Healthy Skepticism Library item: 18730

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

Publication type: Electronic Source

Silverman E
The Shocking Truth About Free Lunches And Pens
Pharmalot 2010 Sep 29
http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/09/the-shocking-truth-about-free-lunches-and-pens/

Full text:

Just how aware are doctors of the various methods used to influence their prescribing? To gauge their understanding, PharmedOut, a project based at Georgetown University Medical Center that tracks pharmaceutical marketing, designed a one-hour presentation that was given to 373 physicians, residents and medical students at grand rounds or seminars at various hospitals.
The presentation attempted to sift through the varying messages and implications associated with such activities or items as sampling, medical journal advertising, detailing time spent with doctors, meals and freebies, including pens. There were also slides about prescription tracking and the amount of money spent by the pharmaceutical industry on overall marketing, not just to doctors (see the slides here).
Before and after each presentation, however, the attendees were asked about these various topics and, in each case, attitudes toward industry influence became more skeptical following the sessions. For instance, before one presentation, almost 20 percent of the attendees agreed they have probably been influenced by drug reps and medical journal ads, but that rose to 40 percent afterwards.
A similar finding was reported in response to a before-and-after quesion about whether docs were influenced by pens, pads, or meals from reps. And before one of the presentations, 70 percent of attendees agreed that samples influence prescribing practices, but that rose to 100 percent later. The findings were published in the Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions (see abstract).
Following the presentations, comments were collected and one resident wrote: “No longer post flyers or calendars that contain prescription ad information; no more dinners.” Another wrote: “As a resident, I am more strongly influenced by the prescribing practices of my attendings than by drug reps. But if my attendings are influenced by drug reps, then that does trickle down to me.”
The upshot? “Exposing manipulative industry methods is an effective way to teach physicians and trainees to understand the possible negative ramifications of seeing drug representatives, accepting gifts, and other industry entanglements,” the paper concludes.
Adriane Fugh-Berman, who heads PharmedOut, adds: “When physicians learn what industry says about them behind their backs, they get angry. And when they realize they’re being fooled, they’ll reject those industry relationships. Most physicians want to do the best thing for their patients, but don’t realize information they’re getting is misleading or wrong.”
We should note Fugh-Berman has generated some controversy lately with a recent paper on medical journal ghostwriting that was attacked the other day by Pfizer (see here and here for background). For the record, she serves as an expert witness in various lawsuits involving prescription drug promotion, including the HRT litigation over Prempro and Premarin, which are sold by Wyeth, and Pfizer owns Wyeth.
Also worth noting: The PharmedOut presentations that were presented to the doctors and students were were funded through a grant from the Attorney General Consumer and Prescriber Education grant program, which was created as part of the 2004 settlement between Warner-Lambert – which is also now owned by Pfizer – and the Attorneys General of 50 states and Washington, DC, over allegations of off-label marketing of the Neurontin epilepsy drug.