Search

PURPOSE Interactions between cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry may create conflicts of interest that can adversely affect patient care. We aimed to survey cancer physicians regarding their attitudes toward and interactions with industry. METHODS We surveyed Australian cancer physicians between December 2020 and February 2021, questioning how often they interacted with industry and their attitudes toward this. We also assessed factors associated with accepting payments from industry and the amount received, and opinions on policies and industry influence. We used logistic and linear regression to examine links between attitudes and behaviors. RESULTS There were 116 responses (94 complete). Almost half (n 5 53 of 115, 46.1%) felt that there was a positive relationship between cancer physicians and industry. Most (n 5 79 of 104, 76.0%) interacted with industry at least once a month, and 67.7% (n 5 63 of 93) had received nonresearch payments from industry previously, with a median value of 2,000 Australian dollars over 1 year. Most respondents believed that interactions could influence prescribing while simultaneously denying influence on their own prescribing (n 5 66 of 94, 70.2%). Those who judged general sales representative interactions (odds ratio [OR] 9.37 [95% CI, 1.05 to 83.41], P5.045) or clinician sponsorship (OR 3.22 [95% CI, 1.01 to 10.30], P5.049) to be more acceptable also met with sales representatives more frequently. Physicians were more likely to accept industry payments when they deemed sponsorship of clinicians for conferences (OR 10.55 [95% CI, 2.33 to 47.89], P 5 .002) or honoraria for advisory board membership more acceptable (OR 3.91 [95% CI, 1.04 to 14.74], P 5 .04) or when they had higher belief in industry influence over own prescribing (OR 25.51 [95% CI, 2.70 to 241.45], P5.005). CONCLUSION Australian cancer physicians interact with industry frequently, and those who feel positive about these interactions are likely to do so more often. More research is needed to understand the motivations behind these interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Pharmaceutical industry funding has transformed much grassroots community activism on health into corporate-sponsored advocacy. This critical commentary outlines recent evidence about industry funding of patient advocacy groups, offers a commentary on the history of grassroots activism appearing in this issue of the journal, and calls for greater scrutiny of the impacts and ethics of such sponsorship. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background to the debate: The financial ties between doctors and drug companies have come under intense scrutiny in recent years. Some commentators – such as Marcia Angell, former Editor-in-Chief of the New England Journal of Medicine – argue that the mission of doctors is fundamentally different to the mission of drug companies and that the ties between them should be completely cut. “Drug companies are investor owned businesses with a responsibility to maximise profits for their shareholders”, says Angell (BMJ 338 (2009), b222). “That is quite different from the mission of the medical profession, which is to provide the best care possible for patients”. Other commentators have argued that clinicians and drug companies do have some shared goals in aiming to maximize human health. In this debate, Emma D'Arcy, co-founder of a social networking site that facilitates interactions between doctors and drug companies, argues that it would be valuable to the public if we could establish “authentic alliances” between these professionals. But journalist Ray Moynihan argues that such alliances are prone to the corrupting influence of pharmaceutical industry money, and that disentanglement is a healthier alternative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article suggests that drugs used for the prevention of osteoporosis in women with slightly lowered bone mineral density may not have the effect that patients are hoping for. The marketing of the disease by drug companies and others portray it as an epidemic that brings misery to millions of women and the authors say this is a clear case of disease mongering for profit. The drug companies and doctors have taken what was a risk factor and turned into a disease. Drug marketing is targeting women at a low risk of fracture and exaggerating the benefits of medications while playing down adverse effects.

The article criticizes the disease mongering attempt by pharmaceutical companies to increase sales of drugs. The article reveals how the syndicate between drug companies, doctors group, public relations firms and patients advocates push ideas of selling sickness on policy makers and public using mass media. The article suggest policy reforms in defining the diseases to prevent disease mongering.

