Industry Influence on Surviving Guidelines
Based on the evidence provided, none of the surviving clinical guidelines for hypertension, diabetes, or hypercholesterolemia management explicitly document accusations of pharmaceutical industry influence within these sources. However, one research article raises concerns about potential bias in European cardiovascular prevention guidelines.
Evidence of Alleged Industry Influence
The 2020 publication by Ravnskov et al. in Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology accused the European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society (ESC/EAS) guidelines of being misleading and potentially influenced by selective evidence presentation 1.
Specific Accusations
The authors claimed the ESC/EAS guidelines for chronic heart disease, blood lipids, and diabetes management:
- Ignored studies showing LDL-cholesterol in acute myocardial infarction patients is lower than normal 1
- Disregarded evidence that high cholesterol is not a risk factor for diabetics 1
- Omitted 27 follow-up studies demonstrating people with high total cholesterol or LDL-C live as long or longer than those with low cholesterol 1
- Failed to acknowledge lack of exposure-response relationships in statin trials 1
- Overlooked that several statin trials failed to lower cardiovascular or total mortality 1
- Ignored that no statin trial successfully lowered mortality in women, elderly people, or diabetics 1
- Did not adequately address serious side effects associated with cholesterol-lowering statins 1
Important Caveats
While this publication raises concerns about selective evidence presentation in the ESC/EAS guidelines, it represents one critical perspective published in a specialized pharmacology journal 1. The article does not provide direct evidence of financial conflicts of interest or pharmaceutical industry funding influencing the guideline development process itself.
The WHO 2021 hypertension guidelines explicitly addressed conflicts of interest management according to WHO policies during their development process 2, suggesting awareness of this potential concern in modern guideline development.
Reference: Ravnskov et al., Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology, 2020 1