Nav: Home

Analysis reveals extent of drug industry funding of UK patient organizations

May 22, 2019

From 2012 to 2016 the drug industry donated over £57 million to UK patient organisations, with priority given to a small number of organisations supporting commercially high profile conditions like cancer, reveals an analysis published by The BMJ today.

The researchers call for greater transparency to ensure that industry funding is not unduly influenced by commercial objectives.

Patient organisations are increasingly involved in policy and research, including decisions on public funding of medicines and treatments. Yet existing evidence suggests that many patient organisations have widespread, and often not entirely transparent, financial relationships with drug companies.

Since 2012, corporate members of the European and UK pharmaceutical industry associations have had to disclose their payments to patient organisations, creating new opportunities for analysis.

Using payment disclosure reports published on company websites, combined with patient organisation websites and charity regulator records, researchers from the University of Bath (UK) and Lund University (Sweden) set out to assess the scale of industry funding, its main providers and recipients, and the nature of funded activities.

They found that during 2012 to 2016, industry disclosed 4,572 payments worth £57.3m to 508 UK patient organisations.

While this represented only a sixth of its funding for healthcare professionals and organisations (£340.3m) in 2015 alone, patient organisations seemed increasingly important for drug companies, note the authors.

For the 21 companies that disclosed consistently over the five years, the number of payments increased slightly, from 738 to 772, but their value was 1.4 times higher (£7.6m vs £10.8m).

A few companies dominated the funding landscape, with the top ten providing more than two-thirds (69.2%) of all funding. As with payments to healthcare professionals, the largest donors were "big pharma" companies.

The top funding priority was supporting patient organisations' public involvement, including "advocacy, campaigning, and disease awareness", "communication" and "policy engagement", which together attracted £17.9m (31.2%). This was followed by support for engagement in research activities, which attracted £14m (24.6%) of funding.

In contrast, "support for patients" attracted £3.4m (5.9%) and "organisational maintenance and development" attracted just £1.6m (2.8%) of funding.

When funding was assessed by 30 condition areas, the authors found that priority was given to commercially high profile conditions, such as cancer and diabetes. For example, neoplasms (any unusual tissue growth - benign or malignant - encompassing cancerous and pre-cancerous changes) attracted £20.9m (36.4%) of all funding.

The hierarchy of funding within each condition area also reflected the industry's commercial priorities. For example, within neoplasms, multiple myeloma (blood cancer) attracted £7.5m (35.9%), followed by breast cancer (19.6%).

Diabetes received £3.7m (57.6%), the most of any endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic disease, while the bulk of funding for infectious and parasitic diseases went to HIV (37.4%) and viral hepatitis (23.6%).

Importantly, the biggest donors in these condition areas have recently launched several high priced drugs, say the authors.

The emerging picture of industry funding shows that companies might seek to use some patient organisations as "third parties" in reaching other audiences, they write.

Responding to risks posed by the concentration of industry funding requires structural solutions, such as a shared corporate funding pool detached from current commercial objectives or treatment areas or a programme of public grants, say the authors.

This "would make for a more level playing field for patient organisations that cover currently underfunded condition areas or have weak industry links," they conclude.

More immediately, low-cost solutions to increase the transparency of funding might involve introducing a single standard of reporting for all companies and creating a searchable publicly available database of payments to patient organisations, they add. These solutions could be modeled on the Disclosure UK initiative, which has covered industry payments to healthcare professionals and organisations since 2015.
-end-


BMJ

Related Breast Cancer Articles:

Does MRI plus mammography improve detection of new breast cancer after breast conservation therapy?
A new article published by JAMA Oncology compares outcomes for combined mammography and MRI or ultrasonography screenings for new breast cancers in women who have previously undergone breast conservation surgery and radiotherapy for breast cancer initially diagnosed at 50 or younger.
Blood test offers improved breast cancer detection tool to reduce use of breast biopsy
A Clinical Breast Cancer study demonstrates Videssa Breast can inform better next steps after abnormal mammogram results and potentially reduce biopsies up to 67 percent.
Surgery to remove unaffected breast in early breast cancer increases
The proportion of women in the United States undergoing surgery for early-stage breast cancer who have preventive mastectomy to remove the unaffected breast increased significantly in recent years, particularly among younger women, and varied substantially across states.
Breast cancer patients with dense breast tissue more likely to develop contralateral disease
Breast cancer patients with dense breast tissue have almost a two-fold increased risk of developing disease in the contralateral breast, according to new research from The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer.
Some early breast cancer patients benefit more from breast conservation than from mastectomy
Breast conserving therapy (BCT) is better than mastectomy for patients with some types of early breast cancer, according to results from the largest study to date, presented at ECC2017.
One-third of breast cancer patients not getting appropriate breast imaging follow-up exam
An annual mammogram is recommended after treatment for breast cancer, but nearly one-third of women diagnosed with breast cancer aren't receiving this follow-up exam, according to new findings presented at the 2016 Annual Clinical Congress of the American College of Surgeons.
Low breast density worsens prognosis in breast cancer
Even though dense breast tissue is a risk factor for breast cancer, very low mammographic breast density is associated with a worse prognosis in breast cancer patients.
Is breast conserving therapy or mastectomy better for early breast cancer?
Young women with early breast cancer face a difficult choice about whether to opt for a mastectomy or breast conserving therapy (BCT).
Breast density and outcomes of supplemental breast cancer screening
In a study appearing in the April 26 issue of JAMA, Elizabeth A.
Full dose radiotherapy to whole breast may not be needed in early breast cancer
Five years after breast-conserving surgery, radiotherapy focused around the tumor bed is as good at preventing recurrence as irradiating the whole breast, with fewer side effects, researchers from the UK have found in the large IMPORT LOW trial.

Related Breast Cancer 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

Digital Manipulation
Technology has reshaped our lives in amazing ways. But at what cost? This hour, TED speakers reveal how what we see, read, believe — even how we vote — can be manipulated by the technology we use. Guests include journalist Carole Cadwalladr, consumer advocate Finn Myrstad, writer and marketing professor Scott Galloway, behavioral designer Nir Eyal, and computer graphics researcher Doug Roble.
Now Playing: Science for the People

#529 Do You Really Want to Find Out Who's Your Daddy?
At least some of you by now have probably spit into a tube and mailed it off to find out who your closest relatives are, where you might be from, and what terrible diseases might await you. But what exactly did you find out? And what did you give away? In this live panel at Awesome Con we bring in science writer Tina Saey to talk about all her DNA testing, and bioethicist Debra Mathews, to determine whether Tina should have done it at all. Related links: What FamilyTreeDNA sharing genetic data with police means for you Crime solvers embraced...