Drug companies are paying Australian doctors millions of dollars a year to fly to overseas conferences and meetings, give talks to other doctors, and to serve on advisory boards, our research shows.

Our team analysed reports from major drug companies, in the first comprehensive analysis of its kind. We found drug companies paid more than A$33 million to doctors in the three years from late 2019 to late 2022 for these consultancies and expenses.

We know this underestimates how much drug companies pay doctors as it leaves out the most common gift – food and drink – which drug companies in Australia do not declare.

Due to COVID restrictions, the timescale we looked at included periods where doctors were likely to be travelling less and attending fewer in-person medical conferences. So we suspect current levels of drug company funding to be even higher, especially for travel.

What we did and what we found

Since 2019, Medicines Australia, the trade association of the brand-name pharmaceutical industry, has published a centralised database of payments made to individual health professionals. This is the first comprehensive analysis of this database.

We downloaded the data and matched doctors’ names with listings with the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (Ahpra). We then looked at how many doctors per medical specialty received industry payments and how much companies paid to each specialty.

We found more than two-thirds of rheumatologists received industry payments. Rheumatologists often prescribe expensive new biologic drugs that suppress the immune system. These drugs are responsible for a substantial proportion of drug costs on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).

The specialists who received the most funding as a group were cancer doctors (oncology/haematology specialists). They received over $6 million in payments.

This is unsurprising given recently approved, expensive new cancer drugs. Some of these drugs are wonderful treatment advances; others offer minimal improvement in survival or quality of life.

A 2023 study found doctors receiving industry payments were more likely to prescribe cancer treatments of low clinical value.

Our analysis found some doctors with many small payments of a few hundred dollars. There were also instances of large individual payments.

Why does all this matter?

Doctors usually believe drug company promotion does not affect them. But research tells a different story. Industry payments can affect both doctors’ own prescribing decisions and those of their colleagues.

A US study of meals provided to doctors – on average costing less than US$20 – found the more meals a doctor received, the more of the promoted drug they prescribed.

Another study found the more meals a doctor received from manufacturers of opioids (a class of strong painkillers), the more opioids they prescribed. Overprescribing played a key role in the opioid crisis in North America.

Overall, a substantial body of research shows industry funding affects prescribing, including for drugs that are not a first choice because of poor effectiveness, safety or cost-effectiveness.

Then there are doctors who act as “key opinion leaders” for companies. These include paid consultants who give talks to other doctors. An ex-industry employee who recruited doctors for such roles said:

Key opinion leaders were salespeople for us, and we would routinely measure the return on our investment, by tracking prescriptions before and after their presentations […] If that speaker didn’t make the impact the company was looking for, then you wouldn’t invite them back.

We know about payments to US doctors

The best available evidence on the effects of pharmaceutical industry funding on prescribing comes from the US government-run program called Open Payments.

Since 2013, all drug and device companies must report all payments over US$10 in value in any single year. Payment reports are linked to the promoted products, which allows researchers to compare doctors’ payments with their prescribing patterns.

Analysis of this data, which involves hundreds of thousands of doctors, has indisputably shown promotional payments affect prescribing.

US research also shows that doctors who had studied at medical schools that banned students receiving payments and gifts from drug companies were less likely to prescribe newer and more expensive drugs with limited evidence of benefit over existing drugs.

In general, Australian medical faculties have weak or no restrictions on medical students seeing pharmaceutical sales representatives, receiving gifts, or attending industry-sponsored events during their clinical training. They also have no restrictions on academic staff holding consultancies with manufacturers whose products they feature in their teaching.

So a first step to prevent undue pharmaceutical industry influence on prescribing decisions is to shelter medical students from this influence by having stronger conflict-of-interest policies, such as those mentioned above.

A second is better guidance for individual doctors from professional organisations and regulators on the types of funding that is and is not acceptable. We believe no doctor actively involved in patient care should accept payments from a drug company for talks, international travel or consultancies.

Third, if Medicines Australia is serious about transparency, it should require companies to list all payments – including those for food and drink – and to link health professionals’ names to their Ahpra registration numbers. This is similar to the reporting standard pharmaceutical companies follow in the US and would allow a more complete and clearer picture of what’s happening in Australia.

Patients trust doctors to choose the best available treatments to meet their health needs, based on scientific evidence of safety and effectiveness. They don’t expect marketing to influence that choice.

