Information on medicines: Does independence from industry influence matter?

No abstract available.

Conflict of interest policies at Australian medical schools.

BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical industry exposure is widespread during medical training and may affect education and clinical decision-making. Medical faculties' conflict of interest (COI) policies help to limit this exposure and protect students against commercial influence. AIMS: Our aim was to investigate the prevalence, content and strength of COI policies at Australian medical schools and changes since a previous assessment conducted in 2009. METHODS: We identified policies by searching medical school and host university websites in January 2021, and contacted deans to identify any missed policies. We applied a modified version of a scorecard developed in previous studies to examine the content of COI policies. All data were coded in duplicate. COI policies were rated on a scale from 0 (no policy) to 2 (strong policy) across 11 items per medical school. Oversight mechanisms and sanctions were also assessed, and current policies were compared with the 2009 study. RESULTS: Of 155 potentially relevant policies, 153 were university-wide and two were specific to medical schools. No policies covered sales representatives, on-site sponsored education or free samples. Oversight of consultancies had improved substantially, with 76% of schools requiring preapproval. Disclosure policies, while usually present, were weak, with no public disclosure required. CONCLUSION: We found little indication that Australian medical students are protected from commercial influence on medical education, and there has been limited COI policy development within the past decade. More attention is needed to ensure the independence of medical education in Australia.

Semaglutide: a new drug for the treatment of obesity.

Semaglutide (▼Ozempic solution for injection, ▼Rybelsus tablets-Novo Nordisk) was initially granted market authorisation for the treatment of type 2 diabetes as an adjunct to diet and exercise. In 2021 and 2022, regulatory agencies in the USA and Europe licensed semaglutide (▼Wegovy solution for injection-Novo Nordisk) for the treatment of individuals who are obese, or overweight and who have at least one weight-related comorbidity. Manufacturer-sponsored randomised controlled trials have shown a loss of almost 12% of body weight over a 68-week period, however, once the medication is stopped people regain most of their pretreatment weight. Gastrointestinal adverse events occur commonly with semaglutide, and pancreatitis, diabetic retinopathy and severe allergic reactions have also been reported. Extensive hype in social and general media has resulted in increased demand for semaglutide leading to supply problems across the various licensed products including those used for treatment of diabetes. In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence has recommended semaglutide as an option for weight management for a maximum treatment duration of 2 years. Further studies are underway to assess the effect of semaglutide on longer-term health benefits.

Barriers and facilitators to reducing paracetamol use in low back pain: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Paracetamol is widely used for low back pain (LBP), but research questions its efficacy and safety. Patient education booklets have been explored for promoting deprescribing, but barriers and facilitators specific to LBP deprescribing remain unexamined. OBJECTIVE: To identify contextual factors facilitating and obstructing successful deprescribing of paracetamol for LBP after receiving an educational booklet. STUDY DESIGN: This study is part of an uncontrolled cohort feasibility study (CEASE NOW) in the community, recruiting from Musculoskeletal Australia and painaustralia. PATIENT SAMPLE: Twenty-four participants with acute, sub-acute, or chronic LBP, self-reporting paracetamol consumption, were included. METHODS: Thematic content analysis was used to analyze qualitative data on barriers and facilitators. Data were categorized by deprescribing outcomes: i) successful deprescribing, ii) attempted but failed, or iii) no attempt. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted within one week after each participant completed the one-month follow-up. RESULTS: Successful deprescribing was facilitated by supportive healthcare professionals, willingness, high self-efficacy, fear of future illness, and diverse strategies for deprescribing plans. Barriers included unsupportive healthcare professionals and fear of flare-ups. Participants not attempting deprescribing believed it unnecessary, perceived it as effortful, unquestioningly trusted healthcare professionals, and lacked risk awareness. CONCLUSIONS: Support from healthcare professionals, patient willingness, perceived necessity, risk awareness, effort, and varied strategies influence deprescribing outcomes for LBP patients using paracetamol. Addressing these factors is crucial when designing interventions to promote safe and effective deprescribing in LBP management.

