Industry effects on evidence: a case study of long-acting injectable antipsychotics

A vigorously debated issue in the psychiatric literature is whether long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) show clinical benefit over antipsychotics taken orally. In addressing this question, it is critical that systematic reviews incorporate risk of bias assessments of trial data in a robust way and are free of undue industry influence. In this paper, we present a case analysis in which we identify some of the design problems in a recent systematic review on LAIs vs oral formulations. This case illustrates how evidence syntheses that are shaped by commercial interests may undermine patient-centered models of recovery and care. We offer recommendations that address both the bioethical and research design issues that arise in the systematic review process when researchers have financial conflicts of interest.

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.

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.

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.

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 inform clinicians and 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 new 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 (UK) 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/100,000 population) in Australia and the UK 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 UK (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 UK; however neither difference was statistically significant (Australia P=0.445, UK P=0.462). Pioglitazone use fell to a similar extent among older people than younger people in the UK (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. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.

Hydroxyzine Initiation Following Drug Safety Advisories on Cardiac Arrhythmias in the UK and Canada: A Longitudinal Cohort Study

Introduction

Regulatory advisories on hydroxyzine and risk of QT prolongation and Torsade de pointes (TdP) were issued in the UK in April 2015 and Canada in June 2016. We hypothesized patients with risk factors for QT prolongation and TdP, compared with those without risk factors, would be less likely to initiate hydroxyzine in the UK and in British Columbia (BC), Canada, following advisories.

Methods

We conducted a longitudinal study with repeated measures, and evaluated hydroxyzine initiation in a UK cohort and a concurrent BC control cohort (April 2013–March 2016) as well as in a BC advisory cohort (June 2014–May 2017).

Results

This study included 247,665 patients in the UK cohort, 297,147 patients in the BC control cohort, and 303,653 patients in the BC advisory cohort. Over a 12-month post-advisory period, hydroxyzine initiation decreased by 21% in the UK (rate ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.66–0.96) relative to the expected level of initiation based on the pre-advisory trend. Hydroxyzine initiation did not change in the BC control cohort or following the Canadian advisory in the BC advisory cohort. The decrease in hydroxyzine initiation in the UK in the 12 months after the advisories was not significantly different for patients with risk factors compared with those without risk factors.

Conclusion

Hydroxyzine initiation decreased in the UK, but not in BC, in the 12 months following safety advisories. The decrease in hydroxyzine initiation in the UK was not significantly different for patients with versus without risk factors for QT prolongation and TdP.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40264-022-01175-2.

Association Between Conflicts of Interest and Authors' Positions on Harms of Varenicline: a Cross-Sectional Analysis

BACKGROUND

Few studies have investigated the relationship between industry funding/conflicts of interest and authors' positions in opinion pieces on drug safety. Harmful effects of varenicline, a treatment for smoking cessation, have been highly contested.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between pharmaceutical industry funding/authors' financial conflicts of interest and position on varenicline in opinion articles, especially in relation to the minimization of harms; to assess whether opinion pieces on drug safety issues written by authors with conflicts of interest are more frequently cited in the news or social media.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

English language opinion pieces and narrative reviews about varenicline published between May 2006 and February 2019.

MAIN MEASURES

Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals; the Mann-Whitney two-sample statistic was used to test for differences in Altmetric scores, a measure of media attention.

KEY RESULTS

Of the 221 included articles, 30.3% (67) disclosed the funding source and 62.9% (139) disclosed authors' conflicts of interest. Authors of opinion pieces on varenicline who reported financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry (as a conflict of interest or funding source) were more likely to minimise the cardiovascular and psychiatric risk of varenicline compared to those without conflicts of interest or industry funding (OR: 4.00; 95% CI: 1.32 to 12.16 for cardiovascular risk; OR: 8.51; 95% CI: 3.79 to 19.11 for psychiatric risk). These associations persisted in sensitivity analyses. No statistically significant difference in Altmetric score was found between articles with (mean 15.83, median 3) and without (mean 11.90, median 1) conflicts of interest, indicating similar media attention (p-value=0.11).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that authors with financial ties to drug companies were more likely to publish opinion pieces that minimised harms of varenicline. These results raise questions about journals' editorial policies to accept reviews of treatments from authors with financial relationships with manufacturers.

