Drug companies influence prescribing, study finds

Related Topics

SINGAPORE | Wed Oct 20, 2010 12:45pm EDT

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Doctors tend to prescribe drugs that pharmaceutical companies promote to them and patients end up paying more but not always getting the most suitable medicines, researchers reported on Wednesday.

An analysis of 58 studies in several countries found that information from drug companies influenced the decisions doctors made, and not necessarily in a positive way.

"You couldn't say that information from pharmaceutical companies benefited doctor's prescribing, which is what pharmaceutical companies claim," said Geoffrey Spurling of the University of Queensland in Brisbane, Australia, who led the study.

"Many doctors claim they are not influenced and having done the review, that is not supported. You have to say that at least some of the time, doctors are influenced," he said in a telephone interview.

Several of the researchers in the study are members of Healthy Skepticism, an international nonprofit research, education, and advocacy association set up to "reduce harm from misleading health information."

The report found that doctors who accepted briefings or other information from drug companies were more likely to prescribe those products.

Thirty-eight studies showed that exposure to drug company information resulted in more frequent prescriptions, while 13 did not have such an association, Spurling and his colleagues wrote in their report published in the U.S.-based Public Library of Science journal PLoS Medicine, here%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1000352.

None of the studies found that doctors prescribed a drug less often because of promotional or informational materials. More than half the studies were conducted in the United States. Other countries included the United Kingdom, Canada, Denmark, France, Estonia, Turkey and Australia.

SPENDING PAYS OFF

"The companies don't spend this money with drug detail people if it doesn't work," said Dr. Sid Wolfe of the U.S. advocacy group Public Citizen, which has campaigned against such drug company activity.

"Most doctors get most of their information about drugs from the drug industry."

Such detailers often bring lunch to a doctor's office, or invite physicians to sporting events or other entertainment while they deliver their briefings.

Spurling singled out a study in Britain of more than 1,000 general practitioners that found that those who met drug salespeople more often tended to prescribe more costly drugs.

But that did not guarantee that patients got the most suitable drugs.

Spurling cited studies that found that doctors' prescriptions were of a lower quality when compared against standard guidelines and those recommended by expert panels.

For example, official U.S. guidelines in the United States advise doctors to use the oldest, cheapest generic drugs to treat high blood pressure and diabetes before turning to newer, patented and often more dangerous prescription drugs.

The researchers called for regulation on the amounts of money that pharmaceutical companies may spend on promoting their products. In 2004 alone, drug companies spent $57.5 billion on promotion in the United States, they said.

"We need more regulation on promotional information. We couldn't find any benefit," Spurling said.

Doctors also need more information from a variety of sources such as universities or accrediting organizations, he said.

"A good doctor keeps up with practicing medicine by reading the literature, peer-reviewed journals," Wolfe agreed.

"If they don't have time to do that, and rely on drug company detailers, they are not practicing good medicine."

On Tuesday, the investigative journalism group ProPublica, along with several news organizations, reported that seven big drug companies had paid more than 17,000 U.S. doctors many thousands of dollars to talk to other doctors about the companies' products [ID:nN19125956].

(Additional reporting by Maggie Fox in Washington; Editing by Doina Chiacu)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
oldtechie wrote:
C’mon, you knew that good looking young person visiting the doctors’ office with lunch was just another drug dealer working for the Big Pharma cartel!
Here’s what one doctor says:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-welch-mammograms-20101020,0,2961910.story
H. Gilbert Welch is a professor of medicine at the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice and an author of “Overdiagnosed: Making People Sick in the Pursuit of Health.”

Oct 20, 2010 10:57pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
1975Scientist wrote:
You MUST BE KIDDING….right? This is no surprise to anyone! Physicians, PAs & NPs prescribing habits have ALWAYS been influenced by pharmaceutical reps….if you make pharmaceutical “detailing” illegal…..BIG PHARMA will figure out a different way to influence prescribers, legally or illegally, because we’re talking BILLIONS of dollars here……I know this is true, I’m an “Insider”.

Oct 21, 2010 12:32pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
DRUGREP wrote:
first, what industry doesn’t have marketing to the end user??? second, what about our own gov’t – they are marketed to (lobbyed) relentlessly -. How small minded do people really think physicians are, for crying out loud, give them some credit for being fairly intelligent people who can make competent, thoughtful decisions based on the current data and not what they had for lunch. And about that data that they can access like anyone can via the internet — after seeing a different patient every 15 minutes, having to get on the phone to argue with an insurance company, deal with angry staff because you are so crammed with patients that no one is going home on time…oh and then they may have a family they like to visit it with from time to time. So, in the few minutes that they sit to stuff some food in their mouths we can encapsulate the current published (peer reviewed)data, and answer questions. why the drug industry is being portrayed in such negative articles is befuddling…who do people think is investing time money and effort and taking on the risk to develop new therapies…its the bad guys, yes the drug industry. your all welcome

Oct 21, 2010 5:17pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.