Healthy Skepticism Library item: 6347

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: Journal Article

Editorial: Drug companies in bed with patient groups
New Scientist magazine 2006 Oct 28; (2575):
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19225752.700-editorial-drug-companies-in-bed-with-patient-groups.html

Full text:

Editorial: Drug companies in bed with patient groups

- 28 October 2006 – NewScientist.com news service

OVER the past few years, the subtle marketing tactics of companies selling
pharmaceuticals and medical devices have come under scrutiny as never
before. There are good reasons for this: it has become common practice for
them to court doctors who prescribe their products and employ experts in the
biomedical community to speak and advise on their behalf.

This week New Scientist looks at another area where the industry may be
wielding inappropriate influence: organisations that represent patients. Our
investigation found that while donations from drugs companies make up less
than 10 per cent of most patient groups’ budgets, some groups take much
more. Moreover, the groups most heavily funded by industry are more likely
to be those focusing on conditions where the industry has been accused of
“disease-mongering” – encouraging relatively healthy people to seek
treatment (see “Swallowing the best advice?”).

We are not suggesting that patient groups should refuse this sort of
funding. The vital support they offer would often not be available without
industry backing. That’s especially true with stigmatised conditions such as
mental illness, where it is hard to obtain public donations. However, their
close relationship with industry can be worrying. Firstly, patients need
information that is clear of bias, and this can be jeopardised when
companies have a vested interest in getting groups to mention their
products. Such tactics are a useful adjunct to more overt marketing
strategies such as direct-to-consumer advertising, banned in Europe but
common in the US. Secondly, patient advocates must feel able to criticise
companies when appropriate – particularly over problems with drug safety.

How should patient groups deal with these potential conflicts of interest?
Ideally, they should require all donors to provide funds unconditionally.
This is harder than it sounds. Companies generally fund the provision of
information about treatment, rather than supporting individual patients.
While patient groups stress that information supplied in this way is vetted
by an advisory board, many experts on such boards are industry-funded.

What’s needed at the very least is transparency. Too often, companies have
been accused of withholding information about drug safety – for example in
the furore over the painkiller Vioxx. To prevent scandals that could
severely damage patient groups, and to let patients assess whether conflicts
of interest exist, they should disclose how much they receive from industry,
as well as the financial ties of their advisory board members. It should not
require reporters to extract this kind of information.
>From issue 2575 of New Scientist magazine, 28 October 2006, page 5