Complaints, Complainants, and Rulings Regarding Drug Promotion in the United Kingdom and Sweden 2004–2012: A Quantitative and Qualitative Study of Pharmaceutical Industry Self-Regulation


Background:
In many European countries, medicines promotion is governed by voluntary codes of practice administered by the pharmaceutical industry under its own system of self-regulation. Involvement of industry organizations in policing promotion has been proposed to deter illicit conduct, but few detailed studies on self-regulation have been carried out to date. The objective of this study was to examine the evidence for promotion and self-regulation in the UK and Sweden, two countries frequently cited as examples of effective self-regulation.

Methods and Findings:
We performed a qualitative content analysis of documents outlining the constitutions and procedures of these two systems. We also gathered data from self-regulatory bodies on complaints, complainants, and rulings for the period 2004–2012. The qualitative analysis revealed similarities and differences between the countries. For example, self-regulatory bodies in both countries are required to actively monitor promotional items and impose sanctions on violating companies, but the range of sanctions is greater in the UK where companies may, for instance, be audited or publicly reprimanded. In total, Swedish and UK bodies ruled that 536 and 597 cases, respectively, were in breach, equating to an average of more than one case/week for each country. In Sweden, 430 (47%) complaints resulted from active monitoring, compared with only two complaints (0.2%) in the UK. In both countries, a majority of violations concerned misleading promotion. Charges incurred on companies averaged €447,000 and €765,000 per year in Sweden and the UK, respectively, equivalent to about 0.014% and 0.0051% of annual sales revenues, respectively. One hundred cases in the UK (17% of total cases in breach) and 101 (19%) in Sweden were highlighted as particularly serious. A total of 46 companies were ruled in breach of code for a serious offence at least once in the two countries combined (n = 36 in the UK; n = 27 in Sweden); seven companies were in serious violation more than ten times each. A qualitative content analysis of serious violations pertaining to diabetes drugs (UK, n = 15; Sweden, n = 6; 10% of serious violations) and urologics (UK, n = 6; Sweden, n = 13; 9%) revealed various types of violations: misleading claims (n = 23; 58%); failure to comply with undertakings (n = 9; 23%); pre-licensing (n = 7; 18%) or off-label promotion (n = 2; 5%); and promotion of prescription drugs to the public (n = 6; 15%). Violations that go undetected or unpunished by self-regulatory bodies are the main limitation of this study, since they are likely to lead to an underestimate of industry misconduct.

Conclusions:
The prevalence and severity of breaches testifies to a discrepancy between the ethical standard codified in industry Codes of Conduct and the actual conduct of the industry. We discuss regulatory reforms that may improve the quality of medicines information, such as pre-vetting and intensified active monitoring of promotion, along with larger fines, and giving greater publicity to rulings. But despite the importance of improving regulatory arrangements in an attempt to ensure unbiased medicines information, such efforts alone are insufficient because simply improving oversight and increasing penalties fail to address additional layers of industry bias.


Vyšlo v časopise: Complaints, Complainants, and Rulings Regarding Drug Promotion in the United Kingdom and Sweden 2004–2012: A Quantitative and Qualitative Study of Pharmaceutical Industry Self-Regulation. PLoS Med 12(2): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001785
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001785

Souhrn

Background:
In many European countries, medicines promotion is governed by voluntary codes of practice administered by the pharmaceutical industry under its own system of self-regulation. Involvement of industry organizations in policing promotion has been proposed to deter illicit conduct, but few detailed studies on self-regulation have been carried out to date. The objective of this study was to examine the evidence for promotion and self-regulation in the UK and Sweden, two countries frequently cited as examples of effective self-regulation.

