Does pharmaceutical industry funding bias research?

2009 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 9
Author(s):  
STEVEN MILES ◽  
Jeff Stier
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Funding Bias

How do health consumer organisations in Australia manage pharmaceutical industry sponsorship? A cross-sectional study

2019 ◽  
Vol 43 (4) ◽  
pp. 474 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edith Lau ◽  
Alice Fabbri ◽  
Barbara Mintzes
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Trade Association ◽  
Corporate Sponsorship ◽  
Undue Influence ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Health Consumer ◽  
Financial Transparency ◽  
Consumer Organisations ◽  
Corporate Funding

Objective The aim of this study was to investigate how health consumer organisations manage their relationships with the pharmaceutical industry in Australia. Methods We identified 230 health consumer organisations that received pharmaceutical industry support from 2013 to 2016 according to reports published by Medicines Australia, the industry trade association. A random sample of 133 organisations was selected and their websites assessed for financial transparency, policies governing corporate sponsorship and evidence of potential industry influence. Results In all, 130 of the 133 organisations evaluated received industry funding. Of these 130, 68 (52.3%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 43.4–61.1%) disclosed this funding. Nearly all (67; 98.5%) reported the identity of their industry donors, followed by uses (52.9%), amount (13.2%) and proportion of income from industry (4.4%). Less than one-fifth (24/133; 18.0%; 95% CI 11.9–25.6%) had publicly available policies on corporate sponsorship. Six organisations (7.2%; 95% CI 2.7–15.1%) had board members that were currently or previously employed by pharmaceutical companies, and 49 (36.8%; 95% CI 28.6–45.6%) had company logos, web links or advertisements on their websites. Conclusion Industry-funded health consumer organisations in Australia have low transparency when reporting industry funding and few have policies governing corporate sponsorship. Relationships between health consumer organisations and the industry require effective actions to minimise the risks of undue influence. What is known about this topic? Pharmaceutical industry funding of health consumer organisations is common in the US and Europe, yet only a minority of such organisations publicly disclose this funding and have policies regulating their relationships with industry. What does this paper add? Industry-funded health consumer organisations in Australia have inadequate financial transparency and rarely have policies addressing corporate funding. Organisations that have received more industry funding are more likely to report it publicly. What are the implications for practitioners? Robust policies addressing corporate sponsorship and increased transparency are needed to maintain the independence of health consumer organisations. Governments may also consider regulating non-profit organisations to ensure public reporting of funding sources.

scholarly journals Pharmaceutical Industry Funding of Health Consumer Groups in Australia: A Cross-sectional Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 49 (2) ◽  
pp. 273-293 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alice Fabbri ◽  
Swestika Swandari ◽  
Edith Lau ◽  
Agnes Vitry ◽  
Barbara Mintzes
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Descriptive Analysis ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Australian Health ◽  
Eye Health ◽  
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers ◽  
Health Consumer ◽  
Consumer Organizations ◽  
Sectional Analysis

Relationships between consumer organizations and pharmaceutical manufacturers are the focus of transparency efforts in some jurisdictions, including Australia. This study describes the frequency and nature of industry sponsorship of Australian health consumer organizations and examines the link between sponsorship of the most highly funded organizations and manufacturers’ requests for public reimbursement of products for related health conditions. We downloaded 130 transparency reports covering the period January 2013 to December 2016 from the website of Medicines Australia and carried out a descriptive analysis. For the most heavily funded organizations and their sponsors, we examined Public Summary Documents of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee to identify relevant products under consideration for public reimbursement over the study period. Thirty-four pharmaceutical companies provided 1,482 sponsorships to 230 organizations, spending a total of AU$34,507,810. The top clinical areas in terms of amount of funding received were cancer, eye health, and nervous system disorders. The sponsors of the most highly funded groups were companies that in most cases had drugs under review for public reimbursement for conditions covered by these organizations. Interactions between the pharmaceutical industry and consumer organizations are common and require careful management to prevent biases that may favor sponsors’ interests above those of patients and the public.

scholarly journals Cognitive performance effects of nicotine and industry affiliation: a systematic review

2020 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 117822182092654
Author(s):  
Sarah V. Pasetes ◽  
Pamela M. Ling ◽  
Dorie E. Apollonio
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Cognitive Performance ◽  
Tobacco Industry ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Performance Effects ◽  
Reported Study ◽  
Industry Affiliation