Barbara Mintzes, Professor, School of Pharmacy and Charles Perkins Centre, University of Sydney and Malcolm Forbes, Consultant psychiatrist and PhD candidate, Deakin University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

As of January this year, Aotearoa New Zealand became just the second country (after Canada) to adopt a groundbreaking new procedure for patients experiencing cardiac arrest.

Known as “double sequential external defibrillation” (DSED), it will change initial emergency response strategies and potentially improve survival rates for some patients.

Surviving cardiac arrest hinges crucially on effective resuscitation. When the heart is working normally, electrical pulses travel through its muscular walls creating regular, co-ordinated contractions.

But if normal electrical rhythms are disrupted, heartbeats can become unco-ordinated and ineffective, or cease entirely, leading to cardiac arrest.

Defibrillation is a cornerstone resuscitation method. It gives the heart a powerful electric shock to terminate the abnormal electrical activity. This allows the heart to re-establish its regular rhythm.

Its success hinges on the underlying dysfunctional heart rhythm and the proper positioning of the defibrillation pads that deliver the shock. The new procedure will provide a second option when standard positioning is not effective.

Using two defibrillators

During standard defibrillation, one pad is placed on the right side of the chest just below the collarbone. A second pad is placed below the left armpit. Shocks are given every two minutes.

Early defibrillation can dramatically improve the likelihood of surviving a cardiac arrest. However, around 20% of patients whose cardiac arrest is caused by “ventricular fibrillation” or “pulseless ventricular tachycardia” do not respond to the standard defibrillation approach. Both conditions are characterised by abnormal activity in the heart ventricles.

DSED is a novel method that provides rapid sequential shocks to the heart using two defibrillators. The pads are attached in two different locations: one on the front and side of the chest, the other on the front and back.

A single operator activates the defibrillators in sequence, with one hand moving from the first to the second. According to a recent randomised trial in Canada, this approach could more than double the chances of survival for patients with ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia who are not responding to standard shocks.

The second shock is thought to improve the chances of eliminating persistent abnormal electrical activity. It delivers more total energy to the heart, travelling along a different pathway closer to the heart’s left ventricle.

Evidence of success

New Zealand ambulance data from 2020 to 2023 identified about 1,390 people who could potentially benefit from novel defibrillation methods. This group has a current survival rate of only 14%.

Recognising the potential for DSED to dramatically improve survival for these patients, the National Ambulance Sector Clinical Working Group updated the clinical procedures and guidelines for emergency medical services personnel.

The guidelines now specify that if ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia persist after two shocks with standard defibrillation, the DSED method should be administered. Two defibrillators need to be available, and staff must be trained in the new approach.

Though the existing evidence for DSED is compelling, until recently it was based on theory and a small number of potentially biased observational studies. The Canadian trial was the first to directly compare DSED to standard treatment.

From a total of 261 patients, 30.4% treated with this strategy survived, compared to 13.3% when standard resuscitation protocols were followed.

The design of the trial minimised the risk of other factors confounding results. It provides confidence that survival improvements were due to the defibrillation approach and not regional differences in resources and training.

The study also corroborates and builds on existing theoretical and clinical scientific evidence. As the trial was stopped early due to the COVID-19 pandemic, however, the researchers could recruit fewer than half of the numbers planned for the study.

Despite these and other limitations, the international group of experts that advises on best practice for resuscitation updated its recommendations in 2023 in response to the trial results. It suggested (with caution) that emergency medical services consider DSED for patients with ventricular fibrillation or pulseless ventricular tachycardia who are not responding to standard treatment.

Training and implementation

Although the evidence is still emerging, implementation of DSED by emergency services in New Zealand has implications beyond the care of patients nationally. It is also a key step in advancing knowledge about optimal resuscitation strategies globally.

There are always concerns when translating an intervention from a controlled research environment to the relative disorder of the real world. But the balance of evidence was carefully considered before making the decision to change procedures for a group of patients who have a low likelihood of survival with current treatment.

Before using DSED, emergency medical personnel undergo mandatory education, simulation and training. Implementation is closely monitored to determine its impact.

Hospitals and emergency departments have been informed of the protocol changes and been given opportunities to ask questions and give feedback. As part of the implementation, the St John ambulance service will perform case reviews in addition to wider monitoring to ensure patient safety is prioritised.

Ultimately, those involved are optimistic this change to cardiac arrest management in New Zealand will have a positive impact on survival for affected patients.

Vinuli Withanarachchie, PhD candidate, College of Health, Massey University; Bridget Dicker, Associate Professor of Paramedicine, Auckland University of Technology, and Sarah Maessen, Research Associate, Auckland University of Technology

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.