Dataset Information

Five years of pharmaceutical industry funding of patient organisations in Sweden: Cross-sectional study of companies, patient organisations and drugs.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Many 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.

Methods

Our 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.

Results

46 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.

Conclusion

This 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.

SUBMITTER: Mulinari S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7313941 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To investigate pharmaceutical or medical device industry funding of patient groups. DESIGN:Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES:Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar from inception to January 2018; reference lists of eligible studies and experts in the field. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:Observational studies including cross sectional, cohort, case-control, interrupted time series, and before-after studies of patient groups reporting at least one of the following outcomes: prevalence of industry funding; proportion of industry funded patient groups that disclosed information about this funding; and association between industry funding and organisational positions on health and policy issues. Studies were included irrespective of language or publication type. REVIEW METHODS:Reviewers carried out duplicate independent data extraction and assessment of study quality. An amended version of the checklist for prevalence studies developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute was used to assess study quality. A DerSimonian-Laird estimate of single proportions with Freeman-Tukey arcsine transformation was used for meta-analyses of prevalence. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome. RESULTS:26 cross sectional studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 15 studies estimated the prevalence of industry funding, which ranged from 20% (12/61) to 83% (86/104). Among patient organisations that received industry funding, 27% (175/642; 95% confidence interval 24% to 31%) disclosed this information on their websites. In submissions to consultations, two studies showed very different disclosure rates (0% and 91%), which appeared to reflect differences in the relevant government agency's disclosure requirements. Prevalence estimates of organisational policies that govern corporate sponsorship ranged from 2% (2/125) to 64% (175/274). Four studies analysed the relationship between industry funding and organisational positions on a range of highly controversial issues. Industry funded groups generally supported sponsors' interests. CONCLUSION:In general, industry funding of patient groups seems to be common, with prevalence estimates ranging from 20% to 83%. Few patient groups have policies that govern corporate sponsorship. Transparency about corporate funding is also inadequate. Among the few studies that examined associations between industry funding and organisational positions, industry funded groups tended to have positions favourable to the sponsor. Patient groups have an important role in advocacy, education, and research, therefore strategies are needed to prevent biases that could favour the interests of sponsors above those of the public. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017079265.

Project description:BackgroundMany 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 findingsPatient 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/significanceDisclosure 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.

Project description:BACKGROUND: The alleged efficacy of pharmaceutical industry self-regulation has been used to repudiate increased government oversight over promotional activity. European politicians and industry have cited Sweden as an excellent example of self-regulation based on an ethical code. This paper considers antidepressant advertising in Sweden to uncover the strengths and weaknesses of self-regulation. METHODOLOGY: We analyzed all antidepressant advertisements in the Swedish Medical Journal, 1994-2003. The regulation of these advertisements was analyzed using case reports from self-regulatory bodies. The authors independently reviewed this material to investigate: (1) extent of violative advertising; (2) pattern of code breaches; (3) rate at which the system reacted to violative advertising; (4) prevalence of and oversight over claims regarding antidepressant efficacy and disease causality, and (5) costs for manufactures associated with violative advertising. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Self-regulatory bodies identified numerous code breaches. Nonetheless, they failed to protect doctors from unreliable information on antidepressants, since as many as 247 of 722 (34%) advertisements breached the industry code. Self-regulatory bodies repeatedly failed to challenge inflated claims of antidepressant efficacy, lending evidence of lax oversight. On average, 15 weeks elapsed between printing and censure of a wrongful claim, and in 25% of cases 47 weeks or more elapsed. Industry paid roughly €108000 in fines for violative advertising, adding an estimated additional average cost of 11% to each purchased violative advertisement, or amounting to as little as 0.009% of total antidepressant sales of around €1.2 billion. CONCLUSIONS: Lax oversight, combined with lags in the system and low fines for violations, may explain the Swedish system's failure to pressure companies into providing reliable antidepressants information. If these shortcomings prove to be consistent across self-regulatory settings, and if appropriate measures are not taken to amend shortcomings, many countries may want to reconsider the current balance between self-regulation, and legislative control with government oversight.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To define a series of clinical trial transparency measures and apply them to large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and their 2014 FDA-approved drugs. DESIGN:Cross-sectional descriptive analysis of all clinical trials supporting 2014 Food and Drugs Administration (FDA)-approved new drug applications (NDAs) for novel drugs sponsored by large companies. DATA SOURCES:Data from over 45 sources, including Drugs@FDA.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov, corporate and international registries; PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, corporate press releases, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings and personal communications with drug manufacturers. OUTCOME MEASURES:Trial registration, results reporting, clinical study report (CSR) synopsis sharing, biomedical journal publication, and FDA Amendments Acts (FDAAA) compliance, analysed on the drug level. RESULTS:The FDA approved 19 novel new drugs, sponsored by 11 large companies, involving 553 trials, in 2014. We analysed 505 relevant trials. Per drug, a median of 100% (IQR 86%-100%) of trials in patients were registered, 71% (IQR 57%-100%) reported results or shared a CSR synopsis, 80% (70%-100%) were published and 96% (80%-100%) were publicly available in some form by 13 months after FDA approval. Disclosure rates were lower at FDA approval (65%) and improved significantly by 6 months post FDA approval. Per drug, a median of 100% (IQR 75%-100%) of FDAAA-applicable trials were compliant. Half of reviewed drugs had publicly disclosed results for all trials in patients in our sample. One trial was uniquely registered in a corporate registry, and not ClinicalTrials.gov; 0 trials were uniquely registered in international registries. CONCLUSIONS:Among large pharmaceutical companies and new drugs, clinical trial transparency is high based on several standards, although opportunities for improvement remain. Transparency is markedly higher for trials in patients than among all trials supporting drug approval, including trials in healthy volunteers. Ongoing efforts to publicly track companies' transparency records and recognise exemplary companies may encourage further progress.

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:ObjectivesTo describe the nature, frequency and content of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulant (NOAC)-related events for healthcare professionals sponsored by the manufacturers of the NOACs in Australia. A secondary objective is to compare these data to the rate of dispensing of the NOACs in Australia.Design and settingThis cross-sectional study examined consolidated data from publicly available Australian pharmaceutical industry transparency reports from October 2011 to September 2015 on NOAC-related educational events. Data from April 2011 to June 2016 on NOAC dispensing, subsidised under Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS), were obtained from the Department of Health and the Department of Human Services.Main outcome measuresCharacteristics of NOAC-related educational events including costs (in Australian dollars, $A), numbers of events, information on healthcare professional attendees and content of events; and NOAC dispensing rates.ResultsDuring the study period, there were 2797 NOAC-related events, costing manufacturers a total of $A10 578 745. Total expenditure for meals and beverages at all events was $A4 238 962. Events were predominantly attended by general practitioners (42%, 1174/2797), cardiologists (35%, 977/2797) and haematologists (23%, 635/2797). About 48% (1347/2797) of events were held in non-clinical settings, mainly restaurants, bars and cafes. Around 55% (1551/2797) of events consisted of either conferences, meetings or seminars. The analysis of the content presented at two events detected promotion of NOACs for unapproved indications, an emphasis on a favourable benefit/harm profile, and that all speakers had close ties with the manufacturers of the NOACs. Following PBS listings relevant to each NOAC, the numbers of events related to that NOAC and the prescribing of that NOAC increased.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that the substantial investment in NOAC-related events made by four pharmaceutical companies had a promotional purpose. Healthcare professionals should seek independent information on newly subsidised medicines from, for example, government agencies or drug bulletins.