Dataset Information

Patient organizations' funding from pharmaceutical companies: is disclosure clear, complete and accessible to the public? An Italian survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Many patients' and consumers' organizations accept drug industry funding to support their activities. As drug companies and patient groups move closer, disclosure become essential for transparency, and the internet could be a useful means of making sponsorship information accessible to the public. This survey aims to assess the transparency of a large group of Italian patient and consumer groups and a group of pharmaceutical companies, focusing on their websites.

Methodology/principal findings

Patient and consumer groups were selected from those stated to be sponsored by a group of pharmaceutical companies on their websites. The websites were examined using two forms with principal (name of drug companies providing funds, amount of funding) and secondary indicators of transparency (section where sponsors are disclosed, update of sponsorship). Principal indicators were applied independently by two reviewers to the patient and consumer groups' websites. Discordances were solved by discussion. One hundred fifty-seven Italian patient and consumer groups and 17 drug companies were considered. Thirteen drug companies (76%) named at least one group funded, on their Italian websites. Of these, four (31%) indicated the activities sponsored and two (15%) the amount of funding. Of the 157 patient and consumer groups, 46 (29%) named at least one pharmaceutical company as providing funds. Three (6%) reported the amount of funding, 25 (54%) the activities funded, none the proportion of income derived from drug companies. Among the groups naming pharmaceutical company sponsors, 15 (33%) declared them in a dedicated section, five (11%) on the home page, the others in the financial report or other sections.

Conclusions/significance

Disclosure of funds is scarce on Italian patient and consumer groups' websites. The levels of transparency need to be improved. Disclosure of patient and consumer groups provided with funds is frequent on Italian pharmaceutical companies' websites, but information are often not complete.

SUBMITTER: Colombo C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3348919 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Understanding the profitability of pharmaceutical companies is essential to formulating evidence-based policies to reduce drug costs while maintaining the industry's ability to innovate and provide essential medicines. Objective:To compare the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies with other large companies. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study compared the annual profits of 35 large pharmaceutical companies with 357 companies in the S&P 500 Index from 2000 to 2018 using information from annual financial reports. A statistically significant differential profit margin favoring pharmaceutical companies was evidence of greater profitability. Exposures:Large pharmaceutical vs nonpharmaceutical companies. Main Outcomes and Measures:The main outcomes were revenue and 3 measures of annual profit: gross profit (revenue minus the cost of goods sold); earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA; pretax profit from core business activities); and net income, also referred to as earnings (difference between all revenues and expenses). Profit measures are described as cumulative for all companies from 2000 to 2018 or annual profit as a fraction of revenue (margin). Results:From 2000 to 2018, 35 large pharmaceutical companies reported cumulative revenue of $11.5 trillion, gross profit of $8.6 trillion, EBITDA of $3.7 trillion, and net income of $1.9 trillion, while 357 S&P 500 companies reported cumulative revenue of $130.5 trillion, gross profit of $42.1 trillion, EBITDA of $22.8 trillion, and net income of $9.4 trillion. In bivariable regression models, the median annual profit margins of pharmaceutical companies were significantly greater than those of S&P 500 companies (gross profit margin: 76.5% vs 37.4%; difference, 39.1% [95% CI, 32.5%-45.7%]; P?<?.001; EBITDA margin: 29.4% vs 19%; difference, 10.4% [95% CI, 7.1%-13.7%]; P?<?.001; net income margin: 13.8% vs 7.7%; difference, 6.1% [95% CI, 2.5%-9.7%]; P?<?.001). The differences were smaller in regression models controlling for company size and year and when considering only companies reporting research and development expense (gross profit margin: difference, 30.5% [95% CI, 20.9%-40.1%]; P?<?.001; EBITDA margin: difference, 9.2% [95% CI, 5.2%-13.2%]; P?<?.001; net income margin: difference, 3.6% [95% CI, 0.011%-7.2%]; P?=?.05). Conclusions and Relevance:From 2000 to 2018, the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies was significantly greater than other large, public companies, but the difference was less pronounced when considering company size, year, or research and development expense. Data on the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies may be relevant to formulating evidence-based policies to make medicines more affordable.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To analyse the section of Disclosure UK that pertains to healthcare professionals (HCPs) in order to provide insight into the database's structure and content and suggest ways to improve its transparency. DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS:Cohort study of drug companies and HCPs in the 2015 and 2016 versions of Disclosure UK. RESULTS:Companies report transfers of value (ToVs) to named HCPs or, where an HCP declines to consent, in aggregate. Only a limited number of variables describe the recipient HCP and the ToV, precluding refined analyses. In 2015, 107 companies reported 54 910 ToVs worth ?50 967 728. In 2016, 109 companies reported ToVs but spending decreased by 7.3%. The spending was concentrated: the top 10 spenders reported about 50% of the total value, with consultancy-related payments comprising over 70%, and the rest being costs for events. In 2015, 55.5% (30 478) of ToVs worth ?24 428 619 (47.9%) were disclosed at the individual HCP level, increasing to 64.5% (32 407) and ?28 145 091 (59.2%) in 2016. Despite increased individual-level disclosure in 2016, the median number of ToVs reported by each company at the individual level was only 57.7%, with 25% of companies reporting less than 38.6%. We found little agreement (62%-48% in 2015 and 46%-30% in 2016) between HCP consent rates that we calculated based on information in the database and those provided by companies. CONCLUSIONS:Key deficiencies in Disclosure UK include: insufficient information on payments and recipients, a relatively low HCP consent rate for individual-level disclosure, differences in consent rates across companies and payment types, and reporting ambiguities or inconsistencies. We employ these findings to develop recommendations for improving transparency, including an easily interpretable consent rate statistic that allows for comparison across years, firms and countries. If deficiencies remain unresolved, the UK should consider introducing legislation requiring mandatory disclosure to allow for adequate tracking of industry payments.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study investigates the information and policies that Canadian patient groups post on their publicly available websites about their relationships with pharmaceutical companies.DesignCross-sectional study.SettingCanadian national patient groups.ParticipantsNinety-seven patient groups with publicly available websites.InterventionsEach patient group was contacted by email. Information from patient groups' websites was collected about: total annual revenue for the latest fiscal year, year revenue was reported, revenue from pharmaceutical company donors, purpose of the donation, presence of donors' logos on the website and hyperlinks to donors' websites, previous and current employment information about board members and staff, external audits about the group's finances and whether the group endorses products made by donors. Analysis of publicly available policies looking at: board and/or advisory board, acceptance of donations and revenue generation, independence of decision-making, endorsements, assistance to and/or interactions between patient members from a donor or another company/person acting on behalf of a donor and audits/monitoring/compliance.Primary and secondary outcome measuresNumber of patient groups posting information on their websites about their relationships with pharmaceutical companies; the presence and contents of patient group policies covering different topics about relationships with pharmaceutical companies.ResultsFifty-three (54.6%) of 97 groups reported donations from pharmaceutical companies. Forty-one (42.3%) groups showed the logos of pharmaceutical companies on their websites and 22 (53.7%) had hyperlinks to pharmaceutical company websites. Twenty-five (25.8%) of these groups endorsed pharmaceutical products produced by brand-name companies that had donated to the groups. Twenty-six (26.8%) groups had policies that dealt with relationships with pharmaceutical companies.ConclusionsPharmaceutical industry funding of the included patient groups was common. Despite this, relatively little information was provided on patient group websites about their relationships with pharmaceutical companies. Only 26 out of 97 groups had publicly available policies that directly dealt with their relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate German physicians' attitudes towards and experiences with voluntary disclosure of payments by pharmaceutical companies in a public database and their impact on future decisions for or against disclosure.DesignA national cross-sectional survey conducted in 2018 among physicians who voluntarily disclosed at least one payment in the German transparency regulation.SettingRetrospective paper-pencil questionnaire about attitudes towards and experiences with voluntary payment disclosures in the first (2015) and second (2016) years of the German transparency regulation.ParticipantsGerman physicians who disclosed either in the first year only, the second year only, or in both years of the transparency regulation.Primary outcomes(1) The probability to disclose in 2016, predicted by physicians' experience of reactions from others in 2015, descriptive norms and attitudes towards transparency; (2) Frequency and (3) Content of reactions from others in 2015 compared with 2016.ResultsData of 234 respondents were analysed (n=42, 45 and 147 physicians who disclosed in 2015, 2016 or both years, respectively). The probability to disclose in 2016 was not predicted by perceived reactions, norms or attitudes towards transparency (p>0.01). Most participants reported not to have received any reactions by patients (190/234, 81%), colleagues (128/234, 55%) or the private environment (153/234, 65%). Neither frequency nor content of reactions differed between the first and second years (scale 1-5; frequency: Mdn 2015,2016 = 1.33 vs 1.00, r b=-0.17, p>0.01; content: Mdn 2015,2016 = 3.00 vs 3.00, r b=0.19, p>0.01). However, media reporting, fear of reputational damage and a feeling of being defamed were mentioned as reasons for non-disclosure.ConclusionsWhile confirmatory analyses did not provide significant results, descriptive analyses showed that participants who voluntarily disclose payments mainly do not experience any reactions towards their disclosures but report fears about losing their reputation due to disclosures.

