Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Joel Lexchin

Publications and source records attributed to Joel Lexchin.

14 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2003

How does direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) affect prescribing? A survey in primary care environments with and without legal DTCA.

BACKGROUND: Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs has increased rapidly in the United States during the last decade, yet little is known about its effects on prescribing decisions in primary care. We compared prescribing decisions in a US setting with legal DTCA and a Canadian setting where DTCA of prescription drugs is illegal, but some cross-border exposure occurs. METHODS: We recruited primary care physicians working in Sacramento, California, and Vancouver, British Columbia, and their group practice partners to participate in the study. On pre- selected days, patients aged 18 years or more completed a questionnaire before seeing their physician. We asked these patients' physicians to complete a brief questionnaire immediately following the selected patient visit. By pairing individual patient and physician responses, we determined how many patients had been exposed to some form of DTCA, the frequency of patients' requests for prescriptions for advertised medicines and the frequency of prescriptions that were stimulated by the patients' requests. We measured physicians' confidence in treatment choice for each new prescription by asking them whether they would prescribe this drug to a patient with the same condition. RESULTS: Seventy-eight physicians (Sacramento n = 38, Vancouver n = 40) and 1431 adult patients (Sacramento n = 683, Vancouver n = 748), or 61% of patients who consulted participating physicians on pre-set days, participated in the survey. Exposure to DTCA was higher in Sacramento, although 87.4% of Vancouver patients had seen prescription drug advertisements. Of the Sacramento patients, 7.2% requested advertised drugs as opposed to 3.3% in Vancouver (odds ratio [OR] 2.2, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.2-4.1). Patients with higher self- reported exposure to advertising, conditions that were potentially treatable by advertised drugs, and/or greater reliance on advertising requested more advertised medicines. Physicians fulfilled most requests for DTCA drugs (for 72% of patients in Vancouver and 78% in Sacramento); this difference was not statistically significant. Patients who requested DTCA drugs were much more likely to receive 1 or more new prescriptions (for requested drugs or alternatives) than those who did not request DTCA drugs (OR 16.9, 95% CI 7.5-38.2). Physicians judged 50.0% of new prescriptions for requested DTCA drugs to be only "possible" or "unlikely" choices for other similar patients, as compared with 12.4% of new prescriptions not requested by patients (p < 0.001). INTERPRETATION: Our results suggest that more advertising leads to more requests for advertised medicines, and more prescriptions. If DTCA opens a conversation between patients and physicians, that conversation is highly likely to end with a prescription, often despite physician ambivalence about treatment choice.

Adult↗
PubMed2003

Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether funding of drug studies by the pharmaceutical industry is associated with outcomes that are favourable to the funder and whether the methods of trials funded by pharmaceutical companies differ from the methods in trials with other sources of support. METHODS: Medline (January 1966 to December 2002) and Embase (January 1980 to December 2002) searches were supplemented with material identified in the references and in the authors' personal files. Data were independently abstracted by three of the authors and disagreements were resolved by consensus. RESULTS: 30 studies were included. Research funded by drug companies was less likely to be published than research funded by other sources. Studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies were more likely to have outcomes favouring the sponsor than were studies with other sponsors (odds ratio 4.05; 95% confidence interval 2.98 to 5.51; 18 comparisons). None of the 13 studies that analysed methods reported that studies funded by industry was of poorer quality. CONCLUSION: Systematic bias favours products which are made by the company funding the research. Explanations include the selection of an inappropriate comparator to the product being investigated and publication bias.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2003

Drugs in the news: an analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage of new prescription drugs.

BACKGROUND: Patients routinely cite the media, after physicians and pharmacists, as a key source of information on new drugs, but there has been little research on the quality of drug information presented. We assessed newspaper descriptions of drug benefits and harms, the nature of the effects described and the presence or absence of other important information that can add context and balance to a report about a new drug. METHODS: We looked at newspaper coverage in the year 2000 of 5 prescription drugs launched in Canada between 1996 and 2001 that received a high degree of media attention: atorvastatin, celecoxib, donepezil, oseltamivir and raloxifene. We searched 24 of Canada's largest daily newspapers for articles reporting at least one benefit or harm of any of these 5 drugs. We recorded the benefits and harms reported and analyzed how such information was presented; we also determined whether clinical or surrogate outcomes were mentioned; if and how drug effects were quantified; whether contraindications, other treatment options and costs were mentioned; and whether any information on affiliations of quoted interviewees and potential conflicts of interest was presented. RESULTS: Our search yielded 193 articles reporting at least one benefit or harm for 1 of the 5 drugs. All of the articles mentioned at least one benefit, but 68% (132/193) made no mention of possible side effects or harms. Only 24% (120/510) of mentions of drug benefits and harms presented quantitative information. In 26% (31/120) of cases in which drug benefits and harms were quantified, the magnitude was presented only in relative terms, which can be misleading. Overall, 62% (119/193) of the articles gave no quantification of the benefits or harms. Thirty-seven (19%) of the 193 articles reported only surrogate benefits. Other information needed for informed drug-related decisions was often lacking: only 7 (4%) of the articles mentioned contraindications, 61 (32%) mentioned drug costs, 89 (46%) mentioned drug alternatives, and 30 (16%) mentioned nondrug treatment options (such as exercise or diet). Sixty-two percent (120/193) of the articles quoted at least one interviewee. After exclusion of industry and government spokespeople, for only 3% (5/164) of interviewees was there any mention of potential financial conflicts of interest. Twenty-six percent (15/57) of the articles discussing a study included information on study funding. INTERPRETATION: Our results raise concerns about the completeness and quality of media reporting about new medications.

