A comparison of educational events for physicians and nurses in Australia sponsored by opioid manufacturers.

BACKGROUND: Educational activities for physicians sponsored by opioid manufacturers are implicated in the over- and mis-prescribing of opioids. However, the implications of promotion to nurses are poorly understood. Nurses play a key role in assessing pain, addressing the determinants of pain, and administering opioid medications. We sought to understand the nature and content of pain-related educational events sponsored by opioid manufacturers and to compare events targeting physicians and nurses. METHODS: We conducted a cross sectional, descriptive analysis of pharmaceutical company reports detailing 116,845 sponsored educational events attended by health professionals from 2011 to 2015 in Australia. We included events that were sponsored by manufacturers of prescription opioid analgesics and were pain related. We compared event characteristics across three attendee groups: (a) physicians only; (b) at least one nurse in attendance; and (c) nurses only. We coded the unstructured data using iteratively generated keywords for variables related to location, format, and content focus. RESULTS: We identified 3,411 pain-related events sponsored by 3 companies: bioCSL/CSL (n = 15), Janssen (n = 134); and Mundipharma (n = 3,262). Pain-related events were most often multidisciplinary, including at least one nurse (1,964/3,411; 58%); 38% (1,281/3,411) included physicians only, and 5% (166/3,411) nurses only. The majority of events were held in clinical settings (61%) and 43% took the form of a journal club. Chronic pain was the most common event topic (26%) followed by cancer pain and palliative care (18%), and then generic or unspecified references to pain (15%); nearly a third (32%) of event descriptions contained insufficient information to determine the content focus. Nurse-only events were less frequently held in clinical settings (32%; p < .001) and more frequently were product launches (17%; p < .001) and a significantly larger proportion focused on cancer or palliative care (33%; p < .001), generic pain topics (27%; p < .001), and geriatrics (25%; p < .001) than physician-only or multidisciplinary events. DISCUSSION: Opioid promotion via sponsored educational events extends beyond physicians to multidisciplinary teams and specifically, nurses. Despite lack of evidence that opioids improve outcomes for long-term chronic non-cancer pain, hundreds of sponsored educational events focused on chronic pain. Regulators should consider the validity of distinguishing between pharmaceutical companies' "promotional" and "non-promotional" activities.

"There are ways drug companies will get into DTC decisions": How Australian drug and therapeutics committees address pharmaceutical industry influence.

AIMS: One tool for protecting quality use of medicines in hospitals is a drug and therapeutics committee (DTC) that oversees medicines availability. Pharmaceutical industry marketing to prescribers is associated with less appropriate prescribing and increased costs. There is little data on decision-making practices of DTCs so it is unknown whether or how they might be vulnerable to pharmaceutical industry influence. This project explores DTC decision-making with a focus on how pharmaceutical industry influence on access and use of medicines is identified and managed. METHODS: We used a qualitative methodology with individual interviews of 29 participants who were current or recent members of public hospital DTCs across New South Wales, Australia. Participants included medical, pharmacy and nursing staff and 1 citizen. Committees were linked to specific hospitals or regions, and some were affiliated with paediatric, neonatal, rural or mental health services. RESULTS: Drug committee processes for oversight of medicines in public hospitals are vulnerable to pharmaceutical industry influence at several points. Applications for formulary additions are sometimes initiated and completed by company representatives. Conflict of interest disclosures among applicants and committee members may be incomplete. In some institutions, medicines are available from pharmaceutical companies without committee review, including through free samples and industry-supported medicines access programmes. Participants noticed the presence and impact of pharmaceutical company marketing activities to local clinicians, resulting in increased prescriber demand for products. CONCLUSION: Improved DTC practices and review of hospital policies concerning pharmaceutical marketing activities might preserve the independence of evidence-based decision-making for safe, cost-effective prescribing.

Pharmaceutical industry payments to leaders of professional medical associations in Australia: Focus on cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Pharmaceutical industry interactions with professional medical associations have come under scrutiny, yet industry ties among the leadership of these associations are often overlooked. The aim of this study was to investigate pharmaceutical industry payments to leaders of Australian diabetes or cardiovascular associations, and general associations serving doctors who manage these conditions. METHOD: Payments were identified using publicly available industry transparency reports (October 2015 to April 2018). RESULTS: Overall, 48/197 (24.4%) leaders received payments, predominantly for speaker (51.4%) and advisory board (25.3%) engagements. The proportion of paid leaders was higher for diabetes- and cardiovascular-specific associations (72.7% and 41.2%, respectively) than for general associations (7.6%). DISCUSSION: These findings raise concerns about industry influence on clinical practice and policy.

Pharmaceutical industry funding of events for healthcare professionals on non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in Australia: an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To 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 SETTING: This 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 MEASURES: Characteristics 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. RESULTS: During 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. CONCLUSIONS: Our 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.

Changes in the type and amount of spending disclosed by Australian pharmaceutical companies: an observational study.

OBJECTIVES: To describe and quantify disclosed payments from the pharmaceutical industry to the healthcare sector, and to examine the impact of the 2015 changes to Australia's self-regulated system of transparency. DESIGN: Observational database study. SETTING: Australia. PARTICIPANTS: Publicly available reports submitted by members of Australian pharmaceutical industry trade organisations, Medicines Australia and the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association (GBMA) (October 2011-December 2017). EXPOSURE: Changes to transparency reporting requirements with the updates of pharmaceutical industry Codes of Conduct in 2015. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Elements of healthcare sector spending that members of industry organisations are required to publicly disclose; cumulative amount of disclosed spending (monthly average) in the year prior to and following the revision. RESULTS: There was a 34.1% reduction in disclosed spending from Medicines Australia member companies in the year after the 2015 changes to the Code of Conduct were introduced ($A89 658 566 in the preceding year, October 2014-September 2015; $A59 052 551 in the following year). The new Code allowed for reduced reporting of spending on food and beverages at events and for sponsored healthcare professionals. However, there was enhanced transparency around identification of individual health professionals receiving payments. GBMA member reporting totalled $A2 580 402 in the year prior to the revision, then ceased. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows the limitations of a self-regulatory system around industry disclosure of spending. We advocate for robust regulatory systems, such as legislation, to promote mandatory long-lasting public transparency.

The Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme data collection: a practical guide for researchers.

BACKGROUND: The Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) is Australia's national drug subsidy program. This paper provides a practical guide to researchers using PBS data to examine prescribed medicine use. FINDINGS: Excerpts of the PBS data collection are available in a variety of formats. We describe the core components of four publicly available extracts (the Australian Statistics on Medicines, PBS statistics online, section 85 extract, under co-payment extract). We also detail common analytical challenges and key issues regarding the interpretation of utilisation using the PBS collection and its various extracts. CONCLUSIONS: Research using routinely collected data is increasing internationally. PBS data are a valuable resource for Australian pharmacoepidemiological and pharmaceutical policy research. A detailed knowledge of the PBS, the nuances of data capture, and the extracts available for research purposes are necessary to ensure robust methodology, interpretation, and translation of study findings into policy and practice.