Interests of charities

Editor—We acknowledge Hirst's genuine concern about the relation between medical charities and pharmaceutical companies,¹ but we here address some important factual inaccuracies in her letter.

Firstly, in 2002 Arthritis Care launched an information campaign to promote the government's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) guidance on cyclooxygenase-2 (COX 2) inhibitors, which were found to hold potential benefits for some people with arthritis. Arthritis Care had been approached by NICE to find ways of communicating this information to people with arthritis.

Secondly, and contrary to Hirst's assertion, all literature sent to enquirers as part of the campaign clearly stated that two pharmaceutical companies had provided funding through a grant, identifying each company accordingly. However, and of equal relevance, no specific brands of COX 2 inhibitor were either referred to by name or recommended. Furthermore, the campaign had a wider brief than Hirst seems to appreciate, with enquirers receiving detailed information packs providing general information on a range of treatments, complementary treatments, and diets.

Crucially, we accept pharmaceutical funding only according to strict policy guidelines that maintain our independence. One of our primary roles is to keep people with arthritis informed about new developments that may serve as an aid for people living with the disease. The NICE guidelines on COX 2 inhibitors fell firmly into this category and enabled many people with arthritis to learn of a new and potentially beneficial course of treatment.

Hirst wins a sympathetic ear in her call for transparency. Arthritis Care has for many years listed all pharmaceutical company donations and grants in its annual review. Over the past five years (1998-2002) contributions from the pharmaceutical industry constituted less than 6.5% of the total income for the period.