Influence of drug safety advisories on drug utilisation: an international interrupted time series and meta-analysis

Objective

To evaluate the association between regulatory drug safety advisories and changes in drug utilisation.

Design

We conducted controlled, interrupted times series analyses with administrative prescription claims data to estimate changes in drug utilisation following advisories. We used random-effects meta-analysis with inverse-variance weighting to estimate the average postadvisory change in drug utilisation across advisories.

Study population

We included advisories issued in Canada, Denmark, the UK and the USA during 2009–2015, mainly concerning drugs in common use in primary care. We excluded advisories related to over-the-counter drugs, drug-drug interactions, vaccines, drugs used primarily in hospital and advisories with co-interventions within ±6 months.

Main outcome measures

Change in drug utilisation, defined as actual versus predicted percentage change in the number of prescriptions (for advisories without dose-related advice), or in the number of defined daily doses (for dose-related advisories), per 100 000 population.

Results

Among advisories without dose-related advice (n=20), the average change in drug utilisation was −5.83% (95% CI −10.93 to –0.73; p=0.03). Advisories with dose-related advice (n=4) were not associated with a statistically significant change in drug utilisation (−1.93%; 95% CI −17.10 to 13.23; p=0.80). In a post hoc subgroup analysis of advisories without dose-related advice, we observed no statistically significant difference between the change in drug utilisation following advisories with explicit prescribing advice, such as a recommendation to consider the risk of a drug when prescribing, and the change in drug utilisation following advisories without such advice.

Conclusions

Among safety advisories issued on a wide range of drugs during 2009–2015 in 4 countries (Canada, Denmark, the UK and the USA), the association of advisories with changes in drug utilisation was variable, and the average association was modest.

Industry Sponsor Influence in Clinical Trial Reporting in Canada: A Qualitative Interview Study

PURPOSE

Approximately 40% of randomized controlled trials are not published, leading to publication bias and less informed clinical decision-making. Qualitative interviews were conducted to understand whether and how industry sponsors of clinical trials of drugs and biologics in Canada influence decisions to report trial results.

METHODS

Participants eligible for an interview included clinical trial investigators and research coordinators with experience in drug research, research ethics board members with at least 1 year of experience in ethical review of trials, research administrators with knowledge of dissemination of clinical trial findings or relations with trial sponsors, and trial participants who had taken part in a drug trial as an adult in the 5 years before their interview. Semi-structured interviews were held in person or by telephone between March 2019 and April 2021 with participants in Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario, Canada. Qualitative analysis included coding of interview transcripts and identification of key themes.

FINDINGS

Interviews were conducted with 34 participants, including 17 clinical trial investigators, 1 clinical research coordinator, 3 research administrators, 3 research ethics board members, and 10 clinical trial participants. Participants involved in the conduct, administration, or ethical review of trials represented a range of medical disciplines. Interview participant accounts indicated that in some cases, industry sponsors influence whether results are reported. A core theme was that companies have a weaker incentive to publish trials with unfavorable findings and trials for products that they have decided not to develop further. Companies may influence reporting in various ways, including stopping trials early and not reporting results of stopped trials, owning and controlling access to data, and negotiating clinical trial agreements in multicenter trials that do not fully protect the ability of investigators to publish. Internal company trials represent an additional source of unpublished trials. More broadly, the research system creates a dependency on funding from industry sponsors that may weaken the ability of researchers and research institutions to negotiate terms with industry sponsors that would fully protect publication rights.

IMPLICATIONS

Interviews with trial investigators and others connected to trial research indicate that in some cases, industry sponsors of clinical trial research in Canada influence whether results are reported. Policies aiming to bring about full reporting of trials could benefit from considering the commercial incentives of companies and the ways in which industry sponsors may influence clinical trial reporting. Future research could examine the generalizability of these findings to other jurisdictions.

