Suppr超能文献

1983 - 1988年英国制药行业的促销活动:对自我监管的批判性分析

Promotion by the British pharmaceutical industry, 1983-8: a critical analysis of self regulation.

作者信息

Herxheimer A, Collier J

机构信息

Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Charing Cross and Westminster Medical School, London.

出版信息

BMJ. 1990 Feb 3;300(6720):307-11. doi: 10.1136/bmj.300.6720.307.

Abstract

Since 1958 the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI) has attempted to regulate the promotion of prescription medicines through its code of practice. This regulation is described and analysed for the six years 1983-8 using the reports on 302 complaints considered by its code of practice committee and annual reports. The complaints came mainly from doctors (143, 48%) and competing companies (103, 33%). The committee found a total of 379 breaches of the code in 192 (63%) of the complaints. Additional breaches were detected by informational scrutiny of advertisements by the ABPI secretariat. Analysis showed that 270 (71%) of these breaches involved possible breaches of the Medicines Act. The rules that forbid misleading or unsubstantiated information and misleading claims or comparisons were broken most often. The committee found the most frequent offenders to be Organon (32 breaches), Smith Kline and French (23), Glaxo (21), A H Robins (18), Bayer (17), Merck Sharp and Dohme (17), and Lederle (16). Often the promotion of one product led to several breaches. The promotional wars over histamine H2 receptor antagonists accounted for 33 breaches. It is estimated that in 1983-8 about 100 breaches of the code were detected a year. In the 18 years 1972-88 the Medicines Act was breached probably over 1200 times. Health ministers, by not enforcing the regulations controlling promotion, have abrogated their responsibility to the ABPI, but the evidence suggests that the code has failed to deter promotional excesses. The ABPI's wish to secure compliance with the code seems weaker than its wish to pre-empt outside criticism and action: its self regulation seems to be a service to itself rather than to the public. It is suggested that the code of practice committee should become publicly accountable, that the majority of its members should represent the health professions and the public, and that effective sanctions are needed.

摘要

自1958年以来,英国制药工业协会(ABPI)一直试图通过其行为准则对处方药促销活动进行监管。利用其行为准则委员会审议的302起投诉报告和年度报告,对1983年至1988年这六年的监管情况进行了描述和分析。投诉主要来自医生(143起,占48%)和竞争公司(103起,占33%)。委员会在192起(占63%)投诉中总共发现了379项违反准则的行为。ABPI秘书处通过对广告的信息审查又发现了其他违规行为。分析表明,这些违规行为中有270起(占71%)可能违反了《药品法》。禁止误导性或未经证实的信息以及误导性声明或比较的规则被违反的情况最为频繁。委员会发现违规最频繁的是欧加农公司(32起违规)、史克必成公司(23起)、葛兰素公司(21起)、A.H.罗宾斯公司(18起)、拜耳公司(17起)、默克夏普多姆公司(17起)和礼来公司(16起)。通常一种产品的促销会导致多项违规行为。组胺H2受体拮抗剂的促销大战导致了33起违规行为。据估计,在1983年至1988年期间,每年大约发现100起违反准则的行为。在1972年至1988年的18年里,可能有超过1200次违反了《药品法》。卫生部长们由于没有执行控制促销活动的规定,放弃了他们对ABPI的责任,但有证据表明该准则未能阻止过度促销行为。ABPI确保遵守准则的意愿似乎不如其避免外界批评和行动的意愿强烈:其自我监管似乎是为自身服务而非为公众服务。建议行为准则委员会应接受公众问责,其大多数成员应代表卫生专业人员和公众,并且需要有效的制裁措施。

相似文献

引用本文的文献

本文引用的文献

1
Medicines Act passes crucial test.《药品法》通过关键测试。
Lancet. 1988 Jun 11;1(8598):1349. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(88)92172-1.
2
3
Information contained in drug advertisements.药品广告中包含的信息。
Br Med J. 1975 Nov 29;4(5995):508-9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.4.5995.508.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验