» Articles » PMID: 30768629

Association Between Commercial Funding of Canadian Patient Groups and Their Views About Funding of Medicines: An Observational Study

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2019 Feb 16
PMID 30768629
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Patient groups represent the interest of their members when it comes to drug funding. Many patient groups receive grants from pharmaceutical companies that make products being considered for funding. This research examines whether there is an association between the positions that Canadian groups take about the products and conflicts of interest with the companies.

Methods: The Common Drug Review (CDR) and panCanadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) make recommendations to Canadian provincial and federal drug plans about funding particular drug-indications. Both utilize input from patient groups in making their recommendations. Patient group submissions are available from both organizations and these submissions contain statements about conflicts of interest. Views of the patient groups, with and without a conflict with the company making the drug under consideration and without any conflicts at all, were assessed and then compared with the recommendations from CDR and pCODR.

Results: There was a total of 222 reports for drug-indications. There were 372 submissions from 93 different patient groups. Groups declared a total of 1896 conflicts with drug companies in 324 (87.1%) individual submissions. There were 268 submissions where groups declared a conflict with the company making the product or said they had no conflict. Irrespective of whether there was a conflict, the views of patient groups about the drug-indications under consideration were the same. There was no statistically significant difference between views of patient groups and the recommendations from CDR and/or pCODR.

Conclusions: The large majority of patient groups making submissions about funding of particular drug-indications had conflicts with the companies making the products and their views about the products were almost always positive. This association between funding and views needs to be further investigated to determine if a true cause and effect exists.

Citing Articles

How are patient inputs considered in HTA? A thematic document analysis of NICE ultra-rare disease appraisals.

Gentilini A, Rana A Eur J Health Econ. 2024; .

PMID: 39725821 DOI: 10.1007/s10198-024-01748-1.


Commercial influences on patient and public involvement: a renewed call for research and action.

Hennessy M, Fahey T, Larkin J Health Promot Int. 2024; 39(6).

PMID: 39657731 PMC: 11631069. DOI: 10.1093/heapro/daae188.


Industry funding of patient organisations in the UK: a retrospective study of commercial determinants, funding concentration and disease prevalence.

Gentilini A, Parvanova I BMJ Open. 2023; 13(6):e071138.

PMID: 37369404 PMC: 10410975. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-071138.


National patient groups in Canada and their disclosure of relationships with pharmaceutical companies: a cross-sectional study.

Lexchin J, Batt S, Goldberg D, Shnier A BMJ Open. 2022; 12(3):e055287.

PMID: 35264357 PMC: 8915328. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-055287.


Disclosure of Pharmaceutical Industry Funding of Patient Organisations in Nordic Countries: Can Industry Self-Regulation Deliver on its Transparency Promise?.

Pashley D, Ozieranski P, Mulinari S Int J Health Serv. 2022; 52(3):347-362.

PMID: 35230175 PMC: 9203660. DOI: 10.1177/00207314221083871.


References
1.
Landis J, Koch G . The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977; 33(1):159-74. View

2.
Berglas S, Jutai L, MacKean G, Weeks L . Patients' perspectives can be integrated in health technology assessments: an exploratory analysis of CADTH Common Drug Review. Res Involv Engagem. 2017; 2:21. PMC: 5611639. DOI: 10.1186/s40900-016-0036-9. View

3.
Rose S, Highland J, Karafa M, Joffe S . Patient Advocacy Organizations, Industry Funding, and Conflicts of Interest. JAMA Intern Med. 2017; 177(3):344-350. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.8443. View

4.
McCoy M, Carniol M, Chockley K, Urwin J, Emanuel E, Schmidt H . Conflicts of Interest for Patient-Advocacy Organizations. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376(9):880-885. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsr1610625. View

5.
Burton B . Drug companies told that sponsoring patients' groups might help win approval for their products. BMJ. 2005; 331(7529):1359. PMC: 1309681. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.331.7529.1359-b. View