Bremelanotide and flibanserin for low sexual desire in women: the fallacy of regulatory precedent

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved two drugs for 'hypoactive sexual desire disorder' in women, flibanserin (Addyi) in 2015 and bremelanotide (Vyleesi) in 2019. In this paper we examine the outcome measures and clinical trial data upon which regulatory approval was based. In clinical trials, flibanserin led to an average of only one additional enjoyable sexual experience every two months, bremelanotide to none. Trials for both drugs feature shifts in primary outcomes and a contested indication. A politicised industry-sponsored advocacy campaign and conflicted patient and expert testimony likely influenced flibanserin's approval at its third attempt. Bremelanotide, with even weaker efficacy, capitalised on the regulatory precedent set by the approval of flibanserin. Reconsideration of regulatory decisions to approve these drugs is in order, as well as a broader examination of how future regulatory decisions can better address conflicts of interest and clinically meaningful benefit.

"Drugs to avoid" to improve quality use of medicines: how is Australia faring?

BACKGROUND

Each year, the French independent bulletin Prescrire publishes a list of medicines, "Drugs to avoid", that should not be used in clinical practice as their risk-to-benefit ratio is unfavourable. This study assessed the market approval, reimbursement and use of these medicines in Australia.

METHODS

The approval status of the medicines included in 2019 Prescrire "Drugs to avoid" list was assessed by searching the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods website. Funding status was assessed on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) website, the Australian public insurance system. Use levels were determined by examining governmental reports on prescribing rates including the Australian Statistics on Medicines (ASM) reports, drug use reports released by the Drug Utilisation Sub Committee (DUSC) and PBS statistics.

RESULTS

Of the 93 medicines included in the Prescrire 2019 "Drug to avoid" list included, 57 (61%) were approved in Australia in 2019 including 9 (16%) that were sold as over-the-counter medicines, 35 (38%) were listed on the PBS, 22 (24%) were registered but not listed on the PBS. Although most of these medicines were used infrequently, 16 (46%) had substantial use despite serious safety concerns. Dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors were used by 22% of patients receiving a treatment for diabetes in 2016. More than 50,000 patients received an anti-dementia medicine in 2014, a 19% increase since 2009. Denosumab became the 8th medicine, in terms of total sales, funded by the Australian Government in 2017-2018.

CONCLUSIONS

Prescrire's assessments provide a reliable external benchmark to assess the current use of medicines in Australia. Sixteen "drugs to avoid", judged to be more harmful than beneficial based on systematic, independent evidence reviews, are in substantial use in Australia. These results raise serious concerns about the awareness of Australian clinicians of medicine safety and efficacy. Medicines safety has become an Australian National Health Priority. Regulatory and reimbursement agencies should review the marketing and funding status of medicines which have not been shown to provide an efficacy and safety at least similar to alternative therapeutic options.

Over half of clinical practice guidelines use non-systematic methods to inform recommendations: A methods study

INTRODUCTION

Assessing the process used to synthesize the evidence in clinical practice guidelines enables users to determine the trustworthiness of the recommendations. Clinicians are increasingly dependent on guidelines to keep up with vast quantities of medical literature, and guidelines are followed to avoid malpractice suits. We aimed to assess whether systematic methods were used when synthesizing the evidence for guidelines; and to determine the type of review cited in support of recommendations.

METHODS

Guidelines published in 2017 and 2018 were retrieved from the TRIP and Epistemonikos databases. We randomly sorted and sequentially screened clinical guidelines on all topics to select the first 50 that met our inclusion criteria. Our primary outcomes were the number of guidelines using either a systematic or non-systematic process to gather, assess, and synthesise evidence; and the numbers of recommendations within guidelines based on different types of evidence synthesis (systematic or non-systematic reviews). If a review was cited, we looked for evidence that it was critically appraised, and recorded which quality assessment tool was used. Finally, we examined the relation between the use of the GRADE approach, systematic review process, and type of funder.

