OBJECTIVE: To examine the American Academy of Neurology (AAN)'s prevention and limitation of conflicts of interest (COI) related to relationships with pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers and other medically related commercial product and service companies (industry). METHODS: We reviewed the AAN's polices governing its interactions with industry, mechanisms for enforcement, and the recent findings of the board-appointed COI task force, in the context of the 2009 David Rothman and colleagues' article in JAMA, the Council of Medical Specialty Societies (CMSS) Code for Interactions with Companies (Code), efforts of the American Medical Association in this area, and increased public and Congressional scrutiny of physician/physician organizations' relationships with industry. RESULTS: The AAN's Policy on Conflicts of Interest provides 4 mechanisms for addressing COI: avoidance, separation, disclosure, and regulation. The AAN's Principles Governing Academy Relationships with External Sources of Support, including recent amendments proposed by the COI task force, regulate industry interaction with AAN programming, products, and leadership. With the Policy, Principles, and other methods of COI prevention, the AAN meets or exceeds all recommendations of the CMSS Code. CONCLUSIONS: With its adherence to the Principles since 2004, the AAN has been a leader among professional medical associations in appropriately managing COI related to interactions with industry. Recent amendments to the Principles maintain the AAN's position as a leader in a time of increased public scrutiny of physicians' and professional medical associations' relationships with industry. The AAN is responsive to the recommendations of the COI task force, and has adopted the CMSS Code.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the American Academy of Neurology (AAN)'s prevention and limitation of conflicts of interest (COI) related to relationships with pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers and other medically related commercial product and service companies (industry). METHODS: We reviewed the AAN's polices governing its interactions with industry, mechanisms for enforcement, and the recent findings of the board-appointed COI task force, in the context of the 2009 David Rothman and colleagues' article in JAMA, the Council of Medical Specialty Societies (CMSS) Code for Interactions with Companies (Code), efforts of the American Medical Association in this area, and increased public and Congressional scrutiny of physician/physician organizations' relationships with industry. RESULTS: The AAN's Policy on Conflicts of Interest provides 4 mechanisms for addressing COI: avoidance, separation, disclosure, and regulation. The AAN's Principles Governing Academy Relationships with External Sources of Support, including recent amendments proposed by the COI task force, regulate industry interaction with AAN programming, products, and leadership. With the Policy, Principles, and other methods of COI prevention, the AAN meets or exceeds all recommendations of the CMSS Code. CONCLUSIONS: With its adherence to the Principles since 2004, the AAN has been a leader among professional medical associations in appropriately managing COI related to interactions with industry. Recent amendments to the Principles maintain the AAN's position as a leader in a time of increased public scrutiny of physicians' and professional medical associations' relationships with industry. The AAN is responsive to the recommendations of the COI task force, and has adopted the CMSS Code.