Pharmaceutical marketing: the example of drug samples.

Branded drug samples are one of the most important promotional tools that pharmaceutical manufactures employ. Pharmaceutical sales representatives ("drug reps") use samples to gain access to physicians and other prescribers. Sample provision is closely intertwined with visits by drug reps; detailing visits convince physicians to try new products, while sampling maintains the flow of prescriptions. Only drugs with the highest profit margins are sampled. Although physicians believe that samples save patients money, patients who receive samples have higher overall out-of-pocket costs. Most studies have found that patients in financial need are least likely to receive samples. Pharmaceutical marketers pitch samples as a low-risk way to deal with diagnostic uncertainty. In fact, there is no evidence that samples aid diagnosis. Sample availability may compromise patient safety by reducing compliance with guidelines and steering patients towards newer drugs, for which adverse effects have not been well-delineated. Although physicians believe that samples improve adherence for low-income patients, branded samples do not improve access or adherence Samples are not a charitable activity, but are instead a highly effective form of drug marketing. Sampling of branded drugs increase drug costs for everyone. Only a cohesive effort by clinicians, legislators and policymakers can end this practice. Evidence supports a ban on sample distribution of branded products.

The heart and gut relationship: a systematic review of the evaluation of the microbiome and trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO) in heart failure.

There is an expanding body of research on the bidirectional relationship of the human gut microbiome and cardiovascular disease, including heart failure (HF). Researchers are examining the microbiome and gut metabolites, primarily trimethylamine-N-oxide (TMAO), to understand clinically observed outcomes. This systematic review explored the current state of the science on the evaluation and testing of the gut biome in persons with HF. Using electronic search methods of Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science, until December 2021, we identified 511 HF biome investigations between 2014 and 2021. Of the 30 studies included in the review, six were 16S rRNA and nineteen TMAO, and three both TMAO and 16S rRNA, and two bacterial cultures. A limited range of study designs were represented, the majority involving single cohorts (n = 10) and comparing individuals with HF to controls (n = 15). Patients with HF had less biodiversity in fecal samples compared to controls. TMAO is associated with age, BNP, eGFR, HF severity, and poor outcomes including hospitalizations and mortality. Inconsistent across studies was the ability of TMAO to predict HF development, the independent prognostic value of TMAO when controlling for renal indices, and the relationship of TMAO to LVEF and CRP. Gut microbiome dysbiosis is associated with HF diagnosis, disease severity, and prognostication related to hospitalizations and mortality. Gut microbiome research in patients with HF is developing. Further longitudinal and multi-centered studies are required to inform interventions to promote clinical decision-making and improved patient outcomes.

Evaluating the quality of voice assistants' responses to consumer health questions about vaccines: an exploratory comparison of Alexa, Google Assistant and Siri.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the quality and accuracy of the voice assistants (VAs), Amazon Alexa, Siri and Google Assistant, in answering consumer health questions about vaccine safety and use. METHODS: Responses of each VA to 54 questions related to vaccination were scored using a rubric designed to assess the accuracy of each answer provided through audio output and the quality of the source supporting each answer. RESULTS: Out of a total of 6 possible points, Siri averaged 5.16 points, Google Assistant averaged 5.10 points and Alexa averaged 0.98 points. Google Assistant and Siri understood voice queries accurately and provided users with links to authoritative sources about vaccination. Alexa understood fewer voice queries and did not draw answers from the same sources that were used by Google Assistant and Siri. CONCLUSIONS: Those involved in patient education should be aware of the high variability of results between VAs. Developers and health technology experts should also push for greater usability and transparency about information partnerships as the health information delivery capabilities of these devices expand in the future.