Suggests that pharmaceutical companies may sponsor diseases and promote them to prescribers and consumers, thus making money from healthy people who believe they are sick. Practice of companies of extending the boundaries of treatable illness to expand markets for new products; Use of the media to frame conditions as being widespread and severe; Way ordinary ailments can be turned into medical problems, mild symptoms turned into serious ones, and personal problems treated as medical ones.

The article focuses on a U.S. feminist campaign, sponsored by the drug company Sprout Pharmaceuticals, which is seeking approval for the world's first sex pill for women, flibanserin, from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Topics discussed includes repeated rejection for the drug from FDA, safety of the antidepressant flibanserin and efforts of the website, Even the Score, for the approval of drug.

The article questions whether the emerging developments in the merger of drug marketing and medical science necessitate a new approach in defining the medical condition called female sexual dysfunction in 2010. It describes how the pharmaceutical industry helped create the disease identity. The development of drugs targeting the disease based on the findings of several medical studies and surveys is discussed in detail. It offers information on how the industry is initiating the effort in "educating" both professionals and the public about the disease. In conclusion, the author highlighted the need to establish new panels to take responsibility for defining treatable illness.

The article focuses on the controversy surrounding the pharmaceutical company Merck regarding its golden goose alendronic acid drug Fosamax. An estimated 800 plaintiffs allege that Merck's alendronic acid drug caused them to suffer osteonecrosis of the jaw or the dead jaw syndrome. However, the company argued that there is no proof of the causal link between the development of osteonecrosis of the jaw and the utilization of its drug. Results of various surveys on the prevalence of the dead jaw syndrome are cited. A comparison between the risks and benefits of the drug is presented.

The article focuses on the issue of key opinion leaders in medicine in Great Britain. It explains that the doctors are paid by the medical industry for their advice on marketing and sales of medicines. The amount of money key opinion leaders are paid for their advice is discussed and comments from a former drug company sales representative are included. The processes by which drug companies employ, train, and pay opinion leaders are examined, including the existence of databases which contain information about opinion leaders and their views. Ways to effectively manage opinion leaders and their compensation are also explored.

Given how often the mass media reports stories about medicine, it is time to ask how well reporters cover the medical beat. Seen against a backdrop of soaring national drug costs and rising controversy over the pharmaceutical industry's influence within medicine, this evidence of biased media coverage demands attention and action. Alan Cassels and colleagues analyzed daily-newspaper stories from the year 2000 about five drugs--atorvastatin, celecoxib, donepezil, oseltamivir, and raloxifene--all selected for their high profile in the media. Their most startling findings are that only 32 percent of the articles mentioned potentially harmful effects. Similarly, when paying for celecoxib was about to cause major financial burdens for public and private health-insurers worldwide, only 13 percent of stories covered the drug's cost. More systematic studies suggest that many stories about new medicines tend to overstate benefits, understate risks and costs, and fail to disclose relevant financial ties. Overly rosy coverage of drugs may also result from the direct and indirect relations between journalists and drug companies. Some receive all-expenses-paid international trips from drug companies, and some accept generous medical-media awards sponsored by drug companies. It is critical that the bias in health care reporting towards biomedical research is not reinforced in educational efforts, at the expense of opportunities to improve media coverage of health systems, health inequalities, and the social determinants of health.

The author recounts the story behind the development of zanamivir, a neuraminidase inhibitor used for treating influenza, and cites a review conducted by the Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections Group, which found that the drug produced only a marginal reduction in flu symptoms. He also notes in 1999, a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) advisory committee initially voted against approving the drug but the agency eventually gave in to pressure from British pharmaceutical firm GlaxoSmith Kline.

The author discusses the bipartisan Sunshine Act passed in the U.S. regarding the payment of physicians who participated in healthcare programs. He states that in 2014, searchable websites will feature the names of doctors who accept benefits from drug and device makers and the amounts of those benefits. He also argues such Sunshine Act initiatives are not actively being pursued in Great Britain.