RESULTS

Of the 50 guidelines, 17 (34%) systematically synthesised the evidence to inform recommendations. These 17 guidelines clearly reported their objectives and eligibility criteria, conducted comprehensive search strategies, and assessed the quality of the studies. Of the 29/50 guidelines that included reviews, 6 (21%) assessed the risk of bias of the review. The quality of primary studies was reported in 30/50 (60%) guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

High quality, systematic review products provide the best available evidence to inform guideline recommendations. Using non-systematic methods compromises the validity and reliability of the evidence used to inform guideline recommendations, leading to potentially misleading and untrustworthy results.

US Food and Drug Administration Safety Advisories and Reporting to the Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS)

BACKGROUND

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other major regulators regularly issue safety advisories about licensed drugs with new adverse effects that have been documented through observational studies, clinical trials, and spontaneously reported adverse drug events.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the possible effects of a representative group of FDA Drug Safety Communications on the reporting of the specific adverse effect featured in the advisory on new cases reported to the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS).

METHODS

We examined 16 FDA Drug Safety Communications issued from 2010 to 2015 that had not previously been the focus of advisories from regulators in the UK, Canada, or Australia. We compared the reports of the adverse effect in the 8 calendar quarters preceding the advisory and in the 4 quarters following. We measured change in reporting frequency by calculating the event reporting odds ratio (ROR) for the post-warning compared to the pre-warning periods. We defined a credible association of the advisory with increased reporting as a ROR ≥ 2.0 and p value of < 0.05 by Fisher's Exact Test.

RESULTS

We found statistically significant increased reporting for 4/16 advisories with RORs that ranged from 3.9 to 40.6. Three advisories had smaller but still statistically significant increases that were less than the ROR ≥ 2.0 threshold. For 7 advisories, we found no statistically significant changes in reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

No consistent pattern or effect was found on spontaneous reporting following these safety advisories. After results were available, we observed that some cases with the largest reporting increase also involved substantial numbers of legal claims. Changes in adverse event reporting following a warning need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.

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

OBJECTIVES

To study how patient groups that accept pharmaceutical industry money perceive and manage the risk of undue influence from their sponsors.

DESIGN

Empirical ethics approach using a qualitative interview study.

SETTING

The Australian patient group sector.

PARTICIPANTS

27 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).

ANALYSIS

Interview 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.

RESULTS

Participants 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.

CONCLUSIONS

It 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.

Regulatory post-market drug safety advisories on cardiac harm: A comparison of four national regulatory agencies

Information on rare adverse effects is often limited when a medication is initially approved for marketing. Medicines regulators use safety advisories to warn health professionals and consumers about emerging harms. This study aimed to identify characteristics and advice provided in cardiac safety advisories released by regulators in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States. This was a retrospective study of safety advisories about cardiac-related adverse events issued by these four international medicines regulators between 2010 and 2016. A descriptive overview was followed by a more detailed content analysis, focusing on recommended actions for health professionals, including monitoring advice. For the latter, we applied the systematic information for monitoring (SIM) scale to assess adequacy. Over this period, 164 safety advisories about cardiac harms were issued by the four regulators. There were 61 drugs with advisories of cardiac risk, only 9 (14.7%) of which had advisories from all regulators in countries where the drug was approved. The most common adverse events were cardiac arrhythmias (n = 97, 59.1%) and coronary artery disorders (n = 39, 23.8%). The most frequent advice to prescribers was to monitor patients (n = 74, 45.1%), although only 41.2% of these advisories provided detailed advice on how monitoring should occur. We found many differences in the decision to warn and the advice provided. Patient monitoring was most often recommended, but key information such as frequency or thresholds for action was often lacking. Healthcare professionals and consumers need consistent information about rare serious harms so that they can make informed decisions.

"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.

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

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.

