed of possible biases that might come from being financially supported by the company producing that drug,” she says.
Doctors, consciously or unconsciously, may be “shading their speech or their actions because of their dependence on certain income sources,” says Kanter, who was not involved in the study.