Personal Payments from Pharmaceutical Companies to Authors of Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines

The role of spinal surgery in the treatment of low back pain

Low back pain (LBP) is common and a leading cause of disability and lost productivity worldwide. Acute LBP is frequently self-resolving, but recurrence is common, and a significant proportion of patients will develop chronic pain. This transition is perpetuated by anatomical, biological, psychological and social factors. Chronic LBP should be managed with a holistic biopsychosocial approach of generally non-surgical measures. Spinal surgery has a role in alleviating radicular pain and disability resulting from neural compression, or where back pain relates to cancer, infection, or gross instability. Spinal surgery for all other forms of back pain is unsupported by clinical data, and the broader evidence base for spinal surgery in the management of LBP is poor and suggests it is ineffective. Emerging areas of interest include selection of a minority of patients who may benefit from surgery based on spinal sagittal alignment and/or nuclear medicine scans, but an evidence base is absent. Spinal surgery for back pain has increased substantially over recent decades, and disproportionately among privately insured patients, thus the contribution of industry and third-party payers to this increase, and their involvement in published research, requires careful consideration.

Industry influence in healthcare harms patients: myth or maxim?

Healthcare is a major global industry accounting for a significant proportion of government spending. Drug and medical device manufacturers are publicly traded companies with a responsibility to their shareholders to maximise profits by increasing sales. In order to achieve this, industry exerts influence over every part of healthcare including academic research, medical education, clinical guideline development, physician prescribing and through direct interactions with patients. In contrast, healthcare services seek to provide effective, safe and evidence-based treatments. This article examines interactions with industry across these domains and seeks to identify mutually beneficial relationships and potential conflict leading to patient harms. Case studies are used to illustrate these interactions. There is no single solution for improving healthcare's relationship with industry, although increased transparency has raised awareness of this issue. We briefly discuss some successful interventions that have been tried at national and regulatory level. While industry influence is widespread in healthcare and this has benefits for shareholders, healthcare practitioners have an ethical obligation to prioritise their patients' best interests. Industry interactions with healthcare professionals have a valid role in product development and distribution, but industry sponsorship of healthcare education and practice, guideline development or regulatory decision-making can have harmful consequences for patients. Healthcare practitioners need to carefully consider these issues when deciding whether to collaborate with industry.

Educational aims

To explore the many areas where industry influences healthcare and the subsequent effects on patient care. Case studies are used to illustrate examples of beneficial and harmful effects of this influence.To raise awareness of the effects of industry influence and for readers to consider their own potential conflicts of interest.To suggest potential ways to improve the current system with a focus on solutions which have successfully been trialled already.