Two years of sunshine: has openness about payments reduced industry influence in healthcare?

Drug Promotions Between Ethics, Regulations, and Financial Interests

BACKGROUND

The promotion of the latest medicines produced by the pharmaceutical industry is an important issue both from an ethical point of view (the level of accessibility, the way research is carried out) and from the point of view of marketing and especially from the lobbying issues raised.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

The ethical dilemmas raised by the promotion of new drugs revolve between the need to discover new molecules important for treating a wide range of diseases and the need to establish a battery of ethical rules, absolutely necessary for regulations in the field to be compliant with all ethical principles.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted through PubMed, MEDLINE, Plus, Scopus, and Web of Science (2015-2023) using combinations of keywords, including drugs, medical publicity, and pharma marketing plus ethical dilemma.

ETHICS AND THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

The promotion of medicines is governed by advertising laws and regulations in many countries, including at EU level, based on the need for countries to ensure that the promotion and advertising of medicines is truthful, based on information understood by consumers. The ethical analysis of the issues raised is more necessary and complex as the channels used for promotion are more accessible to the population, and the information, easier to obtain, can be the cause of increased self-medication and overeating. Large amounts of money invested in the development of new molecules, but also the risk of scientific fraud through manipulation of data during clinical trials, selective or biased publication of information can have repercussions on the health of the population.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of new pharmaceutical molecules is necessary to intervene and treat as many conditions as possible, but marketing must not neglect the observance of ethical principles. The promotion of medicines should be the attribute especially of the medical staff, which should also be a mandatory part of the mechanism for approving the marketing methods and means used by the pharmaceutical companies.

Why Are Patients Switching from Tenofovir Disoproxil Fumarate/Emtricitabine (Truvada) to Tenofovir Alafenamide/Emtricitabine (Descovy) for Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis?

Safety differences between tenofovir alafenamide/emtricitabine (TAF) and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate/emtricitabine (TDF/FTC)-formulated pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) appear to have little clinical significance for most PrEP users. Furthermore, generic TDF-formulated PrEP is projected to decrease the price of PrEP. Thus, efforts to shift PrEP users to TAF-formulated PrEP should be considered in light of their potential to undermine efforts to scale-up PrEP nationally. Data are taken from Together 5,000, a US national cohort study predominantly composed of cisgender gay and bisexual men. In 2019-2020, 5034 participants completed their 24-month assessment, which measured whether participants were switching from TDF (Truvada) to TAF (Descovy) for PrEP, and why. Of those reporting PrEP-use (n = 1009), 277 reported using Descovy for PrEP, and 223 provided a reason for switching to Descovy. A content analysis was used to code participant's reasons for switching. Over half (56%) of participants reported that their doctor recommended switching to Descovy. Without mentioning a provider recommendation, 32% of participants reported that perceived improved safety of Descovy, compared with Truvada, motivated their decision to change their prescription. Other factors cited included the smaller size of the pill and "newness" of Descovy. Further, several participants mentioned negative advertising about Truvada as rationale for switching. Although scientific consensus supports the safety of both TDF/FTC and TAF, our results suggest that current messaging through physicians and other sources have emphasized superior safety of TAF-implying that TDF/FTC may not be safe in the long term. Efforts to shift users onto TAF may undermine public perception of TDF-formulated PrEP.

Relación médico-industria y los conflictos de interés: aspectos históricos y normativos, impactos negativos y propuestas

El presente artículo revisa de manera narrativa y general la relación entre los médicos y la industria (RMI); se incluye a la industria farmacéutica, de dispositivos, de suplementos y los conflictos de intereses que surgen de dicha relación. Se aborda el tema mediante algunas definiciones y un breve recuento histórico de cómo la RMI se ha convertido en un problema importante en el ejercicio médico y los sistemas de salud.El artículo expone los diversos roles dentro de los escenarios más comunes en los que ocurre la RMI: en la investigación biomédica, las guías de práctica clínica, la educación médica continua, la visita médica, los líderes de opinión, así como en la interacción directa, la exposición indirecta y la que denominamos exposición temprana. Se mencionan, posteriormente, algunas técnicas que utiliza la industria para modificar los hábitos de prescripción basadas en elementos de psicología social, así como el papel que ejercen los obsequios y otras estrategias de mercadeo.Se revisó la literatura que muestra el impacto y el efecto que estas técnicas tienen en el ejercicio médico. Finalmente, se plantean algunas propuestas que se han desarrollado desde la normatividad y recomendaciones para afrontar el problema que podrían contribuir a mitigar los efectos negativos de una RMI muy estrecha. Estas propuestas son prohibir el contacto de los estudiantes con la industria, la inclusión del tema de conflictos de intereses (CI) en los currículos de medicina, financiación alternativa de la educación continua, declaración de conflictos como norma, campañas de concientización, uso de evidencia sintetizada y analizada transparente e independientemente, entre otras.