Methods and Findings:
We performed a qualitative content analysis of documents outlining the constitutions and procedures of these two systems. We also gathered data from self-regulatory bodies on complaints, complainants, and rulings for the period 2004–2012. The qualitative analysis revealed similarities and differences between the countries. For example, self-regulatory bodies in both countries are required to actively monitor promotional items and impose sanctions on violating companies, but the range of sanctions is greater in the UK where companies may, for instance, be audited or publicly reprimanded. In total, Swedish and UK bodies ruled that 536 and 597 cases, respectively, were in breach, equating to an average of more than one case/week for each country. In Sweden, 430 (47%) complaints resulted from active monitoring, compared with only two complaints (0.2%) in the UK. In both countries, a majority of violations concerned misleading promotion. Charges incurred on companies averaged €447,000 and €765,000 per year in Sweden and the UK, respectively, equivalent to about 0.014% and 0.0051% of annual sales revenues, respectively. One hundred cases in the UK (17% of total cases in breach) and 101 (19%) in Sweden were highlighted as particularly serious. A total of 46 companies were ruled in breach of code for a serious offence at least once in the two countries combined (n = 36 in the UK; n = 27 in Sweden); seven companies were in serious violation more than ten times each. A qualitative content analysis of serious violations pertaining to diabetes drugs (UK, n = 15; Sweden, n = 6; 10% of serious violations) and urologics (UK, n = 6; Sweden, n = 13; 9%) revealed various types of violations: misleading claims (n = 23; 58%); failure to comply with undertakings (n = 9; 23%); pre-licensing (n = 7; 18%) or off-label promotion (n = 2; 5%); and promotion of prescription drugs to the public (n = 6; 15%). Violations that go undetected or unpunished by self-regulatory bodies are the main limitation of this study, since they are likely to lead to an underestimate of industry misconduct.

Conclusions:
The prevalence and severity of breaches testifies to a discrepancy between the ethical standard codified in industry Codes of Conduct and the actual conduct of the industry. We discuss regulatory reforms that may improve the quality of medicines information, such as pre-vetting and intensified active monitoring of promotion, along with larger fines, and giving greater publicity to rulings. But despite the importance of improving regulatory arrangements in an attempt to ensure unbiased medicines information, such efforts alone are insufficient because simply improving oversight and increasing penalties fail to address additional layers of industry bias.


Zdroje

1. Kesselheim AS, Mello MM, Studdert DM (2011) Strategies and practices in off-label marketing of pharmaceuticals: a retrospective analysis of whistleblower complaints. PLoS Med 8: e1000431. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000431 21483716

2. Gøtzsche PC (2012) Big pharma often commits corporate crime, and this must be stopped. BMJ 345:e8462. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e8462 23241451

3. Davis C, Abraham J (2013) Is there a cure for corporate crime in the drug industry. BMJ 346:f755. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f755 23390241

4. Osborn JE (2010) Can I tell you the truth? A comparative perspective on regulating off-label scientific and medical information. Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics 10: 299–356. 20681438

5. Comité de Déontovigilance des Entreprises du Médicament (Codeem) (2013) Self-regulation: ethics surveillance and monitoring systems in the pharmaceutical industry in Europe. Available: http://www.leem.org/sites/default/files/Rapport%20syst%C3%A8me%20de%20veille%20d%C3%A9ontologique%20%2B%20annexes.pdf. Accessed 4 August 2014.

6. Lynch R, Kupiec R (2005) Worldwide survey on national controls of pharmaceutical advertising and promotion. Regulatory Rapporteur 2: 7–10.

7. Lexchin J (2012) Models for financing the regulation of pharmaceutical promotion. Global Health 8: 24. doi: 10.1186/1744-8603-8-24 22784944

8. Francer J, Izquierdo JZ, Music T, Narsai K, Nikidis C, et al. (2014) Ethical pharmaceutical promotion and communications worldwide: codes and regulations. Philos Ethics Humanit Med 9:7. doi: 10.1186/1747-5341-9-7 24679064

9. Korenstein D, Keyhani S, Mendelson A, Ross JS (2011) Adherence of pharmaceutical advertisements in medical journals to FDA guidelines and content for safe prescribing. PLoS ONE 6: e23336. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0023336 21858076

10. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (2008) EFPIA contribution to the European Commission public consultation on a legal proposal on information to patients. Brussels: EFPIA. 13 p. 25506952

11. Medical Products Agency (2009) Tre av fyra granskade reklamärenden i strid med läkemedelslagen. Information från Läkemedelsverket 20: 6. doi: 10.1083/jcb.201410042 25601405

12. Elizabeth S (2013) UK regulator is to take lighter approach to drug advertisements. BMJ 346: f1396. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1396 23457238

13. Doran E, Löfgren H (2013) Drug promotion in Australia: policy contestation and the tightening of regulation. Australian Review of Public Affairs 11: 19–41.