Interactions between Australian cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand how and why Australian cancer physicians interact with the pharmaceutical industry. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews, performed by a medical oncologist. Thematic analysis using a combination of deductive and inductive codes. SETTING: Given the evidence on industry influences on clinical practice and the importance to the market of oncology drugs, we sought to better understand cancer physicians' experiences. Practising consultant medical oncologists and clinical haematologists from four Australian states were interviewed over Zoom. PARTICIPANTS: 16 cancer physicians were interviewed between November 2021 and March 2022, from 37 invited (response rate 43%). Most were medical oncologists (n=12 of 16, 75%) and male (n=9 of 16, 56%). OUTCOME MEASURES: The analysis of all interviews was based on grounded theory. Transcripts were coded and then codes formed into themes with supporting quotes. The themes were then placed into categories, used to describe the broad areas into which the themes could be grouped. RESULTS: Six themes were identified that fell within two broad categories: cancer physicians' views and experiences of interactions and management of these interactions. Views and experiences included: the transactional nature of relationships, risks of research dependence, ethical challenges and varied attitudes based on interaction type. Management themes included: lack of useful guidance and reduced interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic. These led to an overarching seventh theme, on the desire for a 'middle road'. Cancer physicians identified the transactional nature of industry relationships and felt uncomfortable with several types of interactions, including those with sales representatives. Most wanted less contact with industry, and the forced separation that occurred with the COVID-19 pandemic was generally welcome. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer physicians may have difficulty balancing the perceived need to interact with industry in modern cancer care while maintaining distance to minimise conflicts of interest. Further research is needed to assess management strategies in this area.

Public reporting of clinical trial findings as an ethical responsibility to participants: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To understand how the experiences and views of trial participants, trial investigators and others connected to clinical trial research relate to whether researchers have a duty to participants to publicly report research findings. DESIGN: Qualitative interview study. SETTING: Semistructured interviews held in person or by telephone between March 2019 and April 2021 with participants in the Canadian provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. PARTICIPANTS: 34 participants, including 10 clinical trial participants, 17 clinical trial investigators, 1 clinical research coordinator, 3 research administrators and 3 research ethics board members. ANALYSIS: We conducted a thematic analysis, including qualitative coding of interview transcripts and identification of key themes. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Key themes identified through qualitative coding of interview data. RESULTS: Most clinical trial participants felt that reporting clinical trial results is important. Accounts of trial participants suggest their contributions are part of a reciprocal relationship involving the expectation that research will advance medical knowledge. Similarly, comments from trial investigators suggest that reporting trial results is part of reciprocity with trial participants and is a necessary part of honouring informed consent. Accounts of trial investigators suggest that when drug trials are not reported, this may undermine informed consent in subsequent trials by withholding information on harms or efficacy relevant to informed decisions on whether to conduct or enroll in future trials of similar drugs. CONCLUSION: The views of trial participants, trial investigators and others connected to clinical trial research in Canada suggest that researchers have an obligation to participants to publicly report clinical trial results and that reporting results is necessary for honouring informed consent.

Communication of anticancer drug benefits and related uncertainties to patients and clinicians: document analysis of regulated information on prescription drugs in Europe.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the frequency with which relevant and accurate information about the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs are communicated to patients and clinicians in regulated information sources in Europe. DESIGN: Document content analysis. SETTING: European Medicines Agency. PARTICIPANTS: Anticancer drugs granted a first marketing authorisation by the European Medicines Agency, 2017-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Whether written information on a product addressed patients' commonly asked questions about: who and what the drug is used for; how the drug was studied; types of drug benefit expected; and the extent of weak, uncertain, or missing evidence for drug benefits. Information on drug benefits in written sources for clinicians (summaries of product characteristics), patients (patient information leaflets), and the public (public summaries) was compared with information reported in regulatory assessment documents (European public assessment reports). RESULTS: 29 anticancer drugs that received a first marketing authorisation for 32 separate cancer indications in 2017-19 were included. General information about the drug (including information on approved indications and how the drug works) was frequently reported across regulated information sources aimed at both clinicians and patients. Nearly all summaries of product characteristics communicated full information to clinicians about the number and design of the main studies, the control arm (if any), study sample size, and primary measures of drug benefit. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information to patients about how drugs were studied. 31 (97%) summaries of product characteristics and 25 (78%) public summaries contained information about drug benefits that was accurate and consistent with information in regulatory assessment documents. The presence or absence of evidence that a drug extended survival was reported in 23 (72%) summaries of product characteristics and four (13%) public summaries. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information about the drug benefits that patients might expect based on study findings. Scientific concerns about the reliability of evidence on drug benefits, which were raised by European regulatory assessors for almost all drugs in the study sample, were rarely communicated to clinicians, patients, or the public. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study highlight the need to improve the communication of the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs in regulated information sources in Europe to support evidence informed decision making by patients and their clinicians.