Medicines Information and the Regulation of the Promotion of Pharmaceuticals

Many factors contribute to the inappropriate use of medicines, including not only a lack of information but also inaccurate and misleading promotional information. This review examines how the promotion of pharmaceuticals directly affects the prescribing and use of medicines. We define promotion broadly as all actions taken directly by pharmaceutical companies with the aim of enhancing product sales. We look in greater detail at promotion techniques aimed at prescribers, such as sales representatives, pharmaceutical advertisements in medical journals and use of key opinion leaders, along with the quality of information provided and the effects thereof. We also discuss promotion to the public, through direct-to-consumer advertising, and its effects. Finally, we consider initiatives to regulate promotion that come from industry, government and nongovernmental organizations.

Financial relationships between neurologists and industry

Objective

To analyze research and nonresearch payments from the pharmaceutical and device industry to neurologists in 2015 using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments Database.

Methods

In this retrospective database analysis, we computed the percentage of neurologists in the United States receiving payments, the median/mean payments per neurologist, payment categories, regional trends, and sponsors. We computed the number of practicing neurologists from the Association of American Medical Colleges State Physician Workforce Data Book, 2015.

Results

In 2015, approximately 96% of US neurologists received nonresearch payments totaling $93,920,993. The median payment per physician was $407. The highest proportion of neurologists (24%) received between $1,000 and $10,000. Food and beverage was the most frequent category (83% of the total number of payments). The highest amount was paid for serving as faculty/speaker for noncontinuing medical education activities (49%). The top sponsor of nonresearch payments was Teva Pharmaceuticals ($16,461,055; 17.5%). A total of 412 neurologists received $2,921,611 in research payments (median $1,132). Multiple sclerosis specialists received the largest proportion ($285,537; 9.7%). Daiichi Sankyo paid the largest amount in research payments ($826,029; 28%).

Conclusions

The Open Payments program was established to foster transparent disclosure of physician compensations from industry, in response to legislative and public concerns of the effect of conflicts of interest on practice, education, and research. The effects of this program remain unclear and studies of changes in prescribing practices, costs, and other outcomes are necessary. CMS should ensure that incorrect information can be rectified quickly and easily.

Financial relationships between neurologists and industry: The 2015 Open Payments database

OBJECTIVE

To analyze research and nonresearch payments from the pharmaceutical and device industry to neurologists in 2015 using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments database.

METHODS

In this retrospective database analysis, we computed the percentage of neurologists in the United States receiving payments, the median/mean payments per neurologist, payment categories, regional trends, and sponsors. We computed the number of practicing neurologists from the Association of American Medical Colleges State Physician Workforce data book, 2015.

RESULTS

In 2015, approximately 51% of US neurologists received nonresearch payments totaling $6,210,414. The median payment per physician was $81. Payments to the top 10% of compensated neurologists amounted to $5,278,852 (84.5%). Food and beverage was the most frequent category (86.5% of the total number of payments). The highest amount was paid for serving as faculty/speaker for noncontinuing medical education activities (58%). The top sponsor of nonresearch payments was Teva Pharmaceuticals ($1,162,900; 18.5%). A total of 412 neurologists received $2,921,611 in research payments (median $1,132). Multiple sclerosis specialists received the largest proportion ($285,537; 9.7%). Daiichi Sankyo paid the largest amount in research payments ($826,029; 28%).

CONCLUSIONS

The Open Payments program was established to foster transparent disclosure of physician compensation from industry, in response to legislative and public concerns over the effect of conflicts of interest on practice, education, and research. The effects of this program remain unclear and studies of changes in prescribing practices, costs, and other outcomes are necessary. CMS should ensure that incorrect information can be rectified quickly and easily.