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:

New pharmaceutical target reverses osteoporosis in mice
Biomedical engineers at Duke University have discovered that an adenosine receptor called A2B can be pharmaceutically activated to reverse bone degradation caused by osteoporosis in mouse models of the disease.
Active pharmaceutical ingredients can persist in the environment
A study finds trace levels of medicines in drinking water from private wells.
Drug development stakeholders call for improved pharmaceutical testing
Published in Drug Discovery Today, 'Advancing Nonclinical Innovation and Safety in Pharmaceutical Testing' identifies the necessary steps that will lead to safer and more effective medicines, guided by a greater focus on human-based in vitro and in silico methods, which allow scientists to observe human cells, tissues, and biological processes, and their interaction with potential medications.
A step ahead in pharmaceutical research
Researchers of the University of W├╝rzburg have developed a method that makes it possible to measure the activation of receptors in a very short time.
Are pharmaceutical marketing payments to physicians for opioids associated with prescribing?
Pharmaceutical industry marketing of opioid products to physicians through nonresearch payments, which can include speaking fees and meals, was associated with greater opioid prescribing.
More Pharmaceutical News and Pharmaceutical Current Events

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

Rethinking Anger
Anger is universal and complex: it can be quiet, festering, justified, vengeful, and destructive. This hour, TED speakers explore the many sides of anger, why we need it, and who's allowed to feel it. Guests include psychologists Ryan Martin and Russell Kolts, writer Soraya Chemaly, former talk radio host Lisa Fritsch, and business professor Dan Moshavi.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#537 Science Journalism, Hold the Hype
Everyone's seen a piece of science getting over-exaggerated in the media. Most people would be quick to blame journalists and big media for getting in wrong. In many cases, you'd be right. But there's other sources of hype in science journalism. and one of them can be found in the humble, and little-known press release. We're talking with Chris Chambers about doing science about science journalism, and where the hype creeps in. Related links: The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study Claims of causality in health news: a randomised trial This...