Jump to comment:
- Page navigation anchor for RE: Thanks to Dr. Persaud for his comments-revised version.RE: Thanks to Dr. Persaud for his comments-revised version.
Dr. Persaud raises some very important issues relating to the relationship between physicians, the pharmaceutical industry and how manuscripts may be prepared for publication with assistance in the form editorial support by pharmaceutical individuals.
The authors would like to clarify that no financial compensation was provided to any of the authors for the preparation of this manuscript. The content was entirely the views expressed by the authors. The authors state that "The FLAME study importantly demonstrated COPD patients with a history of exacerbations benefited more from an ICS-free dual bronchodilation with indacaterol-glycopyrronium than from a LABA-ICS combination for the prevention of further exacerbations, a finding that would not be expected in an asthma-rich population. This information was included because the Flame study is the only one of it is kind that took very vigorous steps to ensure that the population studied had a "pure" COPD population but despite this effort patients demonstrated reversibility that would meet the reversibility criteria of asthma-thus highlighting the spirometric overlap between asthma and COPD. Our inclusion of this study was intended to remind physicians about the overlap between asthma and COPD and to support the notion that non ICS containing therapies may be more helpful in appropriate patients-this is supported by the guidelines we reference in the paper.
Guideline documents have recognized the...
Show MoreCompeting Interests: Dr. D'urzo has received research, consulting, and lecturing fees from Almirall, Altana, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim (Canada) Ltd, Forest Laboratories, GlaxoSmithKline, KOS Pharmaceuticals, Merck Canada, Methapharm, Novartis Canada/USA, Ono Pharma, Pfizer Canada, Schering Plough, Sepracor, SkyePharma, and Teva Canada. - Page navigation anchor for Importance of distinguishing between advertising and journal content in primary careImportance of distinguishing between advertising and journal content in primary care
Novartis makes money selling the patented product featured in the last paragraph of this article.[1] Novartis paid for the preparation of the article. Novartis employees provided “medical writing support”. Novartis funded the single study cited in support of the featured product while systematic reviews mention other treatments.[2] Novartis, like other pharmaceutical companies, has been repeatedly caught making false claims.[3,4]
This is not a comment about the pharmaceutical industry, the authors (who happen to be paid by Novartis) or the management of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; I am concerned about the Canadian Family Physician’s practices and standards. In 2017, the Canadian Family Physician learned a lesson the hard way about publishing articles from certain organizations: "we must do so with greater scrutiny, with more formal agreements, and only with those that do not have any ties to industry or other entities that would create, or even appear to create, information or guidelines that have a purpose other than clear and science-based benefit to patients in our care."[5]
References
1. D'Urzo AD, Price D, Kardos P, Maleki-Yazdi MR. Importance of distinguishing between asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in primary care. Can Fam Physician. 2021 Sep;67(9):661-667.2. Oba Y, Keeney E, Ghatehorde N, Dias S. Dual combination therapy versus long-acting bronchodilators alone for chronic obstructive pulmonary...
Show MoreCompeting Interests: NP receives research funding from government sources including the Canada Research Chairs program and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. NP is an unpaid Associate Editor for the Canadian Medical Association Journal.