Factors relating to nonpublication and publication bias in clinical trials in Canada: A qualitative interview study.

AIMS: This study aims to understand factors contributing to nonpublication and publication bias in clinical trials in Canada. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted between March 2019 and April 2021 with 34 participants from the Canadian provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, including 17 clinical trial investigators, 1 clinical research coordinator, 3 research administrators, 3 research ethics board members and 10 clinical trial participants. We conducted a thematic analysis involving coding of interview transcripts and memo-writing to identify key themes. RESULTS: Several factors contribute to nonpublication and publication bias in clinical trial research. A core theme was that reporting practices are shaped by incentives within the research system taht favour publication of positive over negative trials. Investigators are discouraged from reporting by experiences or perceptions of difficulty in publishing negative findings but rewarded for publishing positive findings in various ways. Trial investigators more strongly associated positive clinical trials than negative trials with opportunities for industry and nonindustry funding and with academic promotion, bonuses and recognition. Research institutions and ethics boards tended to lack well-resourced, proactive policies and practices to ensure trial findings are reported in registries or journals. CONCLUSION: Clinical trial reporting practices in Canada are shaped by incentives favouring reporting of positive over negative trials, such as funding opportunities and academic promotion, bonuses and recognition. Research institutions could help change incentives by adopting performance metrics that emphasize full reporting of results in journals or registries.

(C)onsumer focused (E)ducation on p(A)racetamol (S)ide (E)ffects, i(N)adequate (O)utcomes and (W)eaning (CEASE NOW) for individuals with low back pain: results of a feasibility study.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the feasibility of a patient-education booklet to support patients with low back pain (LBP) to reduce paracetamol intake. DESIGN: Single group, repeated measures feasibility study. SETTING: Community. PARTICIPANTS: Adults experiencing LBP of any kind and self-reporting consumption of paracetamol for LBP weekly for at least 1 month were invited to participate. INTERVENTION: Participants received a patient-education booklet 1 week after the baseline measures were collected. The intervention was designed to change beliefs, increase knowledge and self-efficacy to deprescribe paracetamol for their LBP and create discussion with a health professional through the mechanisms of motivation, capacity and opportunity. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Feasibility of recruitment procedures, data collection and acceptability of the intervention. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Changes in motivation, self-efficacy, opportunity to deprescribe paracetamol for their LBP, paracetamol usage and LBP clinical outcomes at baseline, 1-week and 1-month follow-up. RESULTS: A total of 24 participants were recruited into the study within the timeframe of 3 months from study advertisement and all completed the study follow-up. There were no missing data for any outcome measure across all follow-up points, 22 (91.6%) participants were willing to participate in a future randomised control trial (RCT) and over 60% of participants responded positively to questions regarding acceptability of the patient-educational booklet. Overall, at the 1-month follow-up, approximately two thirds (15/24) of participants had an increase in motivation and self-efficacy scores and had discussed or intended to discuss their paracetamol use for LBP with a health professional. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study demonstrate that the patient-education booklet is feasible to implement, and both the intervention and study design were well-received by participants. This study supports the undertaking an RCT to assess the effects of the patient-education booklet on deprescribing paracetamol in people with LBP.

How do safety warnings on medicines affect prescribing?

