Nav: Home

Commercial interests may drown out patients' voices

January 17, 2017

Researchers from the University of Sydney and Bond University are urgently calling for greater independence and transparency around industry-sponsored patient advocacy groups, following a growing amount of evidence which raises questions over potential bias in their activities.

Patient advocacy groups are becoming bigger players in healthcare, promoting certain interventions and shaping public debate about disease more broadly. Yet little is known about how these organisations' commercial interests ultimately influence regulatory decisions and patients' health choices.

In commentary published today in JAMA Internal Medicine, Professor Lisa Bero from the University of Sydney's Charles Perkins Centre and Dr Ray Moynihan from Bond University argue that patient advocacy groups should be subject to the same level of scrutiny over conflicts of interest and misleading claims as other medical and pharmaceutical bodies.

"As more research is conducted into patient groups and their influence in medicine, the question remains - are they engaging in potentially deceptive practices by suggesting solutions which better serve the interests of their corporate sponsors, rather than what's best for patients?" said Professor Bero, who is also based at the University of Sydney's Faculty of Pharmacy.

"The very way we think about disease is being subtly distorted because many of the ostensibly independent players, including patient advocacy groups, are largely singing tunes acceptable to companies seeking to maximise markets for drugs and devices."

Currently in Australia there are no national requirements for patient advocacy groups to disclose their funding sources or industry sponsorships, though some pharmaceutical companies voluntarily disclose payments to these organisations through Medicines Australia.

Professor Bero and Dr Moynihan point to an increasing body of evidence suggesting bias in favour of funding source by those patient advocacy groups sponsored by drug manufacturers and other device companies.

A new survey by Dr Susannah Rose and colleagues from the Cleveland Clinic in the United States of 439 patient organisations found that two-thirds of responding groups received some form of industry funding. One in 10 reported half their funding was from industry, with the median amount $50,000, while approximately 10 percent of groups received $1 million annually - almost half of that from pharmaceutical and device companies. Some of these groups even reported that they felt pressure from their sponsors to conform to their positions or interests.

"While there is ample evidence across medicine more generally showing that funding has the potential to bias research, education and practice, there is limited data on the possibility of similar associations between industry funding and advocacy group positions or activities," the authors state.

"In our view this new [research] demonstrates an urgent need for patient advocacy organisations to explicitly focus much more on representing the interests of patients and citizens, rather than serving - inadvertently or otherwise - the interests of their industry sponsors."

Another new study led by Dora Lin from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health reveals that manufacturer-sponsored groups were more likely to oppose draft guidelines aimed at increasing regulation of opioid use (38 percent) compared to those with no industry funding (six percent). The study also revealed that of the 45 groups receiving industry funding, none of these were disclosed in the funding comments as part of the guideline submission.

"Thousands of patient advocacy groups in the United States are reliant on support from pharmaceutical or device industries, and at the system level the aggregation of this influence raises substantial concerns," said Dr Ray Moynihan of Bond University's Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice (CREBP).

"To ensure a healthier patient voice in medical research, education, policy and practice, sponsored groups that want to be seen as independent and credible need to decrease their industry sponsorship and ultimately disentangle - gaining in authority what they lose in resources."
-end-
Professor Lisa Bero is available for interviews on request.

Media enquiries:

University of Sydney
Emily Cook, +612 8627 1433, +61427 309 579, emily.cook@sydney.edu.au

Bond University
Terri Fellowes, +617 5595 1116, +61420 927 941, tfellowe@bond.edu.au

University of Sydney

Related Pharmaceutical Articles:

Domino effect in pharmaceutical synthesis
Chemists at Friedrich-Alexander Universität Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU) headed by Prof. Dr.
MEDLINE indexes Pharmaceutical Nanotechnology
Pharmaceutical Nanotechnology, an important journal published by Benthm Science, is accepted to be included in MEDLINE.
Pharmaceutical companies are profiting from rare diseases
Incentives intended to stimulate the development of more treatments for rare diseases are being exploited to boost the profits of pharmaceutical companies, new research led by Bangor University shows.
Molecular flexibility shown to help pharmaceutical drugs bind to their targets
Scientists have discovered an alternative way to create a stronger binding between pharmaceutical drugs and the part of the body they are targeting -- a development that can be used to fight a variety of diseases, including breast cancer.
Pharmaceutical industry-sponsored meals associated with higher prescribing rates
Accepting a single pharmaceutical industry-sponsored meal was associated with higher rates of prescribing certain drugs to Medicare patients by physicians, with more, and costlier, meals associated with greater increases in prescribing, according to an article published online by JAMA Internal Medicine.
Why pharmaceutical firms may prefer to invest in drugs over vaccines
When it comes to addressing disease, many industry observers and public health advocates believe that pharmaceutical companies prefer to invest in drugs rather than vaccines, as preventives are perceived to be inherently less profitable.
Pharmaceutical company performance improves when innovation and execution align
A study measuring the impact of pharmaceutical commercial operations on company performance finds that strategic investment in commercial innovation linked with an aligned and responsive culture of execution can produce positive results.
Breakthrough improves method for synthesizing cyanohydrins as pharmaceutical precursors
A research group led by Dr. Kazuaki Ishihara, a professor at Nagoya University, has established a new method of chemically modifying ketones in a way that ensures that optically active cyanohydrins are obtained, enabling efficient production of pharmaceutical precursors at a high yield and with good selectivity.
Pharmaceutical industry self-regulation of off-label drug promotion in the UK
The UK's self-regulatory approach to preventing pharmaceutical companies from promoting off-label use of their drugs detects mainly high-visibility promotional activity such as print advertising, according to a document analysis of off-label promotion rulings published this week in PLOS Medicine.
The effects of the Trans-Pacific Partnership on pharmaceutical innovation
The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a multi-national trade agreement now being considered by 12 countries.

Related Pharmaceutical Reading:

Best Science Podcasts 2019

We have hand picked the best science podcasts for 2019. Sit back and enjoy new science podcasts updated daily from your favorite science news services and scientists.
Now Playing: TED Radio Hour

Climate Crisis
There's no greater threat to humanity than climate change. What can we do to stop the worst consequences? This hour, TED speakers explore how we can save our planet and whether we can do it in time. Guests include climate activist Greta Thunberg, chemical engineer Jennifer Wilcox, research scientist Sean Davis, food innovator Bruce Friedrich, and psychologist Per Espen Stoknes.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#527 Honey I CRISPR'd the Kids
This week we're coming to you from Awesome Con in Washington, D.C. There, host Bethany Brookshire led a panel of three amazing guests to talk about the promise and perils of CRISPR, and what happens now that CRISPR babies have (maybe?) been born. Featuring science writer Tina Saey, molecular biologist Anne Simon, and bioethicist Alan Regenberg. A Nobel Prize winner argues banning CRISPR babies won’t work Geneticists push for a 5-year global ban on gene-edited babies A CRISPR spin-off causes unintended typos in DNA News of the first gene-edited babies ignited a firestorm The researcher who created CRISPR twins defends...