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.

What’s the difference? is a new editorial product that explains the similarities and differences between commonly confused health and medical terms, and why they matter.

Former US First Lady Michelle Obama revealed in her memoir she had a miscarriage. UK singer-songwriter and actor Lily Allen has gone on the record about her stillbirth.

Both miscarriage and stillbirth are sadly familiar terms for pregnancy loss. They can be traumatic life events for the prospective parents and family, and their impacts can be long-lasting. But the terms can be confused.

Here are some similarities and differences between miscarriage and stillbirth, and why they matter.

Let’s start with some definitions

In broad terms, a miscarriage is when a pregnancy ends while the fetus is not yet viable (before it could survive outside the womb).

This is the loss of an “intra-uterine” pregnancy, when an embryo is implanted in the womb to then develop into a fetus. The term miscarriage excludes ectopic pregnancies, where the embryo is implanted outside the womb.

However, stillbirth refers to the end of a pregnancy when the fetus is normally viable. There may have been sufficient time into the pregnancy. Alternatively, the fetus may have grown large enough to be normally expected to survive, but it dies in the womb or during delivery.

The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare defines stillbirth as a fetal death of at least 20 completed weeks of gestation or with a birthweight of at least 400 grams.

Internationally, definitions of stillbirth vary depending on the jurisdiction.

How common are they?

It is difficult to know how common miscarriages are as they can happen when a woman doesn’t know she is pregnant. There may be no obvious symptoms or something that looks like a heavier-than-normal period. So miscarriages are likely to be more common than reported.

Studies from Europe and North America suggest a miscarriage occurs in about one in seven pregnancies (15%). More than one in eight women (13%) will have a miscarriage at some time in her life.

Around 1–2% of women have recurrent miscarriages. In Australia this is when someone has three or more miscarriages with no pregnancy in between.

Australia has one of the lowest rates of stillbirth in the world. The rate has been relatively steady over the past 20 years at 0.7% or around seven per 1,000 pregnancies.

Who’s at risk?

Someone who has already had a miscarriage or stillbirth has an increased risk of that outcome again in a subsequent pregnancy.

Compared with women who have had a live birth, those who have had a stillbirth have double the risk of another. For those who have had recurrent miscarriages, the risk of another miscarriage is four-fold higher.

Some factors have a u-shaped relationship, with the risk of miscarriage and stillbirth lowest in the middle.

For instance, maternal age is a risk factor for both miscarriage and stillbirth, especially if under 20 years old or older than 35. Increasing age of the male is only a risk factor for stillbirth, especially for fathers over 40.

Similarly for maternal bodyweight, women with a body mass index or BMI in the normal range have the lowest risk of miscarriage and stillbirth compared with those in the obese or underweight categories.

Lifestyle factors such as smoking and heavy alcohol drinking while pregnant are also risk factors for both miscarriage and stillbirth.

So it’s important to not only avoid smoking and alcohol while pregnant, but before getting pregnant. This is because early in the pregnancy, women may not know they have conceived and could unwittingly expose the developing fetus.

Why do they happen?

Miscarriage often results from chromosomal problems in the developing fetus. However, genetic conditions or birth defects account for only 7-14% of stillbirths.

Instead, stillbirths often relate directly to pregnancy complications, such as a prolonged pregnancy or problems with the umbilical cord.

Maternal health at the time of pregnancy is another contributing factor in the risk of both miscarriage and stillbirths.

Chronic diseases, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, hypothyroidism (underactive thyroid), polycystic ovary syndrome, problems with the immune system (such as an autoimmune disorder), and some bacterial and viral infections are among factors that can increase the risk of miscarriage.

Similarly mothers with diabetes, high blood pressure, and untreated infections, such as malaria or syphilis, face an increased risk of stillbirth.

In many cases, however, the specific cause of pregnancy loss is not known.

How about the long-term health risks?

Miscarriage and stillbirth can be early indicators of health issues later in life.

For instance, women who have had recurrent miscarriages or recurrent stillbirths are at higher risk of cardiovascular disease (such as heart disease or stroke).

Our research has also looked at the increased risk of stroke. Compared with women who had never miscarried, we found women with a history of three or more miscarriages had a 35% higher risk of non-fatal stroke and 82% higher risk of fatal stroke.

Women who had a stillbirth had a 31% higher risk of a non-fatal stroke, and those who had had two or more stillbirths were at a 26% higher risk of a fatal stroke.

We saw similar patterns in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or COPD, a progressive lung disease with respiratory symptoms such as breathlessness and coughing.

Our data showed women with a history of recurrent miscarriages or stillbirths were at a 36% or 67% higher risk of COPD, respectively, even after accounting for a history of asthma.

Why is all this important?

Being well-informed about the similarities and differences between these two traumatic life events may help explain what has happened to you or a loved one.

Where risk factors can be modified, such as smoking and obesity, this information can be empowering for individuals who wish to reduce their risk of miscarriage and stillbirth and make lifestyle changes before they become pregnant.

More information and support about miscarriage and stillbirth is available from SANDS and Pink Elephants.

Gita Mishra, Professor of Life Course Epidemiology, Faculty of Medicine, The University of Queensland; Chen Liang, PhD student, reproductive history and non-communicable diseases in women, The University of Queensland, and Jenny Doust, Clinical Professorial Research Fellow, School of Public Health, The University of Queensland

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