黑料吃瓜群网

New analysis has found that non-prescribing healthcare professionals 鈥� including nurses and allied health professionals 鈥� are subject to being influenced by pharmaceutical companies, which in turn can influence patients鈥� medicinal choices.

While there is an awareness of pharma鈥檚 influence on doctors, less is known about this influence on non-prescribing healthcare professionals.

Published in a聽聽research letter, new analysis provides a unique insight into the nature and extent of payments to non-prescribing healthcare professionals such as nurses, pharmacists, physiotherapists, psychologists, dietitians and more.

鈥淭here is a mistaken idea that non-prescribing healthcare professionals don鈥檛 have much influence on medicine use, therefore their pharmaceutical industry ties aren鈥檛 that important,鈥� said lead author Dr Emily Karanges from the .

鈥淵et healthcare professionals like nurses and pharmacists often assist with medication choice and encourage adherence to treatment 鈥� and the roles they play in chronic disease management are expanding too.鈥�

Payments to healthcare professionals analysed

The research team, from the and , analysed payments to Australian healthcare professionals using publicly available reports submitted to regulator Medicines Australia by their member companies.

鈥淲e found the most highly paid healthcare professionals were often working in hospitals in chronic disease management, and chronic diseases such as HIV and multiple sclerosis have expensive treatments that are required long term,鈥� Dr Karanges said.

The data does not include all pharmaceutical companies, research-related payments or product details associated with payments; however, the analysis provides the first comprehensive account of payments to non-physicians.

Between October 2015 and April 2018, 14,018 healthcare professionals were found to have received $62,695,095 in pharmaceutical industry payments.

While most payments were to doctors, other healthcare professionals accounted for 22.1% of recipients and 16.1% of payments, yet received just 10% of total spend. Nurses and pharmacists were the primary recipients after doctors: nurses accounted for 17.8% of recipients but received 8.3% of expenditure, and pharmacists accounted for 2.9% of recipients and received 1% of total spend.

The top contributing companies included: Biogen, a manufacturer of products for conditions including multiple sclerosis; Gilead, with an expanding market in HIV and hepatitis medicines; and Shire, whose products include drugs for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and binge eating disorder.

Payments were reported to support activity such as attendance at meetings and speaker and advisory board engagements, as well as associated travel and accommodation costs.

鈥淔or the benefit of patients, and to protect and maintain the integrity of our valued healthcare providers, we need better oversight, understanding and education of the potential impacts of such activity,鈥� Dr Karanges said.

Global implications for findings

Co-author聽Professor Lisa Bero聽from the University of Sydney鈥檚聽Charles Perkins Centre聽and聽School of Pharmacy聽said the findings had global implications.

鈥淧harmaceutical companies are clearly courting non-prescribing healthcare professionals as well as doctors in Australia, presumably because of the increasingly important role and influence they have in clinical care,鈥� Prof Bero said.

鈥淚nevitably this type of activity and potential influence is happening around the world, but pharmaceutical influence on non-prescribers remains hidden because the data is simply not available in other countries.

鈥淭here is an urgent and global need to extend mandatory transparency reporting and institutional policies that apply to all healthcare professionals.鈥�

Image credit: 漏stock.adobe.com/au/makistock