14. Swedish Association of the Pharmaceutical Industry (LIF) (2014) Ethical rules for the pharmaceutical industry in Sweden. Avaialble: http://www.lif.se/default.aspx?id=24553&ptid=0. Accessed 4 August 2014.

15. Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) (2014) Code of Practice for the pharmaceutical industry. Available: http://www.pmcpa.org.uk/thecode/InteractiveCode2014/Pages/default.aspx. Accessed 4 August 2014.

16. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) (2013) EFPIA code on the promotion of prescription-only medicines to, and interaction with, healthcare professionals. Available: http://www.efpia.eu/uploads/documents/efpia-hcp-code.pdf. Accessed 4 August 2014.

17. International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) (2012) IFPMA Code of Practice. Available: http://www.ifpma.org/ethics/ifpma-code-of-practice/ifpma-code-of-practice.html. Accessed 4 August 2014.

18. Herxheimer A, Collier J (1990) Promotion by the British pharmaceutical industry, 1983–8: a critical analysis of self regulation. BMJ 300: 307–311. 2106963

19. Lexchin J (1997) Enforcement of codes governing pharmaceutical promotion: What happens when companies breach advertising guidelines? CMAJ 156: 351–356. 9033415

20. Zetterqvist AV, Mulinari S (2013) Misleading advertising for antidepressants in Sweden: a failure of pharmaceutical industry self-regulation. PLoS ONE 8:e62609. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0062609 23650519

21. Devlin E, Hastings G, Smith A, McDermott L, Noble G (2007) Pharmaceutical marketing: a question of regulation. J Publ Aff 7: 135–147.

22. Davis C, Abraham J (2011) A comparative analysis of risk management strategies in European Union and United States pharmaceutical regulation. Health Risk Soc 13: 413–431.

23. Graneheim UH, Lundman B (2004) Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today 24:105–112. 14769454

24. Hawe E, Cockcroft L (2013) OHE Guide to UK health and health care statistics. London: Office of Health Economics. 181 pp. doi: 10.1007/s13197-013-0993-z 25598746

25. Health and Social Care Information Centre (2013) Hospital prescribing: England 2012. Available: http://www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB12651/hosp-pres-eng-2012-rep.pdf. Accessed 4 August 2014.

26. Apoteket Service AB (2013) Läkemedelsförsäljningen i Sverige 2012. Available: http://www.ehalsomyndigheten.se/Documents/statistik/lakemedelsforsaljning_sverige_2012.pdf. Accessed 4 August 2014.

27. The Swedish Riksbank (2014) Annual average exchange rates. Available: http://www.riksbank.se/sv/Rantor-och-valutakurser/Arsgenomsnitt-valutakurser/?y=1993&m=2&s=Comma. Accessed 4 August 2014.

28. Bank of England (2014) Statistical Interactive Database-daily spot exchange rates against Euro. Available: http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/boeapps/iadb/Rates.asp?into=EUR. Accessed 4 August 2014.

29. IMS Health (2012) Top 20 global corporations 2012. Available: http://www.imshealth.com/deployedfiles/ims/Global/Content/Corporate/Press%20Room/Top-Line%20Market%20Data%20&%20Trends/Top_20_Global_Corporations_2012.pdf. Accessed 23 September 2014.

30. Medical Products Agency (2001) Marknadsföring av läkemedel 2000. Information från Läkemedelsverket 3: 5–6.

31. Kornfield R, Donohue J, Berndt ER, Alexander GC (2013) Promotion of prescription drugs to consumers and providers, 2001–2010. PLoS ONE 8: e55504. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0055504 23469165

32. IMS Health (2012) Total US promotional spend by type, 2011. Available: http://www.imshealth.com/deployedfiles/ims/Global/Content/Corporate/Press%20Room/Top-Line%20Market%20Data%20&%20Trends/2011%20Top-line%20Market%20Data/Promo_Spend_By_Type.pdf. Accessed 23 September 2014.

