Quality information for quality use of medicines; 2nd International Conference, Kazan, 15-16 October 2010.

Kazan hosted Russia's first international conference on medicines that was entirely independent of the pharmaceutical industry, attracting 414 participants from 9 countries and 20 regions of the Russian Federation. The meeting was greeted and endorsed by world leaders in pharmaceutical information, policy and regulation. Delegates discussed the professional and social problems arising from unethical drug promotion, including compromised evidence from clinical trials and consequent impairments in health service delivery. The Conference adopted a resolution prioritizing policy development and health system needs, notably including the development of clinical pharmacology. A website documents conference materials and provides an interface for future collaboration: http://evidenceupdate-tatarstan.ru/confer.

Advertising and disclosure of funding on patient organisation websites: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Patient organisations may be exposed to conflicts of interest and undue influence through pharmaceutical industry (Pharma) donations. We examined advertising and disclosure of financial support by pharmaceutical companies on the websites of major patient organisations. METHOD: Sixty-nine national and international patient organisations covering 10 disease states were identified using a defined Google search strategy. These were assessed for indicators of transparency, advertising, and disclosure of Pharma funding using an abstraction tool and inspection of annual reports. Data were analysed by simple tally, with medians calculated for financial data. RESULTS: Patient organisations websites were clear about their identity, target audience and intention but only a third were clear on how they derived their funds. Only 4/69 websites stated advertising and conflict of interest policies. Advertising was generally absent. 54% of sites included an annual report, but financial reporting and disclosure of donors varied substantially. Corporate donations were itemised in only 7/37 reports and none gave enough information to show the proportion of funding from Pharma. 45% of organisations declared Pharma funding on their website but the annual reports named more Pharma donors than did the websites (median 6 vs. 1). One third of websites showed one or more company logos and/or had links to Pharma websites. Pharma companies' introductions were present on 10% of websites, some of them mentioning specific products. Two patient organisations had obvious close ties to Pharma. CONCLUSION: Patient organisation websites do not provide enough information for visitors to assess whether a conflict of interest with Pharma exists. While advertising of products is generally absent, display of logos and corporate advertisements is relatively common. Display of clear editorial and advertising policies and disclosure of the nature and degree of corporate donations is needed on patient organisations' websites. An ethical code to guide patient organisations and their staff members on how to collaborate with Pharma is also necessary, if patient organisations are to remain independent and truly represent the interests and views of patients. As many organizations rely on Pharma donations, self-regulation may not suffice and independent oversight bodies should take the lead in requiring this.

Why men with prostate cancer want wider access to prostate specific antigen testing: qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the attitudes of men with confirmed or suspected prostate cancer to testing for prostate specific antigen. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study with a purposive sample. SETTING: Great Britain. PARTICIPANTS: 52 men with suspected or confirmed prostate cancer, recruited through general practitioners, urologists, patient support groups, and charities. RESULTS: Almost all men remembered their prostate specific antigen test but recalled being given little information beforehand. Arguments in favour of increased access to testing included the belief that early diagnosis would reduce mortality, improve quality of life, and save the NHS money. Men also thought that a national screening programme should be available because symptoms can be ambiguous, screening for cancer is responsible health behaviour, and screening would encourage men to be tested. Four men who opposed a screening programme had gathered information alerting them to uncertainty about the benefits of treatment, and two regretted that they had been tested. Others thought that access to testing is restricted in the United Kingdom because of a lack of government backing, concerns about the accuracy of the test, and a lack of resources. CONCLUSIONS: The few men in this study who subscribed to the argument that evidence of the benefits of treatment is a prerequisite for a screening programme did not want to see screening introduced. Men who proposed an alternative set of principles for testing gave reasons that did not all relate to overoptimism about the benefits of early diagnosis. People who plan services and people who respond to requests for testing need to understand men's perspectives and concerns.