Healthy Skepticism Library item: 2518

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: news

Drug companies deny profit accusations
The Age (Melbourne) 2005 Sep 13
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Drug-companies-deny-profit-accusations/2005/09/13/1126377301287.html

Notes:

Ralph Faggotter’s Comments: The startling thing about this article is the comments by the president of the Australian Medical Association, Dr Haikerwal, who appears to be ignorant of the extensive literature which demonstrates that doctors ARE influenced by drug company gifts and spin.
In essence, he is saying advertising doesn’t work. We know it does and so does the pharmaceutical industry. Here is an excerpt of his comments from the article-
‘Dr Haikerwal also rejected claims that drug company promotions to
doctors influenced prescribing decisions.

“If you have got half a dozen different drugs from the same class, each
one is promoted by a different company,” he said.

“The one that sticks in your mind is the one that works best for
patients, not the one made by the drug company that gave you the last
plastic pen – which breaks anyway.” ‘

Full text: Drug companies deny profit accusations

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Drug-companies-deny-profit-accusations/2005/09/13/1126377301287.html

September 13, 2005 – 2:39PM

Drug manufacturers have denied claims they are putting profits before
health by aggressively marketing new medications, and say patients
should be confident GPs will prescribe appropriate treatments.

But Australia’s drug regulator says it has some reservations about drug
company promotions, after a consumer group expressed concerns about
marketing and ongoing testing of new drugs after they had been approved
for sale.

In the latest issue of Choice magazine, the Australian Consumers’
Association (ACA) accuses pharmaceutical companies of pushing new drugs
by publishing biased trial results and playing down negative test outcomes.

“It’s a concern that pharmaceutical companies can misrepresent results
of trials in order to sell drugs,” ACA spokeswoman Lisa Tait said.

Ms Tait said drug companies also funded the marketing of new drugs and
doctor education, meaning it was difficult to know how reliable the
testing and prescribing process was.

Medicines Australia, formerly the Pharmaceutical Manufacturers’
Association, rejected the accusation drug companies were behaving
improperly.

Spokesman Paul Chamberlin said it was “unfortunate” the ACA had
criticised drug companies.

“There’s a stringent and lengthy process that any new drug has to go
through before it can be approved for use in the Australian market,” Mr
Chamberlin said.

“There’s considerable post-approval surveillance (of the effectiveness
of new drugs).

“It’s a requirement of approval, and the Therapeutic Goods
Administration (TGA) … is always looking for new information (on the
effectiveness of medications).

But Mr Chamberlin said not all drug trials could be considered 100 per
cent “independent” because they were partly funded by pharmaceutical
companies.

He urged patients to discuss with their GPs any changes in the drugs
they were prescribed.

“No doctor is going to prescribe a drug that he or she believes isn’t
appropriate for a patient simply because of a pharmaceutical company
promotion,” he said, adding that the value of such promotions to doctors
could not exceed $10.

The TGA, which regulates the sale of drugs in Australia, said
pharmaceutical companies had to provide accurate assessments of new
drugs but it had some concerns about their marketing of medicines.

“We’re always looking at the ways companies aggressively market these
new drugs,” a spokesman for the TGA told AAP.

“There’s a bit of concern … (but) ultimately we trust the GP to
understand the benefits of the medication.”

The spokesman said the TGA required drug companies to monitor the use of
approved medicines around the world and prepare regular reports about
their effects.

When pharmaceutical companies applied for drugs to be approved for sale,
they were required to provide all studies related to their use –
positive or negative – and “all information relevant to the safety of
the drug”, he said.

The Australian Medical Association (AMA) said it was concerned about
pharmaceutical companies’ marketing of new drugs.

“They often advertise to patients through commercials and infomercials
so patients know about a new drug before doctors do,” AMA federal
president Mukesh Haikerwal said.

“That’s actually a very bad thing because we can’t actually assess
whether these new drugs are any better.”

Drug companies tended to publish positive trials of new drugs and hide
negative results, he said.

Dr Haikerwal also rejected claims that drug company promotions to
doctors influenced prescribing decisions.

“If you have got half a dozen different drugs from the same class, each
one is promoted by a different company,” he said.

“The one that sticks in your mind is the one that works best for
patients, not the one made by the drug company that gave you the last
plastic pen – which breaks anyway.”

The TGA should have a separate funding stream for its own research into
medications because much of the testing was funded by the cost of
pharmaceutical companies’ drug licensing applications and could not be
considered wholly independent, Dr Haikerwal said.