The article focuses on the suggestions related to the relationship of doctors with medical industry in Great Britain. It offers information on the drug industry code of practice for enhancing transparency of collaborations and industry sponsored data. It mentions that the drugs help in improving the lives and ameliorate sufferings.

The article offers the author's insights on the collaboration between the Great Britain National Health Service (NHS) and the drug industry to manage the design and delivery of health care. The author reflects on a joint working relationship between drug company Janssen and the NHS to build a social networking site. He notes that a common agenda shared by drug companies and public health systems is fictional as drug companies seek to maximize profits from drug sales.

The article discusses attempts in both Australia and the U.S. to bring full disclosure on payments made by pharmaceutical firms to doctors. It states that this practice is prevalent, and while it has its advantages, it can also compromise patient care. In the U.S., this is being addressed by the Sunshine Act as of November 2011, which requires companies to list all amounts paid to doctors and institutions, while in Australia, similar calls are being made to implement the same.

The author reports on the collaboration of journalism and drug companies for mutual benefit. He states the collaboration is a form of financial closeness between journalists and the drug companies they scrutinize, which raises concerns, as the journalists might create biased opinions of drugs in favor of drug companies. He reports that the drug industry sponsorship at News Limited's, the Australian is the latest example of a growing global trend.

The article reports that an international alliance of consumer groups, insurers, and professional associations has stepped up its attacks on the European Commission's public consultation over drug advertising. The commission's report gives strong support to the idea of allowing drug companies to give more information directly to patients, but critics argue that this would undermine Europe's strict ban on direct to consumer drug advertising, which was instituted in order to protect consumers from predatory practices.

The author reports that a controversial proposal to have pharmaceutical company patient compliance programs declared legal in France has failed. Such compliance programs can include consumer reminders, personalized patient information and nurse home visits. While the pharmaceutical industry defends the programs for their value in boosting patient compliance, opponents contend they are marketing strategies designed to increase profits. Critics described the proposal as an attempt to introduce direct-to-consumer drug advertising.

This article reports on the Swiss drug giant Roche being accused of breaching the pharmaceutical industry's code of conduct by providing extravagant meals to doctors at several of Australia's finest restaurants. The industry's code of conduct in Australia calls for all hospitality in these situations to be simple and modest.

The article discusses the International Obesity Task Force and its reliance upon funding from the drug industry. The task force's mission is to portray obesity as a serious medical condition and promote improvement of obesity prevention and management. A change in definitions of childhood overweight and obesity, which some consider controversial, is examined.

Highlights the resignation of Raymond Gilmartin, chairman and CEO of the Merck & Co. Inc. Controversy surrounding the withdrawal of Merck's anti-arthritis drug, Vioxx, from the market due to evidence of dangerous side effects; Details of report by the U.S. Congress in which critiqued Merck's marketing strategies; Key elements of the Congressional report by Rep. Henry Waxman; Report that Gilmartin will be replaced by the Richard Clark, the current head of manufacturing.

Argues that the latest media coverage of the new testosterone patch for women shows how the gap between marketing and science continues to widen. Contention that many media outlets are exaggerating the benefits of the experimental hormone patch by inflating the pool of patients, playing down harms and ignoring conflicts of interest; Lack of any published research on the patch; Example of a BBC story which was taken from a marketing piece; Example from the "New Scientist" which neglected to report any real information on the patch.

Reports on a parliamentary inquiry into the effect of the drug industry on doctors' prescribing, medical education, scientific research and drug evaluation. Testimony from Dr. Felicity Harvey of the health department which defended the pharmaceutical industry; How the committee members reacted to the testimony; Concerns that the industry has undue influence over the national health system and that it decides both research and treatment options.

Reports that the House of Commons Health Committee held its first public hearing as part of a wide ranging inquiry into the influence of the pharmaceutical industry over the health system. Description of the committee's investigation; Public attention that the inquiry has sparked; Possible influence that drug companies may have over drug testing, medical education, and information for patients.