Marketing and drug costs: who is laughing and crying?

Pharmacotherapy for the Pseudobulbar Affect in Individuals Who Have Sustained a Traumatic Brain Injury: a Systematic Review

Pseudobulbar affect is a debilitating condition that significantly reduces quality of life for many individuals following traumatic brain injury (TBI). It is characterized by embarrassing and often uncontrollable episodes of crying or laughter. The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effectiveness of pharmacotherapy as compared to all other comparators for the management of pseudobulbar affect in adults who have sustained TBI. Six databases were searched, with additional hand searching of journals, clinical trials registries and international drug regulators to identify published and unpublished studies in English up to June 2018. Studies were eligible for this review if they included adults who had sustained a medically confirmed TBI and presented with pseudobulbar affect. All pharmacotherapy and comparator interventions were considered for inclusion, and study design was not limited to randomised controlled trials. Evidence quality was assessed using Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Instruments. Two quasi-experimental studies examining the effectiveness of dextrometamorphan/quinidine (DM/Q) were identified. These studies reported that DM/Q was effective in reducing symptoms of pseudobulbar affect and had a positive safety profile, over follow-up periods of 3 months (n = 87) and 12 months (n = 23). However, both studies were limited by lack of a control group and a high dropout rate. The findings of twelve case reports examining the effectiveness of DM/Q (n = 6) and anti-depressants (n = 6) are also discussed. Further research is required to determine which pharmacological interventions provide the best outcomes for individuals with pseudobulbar affect following TBI, with consideration given to side effect profiles and financial costs.

Information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians' prescribing: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Pharmaceutical companies spent $57.5 billion on pharmaceutical promotion in the United States in 2004. The industry claims that promotion provides scientific and educational information to physicians. While some evidence indicates that promotion may adversely influence prescribing, physicians hold a wide range of views about pharmaceutical promotion. The objective of this review is to examine the relationship between exposure to information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians' prescribing.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched for studies of physicians with prescribing rights who were exposed to information from pharmaceutical companies (promotional or otherwise). Exposures included pharmaceutical sales representative visits, journal advertisements, attendance at pharmaceutical sponsored meetings, mailed information, prescribing software, and participation in sponsored clinical trials. The outcomes measured were quality, quantity, and cost of physicians' prescribing. We searched Medline (1966 to February 2008), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to February 2008), Embase (1997 to February 2008), Current Contents (2001 to 2008), and Central (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2007) using the search terms developed with an expert librarian. Additionally, we reviewed reference lists and contacted experts and pharmaceutical companies for information. Randomized and observational studies evaluating information from pharmaceutical companies and measures of physicians' prescribing were independently appraised for methodological quality by two authors. Studies were excluded where insufficient study information precluded appraisal. The full text of 255 articles was retrieved from electronic databases (7,185 studies) and other sources (138 studies). Articles were then excluded because they did not fulfil inclusion criteria (179) or quality appraisal criteria (18), leaving 58 included studies with 87 distinct analyses. Data were extracted independently by two authors and a narrative synthesis performed following the MOOSE guidelines. Of the set of studies examining prescribing quality outcomes, five found associations between exposure to pharmaceutical company information and lower quality prescribing, four did not detect an association, and one found associations with lower and higher quality prescribing. 38 included studies found associations between exposure and higher frequency of prescribing and 13 did not detect an association. Five included studies found evidence for association with higher costs, four found no association, and one found an association with lower costs. The narrative synthesis finding of variable results was supported by a meta-analysis of studies of prescribing frequency that found significant heterogeneity. The observational nature of most included studies is the main limitation of this review.

CONCLUSIONS

With rare exceptions, studies of exposure to information provided directly by pharmaceutical companies have found associations with higher prescribing frequency, higher costs, or lower prescribing quality or have not found significant associations. We did not find evidence of net improvements in prescribing, but the available literature does not exclude the possibility that prescribing may sometimes be improved. Still, we recommend that practitioners follow the precautionary principle and thus avoid exposure to information from pharmaceutical companies. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.