Posts Tagged ‘Big Pharma’
Journal BMJ has published the results of a case-control study titled “High reprint orders in medical journals and pharmaceutical industry funding”. The study analysed the extent to which funding and study design were associated with high reprint orders, and the financial implications of the same.
Reprints of published articles are seen as a potential valuable means of disseminating information. The pharmaceutical industry is thought to be the largest purchaser of reprints, which constitute the most common form of promotional material circulated among doctors, after gifts and sample medicines.
Since pharmaceutical companies may purchase from journals copies of articles funded by them, reprints may represent a possible source of conflict of interest leading to publication bias. Orders may be worth large sums of money and possibly influence the chance of a paper being published. This is particularly so as the present framework allows editors to be responsible for a journal’s finances apart from its content.
Also, studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies are reportedly more likely to be published in journals with high impact factors, as against those without Big Pharma funding.
The study authors sought information on reprint orders from the Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine and BMJ. Of the five, only two – the Lancet and the BMJ – consented to provide the data. The researchers found that high reprint articles, irrespective of journal, were significantly more likely to be sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. Some of the reprint orders were substantial, equating to a large amount of income generated. Thus reprint orders could potentially be a source of publication bias, although the study was not designed with that in mind.
Mark Owen wonders what means Pharma 3.0:
“When I first heard the term “Pharma 3.0” I thought that it was the latest in the trend to put “x.0” (where x = 2, or higher) after everything. I was delighted to find out that it wasn’t, and there is a (reasonably) well-defined “Pharma 1.0, and 2.0” (…)
This is what defines “Pharma 1.0” - the age of the “Blockbuster”.
However, Pharma companies also realized that there is more than just having a “really great product”. “Pharma 2.0” is a period where there was a recalibration to do business leaner, nimbler and more focused on emerging realities. Effectively, the focus was on redefining the business model.
There are no precise dates when the next “Pharma x.0” period is entered, but “Pharma 3.0” has started to emerge.
Pharma 3.0 can be described loosely as “Pharma + Web 2.0”. (…)
That is, “social media” plays a big role. The advent of social media has brought a voice to the end consumer. With a greater wealth of knowledge at their hands, the patient has become more knowledgeable about their ailments, and more critical of the medicines they are taking. Insurance companies and governments are also now starting to look for real value in the medicines that they are paying for, rather than just relying on the claims of the pharmaceutical company.
As a result, the pharmaceutical company has had to redefine who the “customer is”. No longer is the customer the Medical Doctor. Now more focus is put on delivering real value to the patient.
Owen, Mark. Pharma 3.0, AIIM, Posted on 30th of January 2012.
“People who invest in pharma companies have to expect, not as a permanent condition, but as a long term trend, a lower rate of return than they had during the golden blockbuster years…”
Armstrong, Drew. Drugmakers’ Returns on Research Fall as Pipeline Projects Fail. Bloomberg.com, online, posted on Nov. 21, 2011.