Background and aims: Studies assessing the cognitive performance effects of nicotine show inconsistent results and tobacco industry funding has been correlated with study outcomes. We conducted a systematic review of the primary literature assessing the cognitive performance effects of nicotine and assessed potential associations between tobacco and pharmaceutical industry affiliation and reported study conclusions. Methods: We searched PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, BIOSIS, and Web of Science for peer-reviewed journal articles published between 2009 and 2016 that: (1) were randomized controlled trials; (2) investigated the effects of nicotine on cognitive performance in a laboratory setting; (3) administered nicotine to healthy adults (18-60 years); and (4) included participants were nonsmokers or minimally deprived smokers (⩽2 hours of abstaining from smoking). Study disclosures and tobacco industry documents were reviewed to determine industry funding. Results: Searches yielded 3,771 abstracts; 32 studies were included in the review. The majority of studies investigated the effects of nicotine on attention (n = 22). Nicotine had a non-uniform effect on attention: studies reported positive (41%; n = 9), mixed (41%; n = 9), and no effect (18%; n = 4). The majority of study authors had received prior tobacco industry funding (59%; n = 19), however over half of tobacco-industry funded authors did not report this (53%; n = 10). Conclusions: Nicotine does not appear to be associated with consistent cognitive performance effects. Although no association was found between reported outcomes and tobacco or pharmaceutical industry funding, findings likely underestimate the influence of industry funding due to strict inclusion criteria and incomplete data on pharmaceutical industry funding. Clinical trial registration: Not applicable

scholarly journals ‘Lines in the sand’: an Australian qualitative study of patient group practices to promote independence from pharmaceutical industry funders

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. e045140
Author(s):  
Lisa Parker ◽  
Quinn Grundy ◽  
Alice Fabbri ◽  
Barbara Mintzes ◽  
Lisa Bero
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Patient Group ◽  
Undue Influence ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Group Practices ◽  
Ability To Act ◽  
Brand Marketing ◽  
Qualitative Interview Study ◽  
Patient Groups ◽  
Participant Role

ObjectivesTo study how patient groups that accept pharmaceutical industry money perceive and manage the risk of undue influence from their sponsors.DesignEmpirical ethics approach using a qualitative interview study.SettingThe Australian patient group sector.Participants27 participants from 23 patient groups, purposively recruited for diversity of group characteristics (degree of pharmaceutical industry funding, health focus, location) and participant role (staff, board members).AnalysisInterview data were transcribed and read repeatedly to identify concepts and patterns in the data. These were grouped into conceptual categories that described and explained the findings. We used an inductive analytical approach to identify important themes and concepts in the data.ResultsParticipants in this study described how the patient group sector receives pressure from pharmaceutical company funders to act in ways that prioritise company interests. Groups worked to try and protect their credibility and ability to act in ways of their own choosing using practical rules or ‘lines in the sand’ about industry funding activities. They were grouped around the dominant topics of: sponsor exclusivity, brand marketing, agenda setting, advocacy and content of group activities. Lines in the sand were largely experience-driven and ethically informed; they varied between groups. There was also variable transparency among groups about financial interactions with pharmaceutical companies.ConclusionsIt is important to know about patient group practices around pharmaceutical industry funders as this allows public scrutiny about the adequacy of such practices. Inadequate strategies may mean that funders can influence patient groups activities in ways that do not necessarily prioritise the interests of members. We found that groups differed in their approach, with little independent external guidance to inform responses to commonly encountered types of influence. Inadequate transparency limits the ability of the public to make informed assessments about the risk of bias over the activities of groups that accept industry funding.

Relationship between drug company funding and outcomes of clinical psychiatric research

2006 ◽  
Vol 36 (11) ◽  
pp. 1647-1656 ◽  
Author(s):  
ROBERT E. KELLY ◽  
LISA J. COHEN ◽  
RANDYE J. SEMPLE ◽  
PHILIP BIALER ◽  
ADAM LAU ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Clinical Studies ◽  
Secondary Analysis ◽  
Drug Approval ◽  
Drug Manufacturer ◽  
Psychiatric Research ◽  
Industry Funding ◽  
Drug Companies ◽  
Design Variables ◽  
The Relationship

Background. Pharmaceutical industry funding of psychiatric research has increased significantly in recent decades, raising the question of a relationship between pharmaceutical company funding of clinical psychiatric studies and the outcomes of those studies. This study examines this relationship.Method. Abstracts of articles from 1992 and 2002 in four peer-reviewed psychiatric journals were examined. Drug outcomes (n=542) for clinical studies were evaluated and then compared across sponsorship source. Outcome raters were blind to source of sponsorship. The percentage of these studies sponsored by drug companies in 2002 v. 1992 was also compared. In a secondary analysis, the contribution of a series of potentially mediating variables to the relationship between sponsorship source and study outcome was assessed via logistic regression.Results. The percentage of studies sponsored by drug companies increased from 25% in 1992 to 57% in 2002. Favorable outcomes were significantly more common in studies sponsored by the drug manufacturer (78%) than in studies without industry sponsorship (48%) or sponsored by a competitor (28%). These relationships remained after controlling for the effects of journal, year, drug studied, time since FDA drug approval, diagnosis, sample size, and selected study design variables.Conclusions. These data indicate an association between pharmaceutical industry funding of clinical studies and positive outcomes of those studies. Further research is needed to elucidate the mechanisms underlying this relationship.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document