Acetamides↗
PubMed2003

Patent law.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Developing Countries↗
PubMed2002

The pharmaceutical industry as a medicines provider.

Rising prices of medicines are putting them beyond the reach of many people, even in rich countries. In less-developed countries, millions of individuals do not have access to essential drugs. Drug development is failing to address the major health needs of these countries. The prices of patented medicines usually far exceed the marginal costs of their production; the industry maintains that high prices and patent protection are necessary to compensate for high development costs of innovative products. There is controversy over these claims. Concerns about the harmful effects of the international system of intellectual property rights have led the World Trade Organization to relax the demands placed on least developed countries, and to advocate differential pricing of essential drugs. How these actions will help countries that lack domestic production capacity is unclear. Better access to essential drugs may be achieved through voluntary licensing arrangements between international pharmaceutical companies and manufacturers in developing countries.

Developed Countries↗
PubMed2002

Assessing the quality of drug detailing.

This study measured the validity of a new instrument, the Assessment Instrument for Drug Detailing (AIDD), used by doctors to score the quality of drug detailing provided by pharmaceutical representatives in their offices. Five pharmaceutical representatives provided "good, medium, and poor" details to 135 family doctors in their offices, who were blinded to the quality of the details. A "reference standard group" constructed the details and trained the representatives. An "assessment group" trained family physicians to use the AIDD to score the details. Physicians discriminated between different quality details in all but one domain, nomenclature (P </=.001). Physicians scored good quality presentations 2.3 points higher than poor quality details, and reported that they learned more from good than poor quality details. Approximately 71% of the variability in physicians' global ratings (R(2) = 0.71) was explained by assigned detail quality, F(2, 118) = 54.64, P <.0001, presentation time, F(2, 118) = 9.98, P <.0001, pharmaceutical representative, F(4, 118) = 9.58, P <.0001, and physician rating the detail, F(109, 118) = 1.94, P <.0001.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed2002

Effects of restrictive formularies in the ambulatory care setting.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the consequences of restrictive formularies in the ambulatory care setting in 4 areas: overall drug expenditures, overall healthcare spending, changes in the quality of prescribing, and health outcomes. STUDY DESIGN: A MEDLINE search was conducted for English and French language articles, published between 1977-1999, that presented results in quantitative terms. Only articles from industrialized countries were used. METHODS: Information was extracted from each article in the following areas: time period of the study, geographic location and group of patients involved, outcome measurement(s), intervention, study design, and results. RESULTS: Poor methodologic quality made definitive conclusions difficult to draw in most areas. Prior authorization may be effective in controlling drug costs without increasing costs in other areas. Both desirable and undesirable therapeutic substitutions may take place when drugs are delisted from formularies. CONCLUSIONS: The use of restrictive formularies in the ambulatory care setting requires more rigorous research. Before changes are made in formularies, money needs to be set aside for research into short-term and long-term consequences of using restrictive formularies.

Ambulatory Care↗
PubMed2002

New drugs with novel therapeutic characteristics. Have they been subject to randomized controlled trials?

OBJECTIVE: To determine how many randomized controlled trials on the safety or efficacy of new drugs are published when these drugs are first marketed in Canada, and to determine the quality of the information in those trials. DESIGN: A MEDLINE search was conducted on each drug identified as having novel therapeutic characteristics and first marketed between 1990 and 2000. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of trials dealing with the safety or efficacy of each drug published at the time the drug was marketed. Number of patients taking the study drug, length of the trial, and type of control. RESULTS: The number of trials varied substantially. For some drugs, there were more than 20 studies; for others only a single study. Many trials were small and short-term, and used placebo controls. CONCLUSION: Too few trials or inadequate trials on the safety and efficacy of new drugs are published when these drugs are first marketed in Canada. The lack of published trials means that physicians do not know whether results are generalizable to their patients, how to position the drug in relation to other treatments, or whether the drugs have long-term safety and efficacy.

Canada↗