The Pharmaceutical Journal
Vol 270 No 7244 p503
12 April 2003

This article
Reprint
Photocopy

News summary

Related websites
Long-term Medical Conditions Alliance (www.lmca.demon.co.uk)
National Eczema Society (www.eczema.org)
Alzheimer's Society (www.alzheimers.org.uk)
Diabetes UK (www.diabetes.org.uk)

Which? calls for independent body for patient information and group support

Patient organisations should publish details of who their sponsors are and should make their funding policies widely available, says a report in this month's Which?. It adds that organisations should avoid direct sponsorship and calls for a central, independent body for patient information that could, in the long term, provide financial support for patient organisations.

The Consumers' Association, publisher of Which?, is critical of the amount of funding that comes from the pharmaceutical industry and suggests that companies use patient organisations to promote their own messages. "Accepting funds from drug manufacturers inevitably raises questions about an organisation's independence," it says.

Which? contacted various patient groups and found that many receive funding or sponsorship from pharmaceutical companies. It gives examples of cases that it suggests raise questions about the independence of particular organisations. For example, it points out that the National Eczema Society (which receives donations from 14 drug manufacturers) has run a successful campaign to have eczema guidelines removed from general practitioners' computer-based prescribing systems. The NES had concerns that guidelines did not include details of the most up-to-date treatments. However, Which? suggests that this campaign has left GPs without consistent guidance and says that some of the treatments not listed in the guidelines were likely to have been made by the sponsors of the NES.

A spokesman for the NES said the charity was disappointed that Which? had produced such a "superficial and misleading account" of pharmaceutical company funding of patient support organisations. "The NES has always been clear in its outright refusal under any circumstances to endorse or promote specific products. This is made clear in all publications and on our website." He added that people with eczema would rightly expect the NES to provide them with information about any new treatment with proven clinical efficacy. "The Consumers' Association, by adopting a writing style which implies a lack of independence and which might be seen by many as suggesting some sinister motives on the part of those involved, is at best mischievous," he said.

The Which? report also looked at patient organisation websites to find out how transparent their funding policies are. Of 125 patient organisations, 32 list their donors and only two of these — the Alzheimer's Society and Diabetes UK — explain their funding policy.

The Long-term Medical Conditions Alliance has published guidelines for patient groups about working with the industry and suggests that all patient groups should adopt a policy setting out their position on corporate support.

David Pink, chief executive of the LMCA, told The Journal that the report raised an important issue but he did not think that patients had reason to be concerned. "Patient organisations in the UK are fiercely independent. Most are wary about bias being brought to their activities by pharmaceutical companies."