INTRODUCTION: Many adverse effects of medicines only become known after approval, prompting regulatory agencies to issue post-market safety advisories to support safer care. Our team evaluated advisories issued by national regulators in Australia, Canada, Denmark, the United Kingdom, and the United States from 2007 to 2016 inclusive, comparing regulators' decisions to warn, effects on prescribing, doctors' awareness and responses to warnings, relevant regulatory policies, and specific case studies. AREAS COVERED: Based mainly on our research program and a narrative review, this commentary describes how often regulators issue safety advisories and effects on clinical practice. We found extensive differences in decisions to warn, timing and content of warnings. Monitoring advice is often inadequate. The most systematic estimate suggests an average reduction in prescribing of around 6% compared with settings with no advisory. Interviews with doctors suggest limited awareness, uptake, and at times belief in these warnings. EXPERT OPINION: Post-market safety advisories are an important intervention aiming to improve prescribing and use of medicines. However, differing warnings mean that some patients may be exposed to riskier prescribing than others. Better integration of safety information into clinical practice is needed, as well as improved transparency, independence, and public engagement in regulatory decision-making.

Pioglitazone use in Australia and the United Kingdom following drug safety advisories on bladder cancer risk: An interrupted time series study.

PURPOSE: National regulators in Australia and the United Kingdom issued safety advisories on the association between pioglitazone use and bladder cancer in July 2011. The Australian advisory noted that males were at higher risk of bladder cancer than females, while the UK advisory highlighted a new recommendation, suggest careful consideration in the elderly due to increasing risk with age. This study examined whether these differences in the advisories had different age- and sex-based impacts in each country. METHODS: Interrupted time series analysis was used to compare pioglitazone use (prescriptions/100000 population) in Australia and the United Kingdom for the 24 months before and 11 months after the July 2011 safety advisories (study period July 2009-June 2012). Separate models were used to compare use by sex and age group (≥65 years vs. <65 years) in each country. RESULTS: Pioglitazone use fell in Australia (17%) and the United Kingdom (24%) following the safety advisories. Use of pioglitazone fell more for males (18%) than females (16%) in Australia, and more for females (25%) than males (23%) in the United Kingdom; however, neither difference was statistically significant (Australia p = 0.445, United Kingdom p = 0.462). Pioglitazone use fell to a similar extent among older people than younger people in the United Kingdom (23% vs. 26%, p = 0.354), and did not differ between age groups in Australia (both 18%, p = 0.772). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that differences in the Australian and UK safety advisories resulted in substantial reductions in pioglitazone use at the population level in both countries, however, differences by sub-groups were not observed.

Permissive regulation: A critical review of the regulatory history of buprenorphine formulations in Canada.

Suboxone (buprenorphine-naloxone) is an opioid product approved in the US and Canada for the treatment of opioid use disorder. The drug is considered an important response to the opioid overdose epidemic with consistent calls for wider prescribing and deregulation. The history of Suboxone regulation in Canada has not been critically examined. Part of the rationale for doing so stems from the US regulatory experience, with documented irregularities, or what some have called abuses, that support profit-making by Suboxone's manufacturers. This regulatory analysis allows us to determine how opportunities to address health crises through drug innovation are managed at a federal level. We used public drug and patent registries to critically examine Suboxone's Canadian history. First, we investigated Suboxone's entry into the Canadian market to understand how it achieved market exclusivity. Second, we examined Health Canada's risk mitigation process to address extramedical use and diversion to understand the intersection of regulation and brand promotion. Insights from these two analyses were then extended to the recent approval of two related buprenorphine-containing products and their specific pathways to Canadian market exclusivity. We identified inconsistencies in Suboxone's regulatory history that suggest Health Canada's functions of health protection and promotion were compromised in favour of an "innovations" agenda that supports profit-making. Despite six years of market exclusivity in Canada, there was no evidence suggesting Suboxone achieved formal exclusivity (i.e., through patent or data protection). Health Canada's process to address safety concerns of Suboxone were compromised by reliance on the manufacturer to carry out post-market education, allowing the manufacturer to create and market a branded "education" program for its product. Similar inconsistencies have afforded market exclusivity for two related products despite marginal innovation. These analyses reveal a case of permissive regulation, where principles of health protection are compromised by economic imperatives. Such a regulatory approach has the potential to adversely impact public health due to unnecessarily high costs for medicines deemed essential to stem a major health crisis. Alternative pharmaceutical policies are urgently needed to safely and efficiently expand treatment access for opioid use disorder.