Industry funding of patient groups: a systematic review

Background

Patient groups play an important role in health care and policy. Concerns have been raised about the financial ties between the pharmaceutical industry and patient groups, because of potential threats to the groups' independence. We conducted a systematic review to synthesise studies that explored pharmaceutical or medical device industry funding of patient groups.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar (from inception to January 2018). We included observational studies reporting at least one of the following outcomes: prevalence of industry funding; proportion of industry funded patient groups which disclosed information about this funding; association between industry funding and organisational positions on health and policy issues. We carried out duplicate independent data extraction and assessed study quality.

Results

26 cross-sectional studies were included. Fifteen studies assessed the prevalence of industry funding, which ranged from 20% (12/61) to 83% (86/104). The proportion of patient groups which disclosed funding information on their websites was low (27% [95% CI: 24%-31%]). Few patient groups had formal policies governing corporate sponsorship (range from 2% (2/125) to 64% (175/274)). Among the few studies examining funding status versus organisational position, industry sponsored groups tend to hold positions consistent with sponsors' interests.

Conclusions

We found widespread indications of industry funding of patient groups. Transparency of funding is inadequate and the prevalence of policies governing corporate sponsorship is low. Research on policy impact is still limited. Considering the important role that patient groups play in health, strategies to prevent biases that may favour commercial interests above those of patients need to be implemented.

Key messages

Industry funding of patient groups is common in high income countries. Transparency of funding is inadequate and the prevalence of policies governing corporate sponsorship is low. Considering the important role that patient groups play in health care and policy, strategies to prevent biases that may favour commercial interests above those of patients need to be implemented.

Media coverage of drug regulatory agencies' safety advisories: A case study of citalopram and denosumab

AIMS

Drug regulators issue safety advisories to warn clinicians and the public about new evidence of harmful effects of medicines. It is unclear how often these messages are covered by the media. Our aim was to analyse the extent of media coverage of two medicines that were subject to safety advisories from 2007 to 2016 in Australia, Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States.

METHODS

Two medicines widely used to treat mental health or physical conditions were selected: citalopram and denosumab. Media reports were identified by searching LexisNexis and Factiva. Reports were included if they stated at least one health benefit or harm. A content analysis of the reports was conducted.

RESULTS

In total, 195 media reports on citalopram and 239 on denosumab were included. For citalopram, 43.1% (84/195) of the reports mentioned benefits, 85.6% (167/195) mentioned harms and 9.7% (19/195) mentioned the harm described in the advisories (cardiac arrhythmia). For denosumab, 94.1% (225/239) of the reports mentioned benefits and 39.7% (95/239) mentioned harms. The harms described in the advisories were rarely mentioned: 10.9% (26/239) of the reports mentioned osteonecrosis and ≤5% mentioned any of the other harms (atypical fractures, hypocalcaemia, serious infections and dermatologic reactions).

CONCLUSIONS

We found limited media coverage of the harms highlighted in safety advisories. Almost two-thirds of the media stories on denosumab did not include any information about harms, despite the many advisories during this time frame. Citalopram coverage covered harms more often but rarely mentioned cardiac arrhythmias. These findings raise questions about how to better ensure that regulatory risk communications reach the general public.

A Cohort Study of Psychotropic Prescription Drug Use in Pregnancy in British Columbia, Canada from 1997 to 2010

Background: Psychiatric conditions are relatively common during pregnancy, and many of these conditions are treated with psychotropic medications. In this article, we aim to quantify the rate of pregnancy-related exposures and describe how psychotropic medications are being used in pregnancy. Materials and Methods: We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all pregnancies ending in a live birth in the Canadian province of British Columbia between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 2010. We examined antipsychotic, anxiolytic, antidepressant, and stimulants use during pregnancy. We describe use of these medications across the pregnancy period, in terms of incident and prevalent use in pregnancy and whether women had corresponding diagnoses for mental health conditions. Results: We included 424,307 pregnancies, of whom 7.1% were dispensed a psychotropic medication. The most commonly used psychotropic medications were antidepressants (4.2%) followed by anxiolytics (3.4%). Among psychotropic medication users, the most commonly associated psychiatric diagnosis was major depressive disorder (43.2%) followed by anxiety (15.8%) and adjustment reaction and/or acute stress (15.8%). The majority of antidepressant use was prevalent (continued from preconception period), whereas most anxiolytic use was incident (no prescriptions in the 6 months before conception). Conclusions: The relatively high rate of use of psychotropic drugs in this cohort, and the existence of effective alternative treatments for the commonly treated conditions suggests a need to improve access to nondrug options before and during pregnancy. The finding that fewer women are discontinuing their antidepressants during pregnancy should be further investigated.