Project description:BackgroundMany patient organisations collaborate with drug companies, resulting in concerns about commercial agendas influencing patient advocacy. We contribute to an international body of knowledge on patient organisation-industry relations by considering payments reported in the industry's centralised 'collaboration database' in Sweden. We also investigate possible commercial motives behind the funding by assessing its association with drug commercialisation.MethodsOur primary data source were 1,337 payment reports from 2014-2018. After extraction and coding, we analysed the data descriptively, calculating the number, value and distribution of payments for various units of analysis, e.g. individual companies, diseases and payment goals. The association between drug commercialisation and patient organisation funding was assessed by, first, the concordance between leading companies marketing drugs in specific diseases and their funding of corresponding patient organisations and, second, the correlation between new drugs in broader condition areas and payments to corresponding patient organisations.Results46 companies reported paying €6,449.224 (median €2,411; IQR €1,024-4,569) to 77 patient organisations, but ten companies provided 67% of the funding. Small payments dominated, many of which covered costs of events organised by patient organisations. An association existed between drug commercialisation and industry funding. Companies supported patient organisations in diseases linked to their drug portfolios, with the top 3 condition areas in terms of funding-cancer; endocrine, nutritional and metabolic disorders; and infectious and parasitic disorders-accounting for 63% of new drugs and 56% of the funding.ConclusionThis study reveals close and widespread ties between patient organisations and drug companies. A relatively few number of companies dominated the funding landscape by supporting patient organisations in disease areas linked to their drug portfolios. This commercially motivated funding may contribute to inequalities in resource and influence between patient organisations. The association between drug commercialisation and industry funding is also worrying because of the therapeutic uncertainty of many new drugs. Our analysis benefited from the existence of a centralised database of payments-which should be adopted by other countries too-but databases should be downloadable in an analysable format to permit efficient and independent analysis.