Posted by Nickengland on November 16, 2005, at 19:07:07
In reply to Article in NYT RE: Self-Prescribing/Medicating, posted by hawkeye on November 16, 2005, at 9:42:03
>Direct-to-consumer drug advertising, approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1997, has for most of their adult lives sent the message that pills offer a cure for any ill. Which ones to take, many advertisements suggest, is largely a matter of personal choice.
In todays news...
Crackdown on drug firm promotion
Ways to report side effects must appear on all promotional material
Drug firms will no longer be able to court doctors with prizes and lavish venues, following an overhaul of the industry's code of practice.
Companies must only offer economy air travel to delegates sponsored to attend meetings, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry adds.The first changes to the industry's code in a decade also focus on patient safety and process complaints faster.
Companies that breach the code can be named and shamed, the ABPI said.
The new code comes into effect on January 1, 2006.
It bans the use of promotional competitions and quizzes.
As far as meetings and seminars are concerned, subsistence - food and accommodation - must be strictly limited to what is essential for people to attend the event.
And companies should avoid using venues renowned for entertainment facilities, it says.
Firms must make public a list of all patient organisations to which they provide financial support, and prominent information about how to notify drug firms about possible side-effects of their products must be displayed on all promotional material.
Self-regulation
Speaking at the launch in central London, Andrew Hotchkiss, ABPI board member in charge of the project, said: "The ABPI code of practice has been the gold standard for pharmaceutical industry regulation throughout the world for many years.
"Our aim was to ensure that it continued to be strong and effective as well as fully meeting all the changes and requirements that have occurred since the last review."
Jeremy Mean, senior policy manager at the government regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), said: "The control of medicines advertising in the UK is based on a long-established system of self-regulation supported by the statutory role of the MHRA.
"The MHRA warmly welcomes the new code, which includes positive changes to enhance patient safety to ensure that the code remains robust and rigorous."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4443320.stm
-------------------------------------------------
And interestingly...from the news in 2003Doctors 'influenced by drug companies'
Some doctors may be prescribing unsuitable drugs
Experts have called for new rules governing the relationship between the medical profession and the pharmaceutical industry.
It follows claims that some drug companies may have undue influence over what medicines doctors prescribe to patients.Several studies published in this week's British Medical Journal (BMJ) suggest that this influence may cause some doctors to prescribe unsuitable and unnecessary drugs.
They raise questions about the free gifts given by companies to doctors and the way the industry funds research, medical conferences and education seminars.
Free gifts
Drug company representatives visit thousands of doctors every week to inform them about new or existing products. They often offer doctors free gifts, such as stationery, mugs or key rings. Sometimes the gifts may be more substantial.
One of the studies in this week's BMJ suggests this may encourage some doctors to prescribe unsuitable drugs to patients.
Doctors must not be, or be seen to be, influenced in prescribing matters by any incentives from the pharmaceutical industry
Dr Vivienne Nathanson, BMA
Researchers carried out a survey of 1,000 GPs across England. They found that doctors who see company reps at least once a week are more likely to consider prescribing new drugs and to agree to patients' requests for medication even if they don't need it.
They suggested that in some cases reps may even target those doctors who are most likely to prescribe their products.
Doctors are expected to only prescribe new drugs if there is medical evidence to show they are effective.
The researchers said doctors should be given better guidelines to ensure they only prescribe such medicines.
'Biased research'
A separate study, by researchers in Sweden, suggests that even doctors who rely on research to decide which drugs to prescribe may also be unwittingly colluding with the pharmaceutical industry.
The researchers said this was because studies into new drugs were sometimes biased. They suggested that industry-funded trials were in some cases only published if they included favourable results.
The UK-based pharmaceutical industry strives to maintain the highest possible ethical standards
Dr Trevor Jones, ABPI
And they said a lack of access to negative studies meant some doctors were probably prescribing drugs on the basis of biased research.
Their findings were backed up experts in Canada. They reviewed 30 studies analysing research projects, which had been funded by a pharmaceutical company.
They found that these studies were more likely to come up with results that favoured the company compared with those that received funding from other sectors.
But they also found that these studies were less likely to be published in medical journals.
Richard Smith, editor of the BMJ, said the studies showed that the relationship between the medical profession and industry needed to change.
"Our central argument is that doctors, drug companies and most importantly patients would all benefit from greater distance between doctors and drug companies," he said.
Ray Moynihan, a medical journalist and guest editor of this week's BMJ, said the findings highlighted an unhealthy relationship between the medical profession and the drugs industry.
"We hope this will spark a broad debate about how to clean up the unhealthy aspects of the relationships between doctors and drug companies," he said.
Patient's needs
The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) said companies were expected to adhere to strict guidelines when informing doctors about new products. It said the onus was on doctors to ensure they prescribed effective medicines.
Dr Trevor Jones, the association's director general, added: "The UK-based pharmaceutical industry strives to maintain the highest possible ethical standards in its dealing with healthcare professionals and other stakeholders."
The British Medical Association (BMA) said it hoped the studies would lead to a debate about the best way to prevent drug companies from inappropriately influencing doctors.
Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the BMA's head of science and ethics, added: "The guidelines in the UK put fairly strict limits on hospitality, gifts, sponsorship but should be constantly reviewed especially against any evidence of abuse or ineffectiveness.
"The individual needs of the patient are paramount when a doctor is prescribing medication.
"Doctors must not be, or be seen to be, influenced in prescribing matters by any incentives from the pharmaceutical industry."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2946276.stm
Kind regards
Nick
poster:Nickengland
thread:579280
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20051112/msgs/579420.html