"Say, is that a Novartis Pen You're Using? You're Under Arrest!"

A physician survey published in The New England Journal of Medicine this week reveals that 94% of the respondents from six different specialties (anesthesiology, cardiology, family practice, general surgery, internal medicine, and pediatrics) "reported some type of relationship with the pharmaceutical industry, and most of these relationships involved receiving food in the workplace (83%) or receiving drug samples (78%)."

This is news? Doctors have been receiving free items from Big Pharma (hereafter referred to as BP) for decades; why are these researchers wasting our precious natural resources by once again printing the obvious? Their answer is that this survey was designed to update and expand upon the previous data reported in numerous earlier studies of doctors and their relationship to the pharma industry. The results were indeed enlightening, at least to me.

Many of these previous studies are now somewhat dated or focused on particular specialties or geographic areas or on physicians in training. Also, none have systematically explored the full range of possible predictors of physician-industry relationships such as the physician's sex, patient mix, practice setting, other professional activities, or type of clinical reimbursement.

Notice they said predictors of relationships, which means determining what type of physicians are more likely to accept booty from BP. Here are the results of what doctors receive, as published in the NEJM article:

i-41c249ffa7ba8daf5e3c9c9b57699cc3-nejm.gif

I find it interesting that if one eliminates drug samples and "food or beverages in workplace" (egad - not another tub of cold fettucini alfredo, please), the frequency of relationships (what is this, "Love Line"?) drops to a maximum of 26%, hardly a pervasive infiltration of the medical rank and file by the proselytizers. Is our way of life at risk of disintegrating into anarchy because doctors get honoraria from BP? Don't all Congress-peoples and Senators get millions of dollars of free travel, dining and golf - every single day? According to one commenter, apparently a resident of Mount Olympus, the crisis demands mortification, if not mass deportation to the nearest gulag.

Dr. Jerome P. Kassirer, a professor at Tufts University School of Medicine, who was not involved in the research, said the guidelines should be expanded because many of the marketing tactics used by industry fall outside them. "The whole notion of 'benefit to the patient' is too lax," he said. "Just because a pharmaceutical company gives medical students stethoscopes doesn't mean they should take them." Kassirer said that although some gifts, such as free samples, seem innocuous, they can lead to prescriptions for new, expensive drugs that may be no better than older, cheaper ones. "Giving a patient free samples means the doctor has to finish off the course of treatment with a prescription," said Kassirer, a former editor of the journal.

I wonder if he knows how much a package of Emend (aprepitant), a new drug for chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), costs? Last time I checked it was around $400 for three pills. Holy Mother of God! What kind of capitalist tool would even considering prescribing it for poor old grandma? Of course it is a major advance in the relief of CINV. Do I dare to give her a free sample, or should I instead tell her to eat cake, or take prochlorperazine like we used to do in the 1980s?

Scheißdreck! Not all doctors are hypnotized by the lure of free samples for their patients, but if we see proof that a new, expensive medicine is an improvement in patient care we use it. This is an example of "evidence-based medicine," which loosely translated means "don't use inferior treatments, dumbkopf." If a new drug is a breakthrough, then we'll do everything we can to get it for our patients - even give free samples.

Let's wrap this up by commenting on some of the highlights of the data. The multvariate analysis of predictors of a physician-industry relationship, found in Table 3 of the article, shows the odds ratio for physician-industry relationships (samples, gifts, reimbursements & payments) based on personal and professional characteristics of the doctors. Here is my take on the data:

Cardiologists are more likely to accept samples and payments. (In this field there are always new drugs coming out for cardiovascular disease, and multiple clinical trials are running at any one time).

Pediatricians are less likely to accept anything. (Kids don't usually need complicated, expensive meds).

Private practice docs are more likely to accept samples than staff-model HMO or academic docs. (Drug reps are often banned from access to the latter two by fiat. The authors also suggest that HMO docs have to abide by a limited list of meds in the formulary).

Academic doctors are more likely to take payments for lecturing than docs in private practice. (Duh! Professors are experts in the subject, not lil' ol' country docs like me; also, academic docs frequently need to pad their meager salaries by hitting the lecture circuit).

The bottom line on all this, at least to me, is that doctors are more susceptible to influence-peddling when they prescibe a medicine without taking the time to educate themselves on it, especially on the drug's efficacy compared to the current standard of care. Without perfoming this due diligence they do a disservice to those who have entrusted them with their care.

Tags
Categories

More like this

The latest issue of the New England Journal of Medicine reports that 94% of physicians in the U.S. receive gifts and benefits from pharmaceutical companies in the form of free food, drug samples and sports tickets, to name a few. Despite efforts by several organizations to regulate these…
Yesterday, the Institute of Medicine released a report entitled "Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice". As far as I can tell, the full report is only available for a fairly substantial charge, but these are some of the main recommendations summed up in the report's…
The US Senate is looking at a bill that would force pharmaceutical companies to disclose any payments or gifts they make to doctors. Apparently a few Senators are upset that physicians might prescribe medications for patients not just because they are effective, but also because the docs want to…
One of the less-noticed provisions of the Affordable Care Act is a requirement that pharmaceutical companies report to the Department of Health and Human Services the gifts and other payments they give to doctors and teaching hospitals -- and that HHS in turn make that information available to the…

i was just in my doctor's relatively small office yesterday. for the 45 minutes i was there, i thought i counted about 5 reps running around. as a recipient of free samples and a poor student, i can't say i mind their presence, though the rep to patient ratio did seem a bit off.

Academic medicine docs who wrote the NEJM article have a holier-than-thou attitude in comparison to their private brethren, toward the pharmaceutical industry.

That said, this pharmacist recommends physicians getting free samples from drug reps: Open a package and actually look at and handle the drug.

You never know when a patient is going to say, "I'm taking those little orange pills for my heart. You know which ones I'm talking about."

By John J. Coupal (not verified) on 27 Apr 2007 #permalink

Every doc I know (except mine) takes free samples to give to their patients who don't have drug insurance. This is a good thing.

I would be interested to have cross-industry comparisons. The business of feeding offices staffs in Dr. offices is a little different from what I know of in the IT business where you're more likely to attend a conference. Barcelona is a pretty fun place to go!

Certain corporations I know of have rented the "Magic Kingdom" at Disney out for an evening and attendees of one of their conferences would get a private time there.

Melanie: "Every doc I know (except mine) takes free samples to give to their patients who don't have drug insurance. This is a good thing."

Absolutely. I don't have coverage for any eye-related matters (except glaucoma, which coverage I don't need, thank goodness), so when I went to the optometrist with a mild corneal abrasion, and she was able to give me a free sample of prescription eye drops, I was thrilled.

Everybody has a bullshit detector; you just have to be willing to listen to it. Pens, samples, a bag of pistachios...this is not evil or corrupt per se. It just gets really weird when significant pharmaceutical company support isn't disclosed. Also, I think my bullshit detector would go off pretty loudly for true junkets. If it doesn't directly benefit my patients, or if I can't share it with all staff, including the cleaning crew, I'm going to think twice.

If I were a doctor, I mean.