From: "Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7" Subject: Relationships with the drug industry: Keep at arm's length -- Angell 338: b222 -- BMJ Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 11:42:34 -0000 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; type="text/html"; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0000_01C98850.00496120" X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.0.6001.18049 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0000_01C98850.00496120 Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Location: http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/338/feb03_2/b222?ijkey=d333d55cd39af29ae485b847792e7b73a3a7e0d5
Jump to: = Page=20 Content, Site=20 Navigation, Site=20 Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support = basic=20 web standards. Find out = more=20 about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your = experience=20 on this site better.
DUNCAN BRIAN = DOUBLE=20 | View/Change=20 User Information | Email=20 alerts | Sign=20 Out | Click here if you are not DUNCAN BRIAN DOUBLE =
Published 3 February 2009, =
doi:10.1136/bmj.b222
Cite=20
this as: BMJ 2009;338:b222
Marcia Angell, senior lecturer in social=20 medicine
1 Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115
marcia_angell{at}hms.harvard.edu
The relationship between the drug industry, = academia,=20 healthcare professionals, and patients has reached an all = time low=20 and few doubt that it is in the interests of all parties to=20 improve it. A recent report from the Royal College of = Physicians=20 attempts to define a path towards achieving a more productive = relationship. Here we set out five contrasting views on what = the=20 ideal relationship between industry and prescribers and = patients=20 should be and what steps need to be taken to achieve it = (doi:10.1136/bmj.b211= ,=20 doi:10.1136/bmj.b232, = doi:10.1136/bmj.b252= , doi:10.1136/bmj.b252= )=20
I believe there should be no relationship between the drug = industry=20 and either prescribers or patients. Drug companies are = investor=20 owned businesses with a responsibility to maximise profits = for=20 their shareholders. That is quite different from the mission = of=20 the medical profession, which is to provide the best care = possible=20 for patients. I start with this simple fact, because it is so = often=20 obscured by the industry=92s public relations. Drug companies = are not=20 confused on this score. Their major output now consists of = "me-too"=20 drugs for mild or ill defined conditions in essentially = healthy=20 people. This is because that market is big and more easily = expanded=20 than the market for innovative drugs for serious = diseases.1=20
The purpose of drug companies=92 contact with prescribers = is nearly=20 always to increase sales, and it usually involves payments of = one=20 form or another. These are often disguised as education=97for = example,=20 sponsored continuing medical education, professional = meetings, and=20 conferences or dinner sessions to hear presentations about = drugs.=20 Companies provide meals, gifts, and subsidies of various = sorts. But=20 drug companies are not educational institutions. These = activities are=20 funded from their marketing budgets. Drug companies may, of = course,=20 provide accurate information to prescribers, but only if it = serves=20 their commercial interests. A growing body of evidence shows = that=20 they suppress or distort information that does not serve = their=20 interests.2=20 Prescribers are faced with the impossible task of sorting out = good=20 information from bias or misinformation.
The fact that drug companies pay prescribers to be "educated"=20 underscores the true nature of the transaction. Students = generally=20 pay teachers, not the reverse. The real intent is to = influence=20 prescribing habits, through selection of the information = provided=20 and through the warm feelings induced by bribery. Prescribers = join in the pretence that drug companies provide education = because=20 it is lucrative to do so. Even free samples are meant to hook = doctors and patients on the newest, most expensive drugs, = when=20 older drugs=97or no drug at all=97might be better for = the=20 patient.
It is time the medical profession took full responsibility for=20 educating prescribers about prescription drugs, instead of = abdicating=20 it to drug companies.3=20 Doctors should pay for their own continuing education, just = as other=20 professions do. Similarly, professional organisations should = pay for=20 their own meetings and publications, not go hat in hand to = industry.=20 Drug companies are not charities; they expect something for = the tens=20 of billions of dollars they invest in marketing. The evidence = is that=20 they get it, and that patients foot the bill in higher drug=20 prices.
As with prescribers, the purpose of contact between drug =
companies=20
and patients is to sell drugs. In the US, drug companies =
spend=20
about $5bn (=A34bn; 4bn) yearly on direct to consumer advertising on =
television.=20
The adverts are mostly for me-too drugs and are designed to =
convince=20
viewers that one is better than another, despite the fact =
that these=20
drugs are seldom compared in clinical trials at equivalent =
doses.=20
Many seek to convince people that they have chronic disorders =
that=20
require lifelong drug treatment. Thus heartburn is elevated =
to=20
gastrointestinal reflux disease, with the implication that it =
needs=20
to be treated to prevent serious complications. If people can =
be=20
convinced they have a treatable medical condition, then it is =
an easy=20
step to sell them drugs to treat it. Many doctors connive in =
this=20
deception because it is easier to write a prescription than =
to=20
counsel changes in diet or to offer reassurance. We need to =
stop=20
accepting the fiction that marketing, whether to prescribers =
or=20
patients, is good education.
Cite this as: BMJ 2009;338:b222
Provenance and peer review: = Commissioned; not=20 externally peer reviewed.