33. Mintzes B, Lexchin J, Sutherland JM, Beaulieu MD, Wilkes MS, et al. (2013) Pharmaceutical sales representatives and patient safety: a comparative prospective study of information quality in Canada, France and the United States. J Gen Intern Med 28: 1368–1375. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2411-7 23558775

34. Ziegler MG, Lew P, Singer BC (1995) The accuracy of drug information from pharmaceutical sales representatives. JAMA 273:1296–12988. 7715044

35. Lexchin J (2003) Voluntary self-regulatory codes: what should we expect? Am J Bioeth 3: 49–50. 14744333

36. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) (2005) Memorandum of understanding between the ABPI, the PMCPA and the MHRA. Available: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/pl-a/documents/websiteresources/con2022582.pdf. Accessed 4 August 2014.

37. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) (2014) Advertising of medicines. Available: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Howweregulate/Medicines/Advertisingofmedicines/ Accessed 23 September 2014.

38. Spurling GK, Mansfield PR, Montgomery BD, Lexchin J, Doust J, et al. (2010) Information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians’ prescribing: A systematic review. PLoS Med 7: e1000352. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000352 20976098

39. Anonymous (2013) When true enough is not good enough. Nat Med 19: 1. doi: 10.1038/nm.3061 23295988

40. Villanueva P, Peiró S, Librero J, Pereiró I (2003) Accuracy of pharmaceutical advertisements in medical journals. Lancet 361: 27–32. 12517463

41. van Winkelen P, van Denderen JS, Vossen CY, Huizinga TWJ, Dekker FW, et al. (2006) How evidence-based are advertisements in journals regarding the subspecialty of rheumatology? Rheumatology 45: 1154–1157. 16531437

42. Heimans L, Vlieg AV, Dekker FW (2010) Are claims of advertisements in medical journals supported by RCTs? Neth J Med 68: 46–49. 20103825

43. Othman N, Vitry AI, Roughead EE (2010) Quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in medical journal advertising: a comparative study in Australia, Malaysia and the United States. BMC Public Health 10:294. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-294 20509953

44. Lexchin J (2010) Statistics in drug advertising: what they reveal is suggestive what they hide is vital. Inter J Clin Pract 64:1015–1018.

45. Spielmans GI, Thielges SA, Dent AL, Greenberg RP (2008) The accuracy of psychiatric medication advertisements in medical journals. J Nerv Ment Dis 196: 267–273. doi: 10.1097/NMD.0b013e31816a436b 18414120

46. Lankinen KS, Levola T, Marttinen K, Puumalainen I, Helin-Salmivaara A (2004) Industry guidelines, laws and regulations ignored: quality of drug advertising in medical journals. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 13: 789–795. 15486957

47. Othman N, Vitry A, Roughead EE (2009) Quality of pharmaceutical advertisements in medical journals: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 4: e6350. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0006350 19623259

48. Zosia K (2011) Boehringer promoted off-label drug to patients, finds watchdog. BMJ 343: d8251. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d8251 22188945

49. Mulinari S (2013) Regulating drug information in Europe: a pyrrhic victory for countervailing forces? Sociol Health Illn 35: 761–777. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9566.2012.01528.x 23094890

50. Ager B (2007) Direct-to-consumer drug information in Europe. Lancet 369: 822–822. 17350444

51. Gagnon MA, Lexchin J (2008) The cost of pushing pills: a new estimate of pharmaceutical promotion expenditures in the United States. PLoS Med 5: e1. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050001 18177202

52. WHO (2014) Pharmaceutical industry. Available: http://www.who.int/trade/glossary/story073/en/. Accessed 4 August 2014.

53. The United States Department of Justice (2012) Justice Department recovers nearly $5 billion in false claims act cases in fiscal year 2012. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-recovers-nearly-5-billion-false-claims-act-cases-fiscal-year-2012. Acessed 31 October 2014.

54. IMS Health (2013) Top companies by non-discounted spending (U.S.) http://www.imshealth.com/deployedfiles/imshealth/Global/Content/Corporate/Press%20Room/2012_U.S/Top_Therapeutic_Classes_by_Non-Discounted_Spending.U.S.pdf. Acessed 31 October 2014.