Industry funding of patient and health consumer organisations: systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate pharmaceutical or medical device industry funding of patient groups.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar from inception to January 2018; reference lists of eligible studies and experts in the field.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Observational studies including cross sectional, cohort, case-control, interrupted time series, and before-after studies of patient groups reporting at least one of the following outcomes: prevalence of industry funding; proportion of industry funded patient groups that disclosed information about this funding; and association between industry funding and organisational positions on health and policy issues. Studies were included irrespective of language or publication type.

REVIEW METHODS

Reviewers carried out duplicate independent data extraction and assessment of study quality. An amended version of the checklist for prevalence studies developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute was used to assess study quality. A DerSimonian-Laird estimate of single proportions with Freeman-Tukey arcsine transformation was used for meta-analyses of prevalence. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome.

RESULTS

26 cross sectional studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 15 studies estimated the prevalence of industry funding, which ranged from 20% (12/61) to 83% (86/104). Among patient organisations that received industry funding, 27% (175/642; 95% confidence interval 24% to 31%) disclosed this information on their websites. In submissions to consultations, two studies showed very different disclosure rates (0% and 91%), which appeared to reflect differences in the relevant government agency's disclosure requirements. Prevalence estimates of organisational policies that govern corporate sponsorship ranged from 2% (2/125) to 64% (175/274). Four studies analysed the relationship between industry funding and organisational positions on a range of highly controversial issues. Industry funded groups generally supported sponsors' interests.

CONCLUSION

In general, industry funding of patient groups seems to be common, with prevalence estimates ranging from 20% to 83%. Few patient groups have policies that govern corporate sponsorship. Transparency about corporate funding is also inadequate. Among the few studies that examined associations between industry funding and organisational positions, industry funded groups tended to have positions favourable to the sponsor. Patient groups have an important role in advocacy, education, and research, therefore strategies are needed to prevent biases that could favour the interests of sponsors above those of the public.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017079265.

Impact and use of reviews and 'overviews of reviews' to inform clinical practice guideline recommendations: protocol for a methods study

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines are systematically developed recommendations to assist practitioner and patient decisions about treatments for clinical conditions. High quality and comprehensive systematic reviews and 'overviews of systematic reviews' (overviews) represent the best available evidence. Many guideline developers, such as the WHO and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, recommend the use of these research syntheses to underpin guideline recommendations. We aim to evaluate the impact and use of systematic reviews with and without pairwise meta-analysis or network meta-analyses (NMAs) and overviews in clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

CPGs will be retrieved from Turning Research Into Practice and Epistemonikos (2017-2018). The retrieved citations will be sorted randomly and then screened sequentially by two independent reviewers until 50 CPGs have been identified. We will include CPGs that provide at least two explicit recommendations for the management of any clinical condition. We will assess whether reviews or overviews were cited in a recommendation as part of the development process for guidelines. Data extraction will be done independently by two authors and compared. We will assess the risk of bias by examining how each guideline developed clinical recommendations. We will calculate the number and frequency of citations of reviews with or without pairwise meta-analysis, reviews with NMAs and overviews, and whether they were systematically or non-systematically developed. Results will be described, tabulated and categorised based on review type (reviews or overviews). CPGs reporting the use of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be compared with those using a different system, and pharmacological versus non-pharmacological CPGs will be compared.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethics approval is required. We will present at the Cochrane Colloquium and the Guidelines International Network conference.