55. Stossel TP, Stell LK (2011) Time to ‘walk the walk’ about industry ties to enhance health. Nat Med 17: 437–438. doi: 10.1038/nm0411-437 21475240

56. Kesselheim AS, Darby D, Studdert DM, Glynn R, Levin R, et al. (2011) False Claims Act prosecution did not deter off-label drug use in the case of Neurontin. Health Aff 30: 2318–2327. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0370 22147859

57. Matthews S (2013) Pharma fines increase, but the pain is not felt on Wall Street. Nat Med 19: 5. doi: 10.1038/nm0113-5 23295992

58. Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) (2013) Annual report 2012. Available: http://www.pmcpa.org.uk/aboutus/Documents/Annual%20reports/PMCPA%20Annual%20Report%202012%20final.pdf. Accessed 4 August 2014.

59. Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA) (2014) Advertisements and public reprimands. Available: http://www.pmcpa.org.uk/cases/Pages/Advertisements-and-public-reprimands.aspx. Accessed 4 August 2014.

60. Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA): Advertising Standards Unit (2012) Delivering high standards in medicines advertising regulation—Annual Report 2012. Available: http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/comms-ic/documents/websiteresources/con239450.pdf. Accessed 4 August 2014.

61. House of Commons Health Committee (2005) The Influence of the pharmaceutical industry: Health Select Committee Report Volume 2. London: The stationery office limited. 550 p. doi: 10.1016/j.plrev.2005.01.001 20416858

62. Dukes MNG, Braithwaite J, Moloney JP (2014) Pharmaceuticals, corporate crime and public health. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. 408 p. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0000000000000387 25603554

63. Goldacre B (2012) Bad pharma: how drug companies mislead doctors and harm patients. London: Fourth Estate. 448 pp. doi: 10.1016/j.asjsur.2012.06.010 25554668

64. Stamatakis E, Weiler R, Ioannidis JP (2013) Undue industry influences that distort healthcare research, strategy, expenditure and practice: a review. Euro J Clin Invest 43:469–475. doi: 10.1111/eci.12074 23521369

65. Gale EA (2012) Post-marketing studies of new insulins: sales or science? BMJ 344: e3974. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e3974 22692652

66. Doshi P, Jefferson T, Del Mar C (2012) The imperative to share clinical study reports: recommendations from the Tamiflu experience. PLoS Med 9: e1001201. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001201 22505850

67. Formoso G, Marata AM, Magrini N, Bero L (2014) A clearer view of evidence in treating macular degeneration: off-label policies and independent research. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9: ED000090. doi: 10.1002/14651858.ED000091 25313419

68. Italian Medicines Agency (AIFA) Research & Development Working Group (2010) Feasibility and challenges of independent research on drugs: the Italian medicines agency (AIFA) experience. Euro J Clin Invest 40: 69–86. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02226.x 20055898

69. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2014) Health at a glance: Europe 2012—Pharmaceutical expenditure. Available: http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/9789264183896-en/05/05/index.html?itemId=/content/chapter/9789264183896-55-en. Accessed 4 August 2014.

Štítky
Interné lekárstvo

Článok vyšiel v časopise

PLOS Medicine


2015 Číslo 2
Najčítanejšie tento týždeň
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
Kurzy

Zvýšte si kvalifikáciu online z pohodlia domova

Eozinofilní granulomatóza s polyangiitidou
nový kurz

Betablokátory a Ca antagonisté z jiného úhlu
Autori: prof. MUDr. Michal Vrablík, Ph.D., MUDr. Petr Janský

Autori: doc. MUDr. Petr Čáp, Ph.D.

Farmakoterapie akutní a chronické bolesti

Získaná hemofilie - Povědomí o nemoci a její diagnostika

Všetky kurzy
Prihlásenie
Zabudnuté heslo

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte sa

Zabudnuté heslo

Zadajte e-mailovú adresu, s ktorou ste vytvárali účet. Budú Vám na ňu zasielané informácie k nastaveniu nového hesla.

Prihlásenie

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte sa