The opioid industry's use of scientific evidence to advance claims about prescription opioid safety and effectiveness.

Health affairs scholar Pub Date : 2024-10-24 eCollection Date: 2024-10-01 DOI:10.1093/haschl/qxae119
Ravi Gupta, Jason Chernesky, Anna Lembke, David Michaels, Cecilia Tomori, Jeremy A Greene, G Caleb Alexander, Adam D Koon
{"title":"The opioid industry's use of scientific evidence to advance claims about prescription opioid safety and effectiveness.","authors":"Ravi Gupta, Jason Chernesky, Anna Lembke, David Michaels, Cecilia Tomori, Jeremy A Greene, G Caleb Alexander, Adam D Koon","doi":"10.1093/haschl/qxae119","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>It is widely recognized that pharmaceutical marketing contributed to the ongoing US opioid epidemic, but less is understood about how the opioid industry used scientific evidence to generate product demand, shape opioid regulation, and change clinician behavior. In this qualitative study, we characterize select scientific articles used by industry to support safety and effectiveness claims and use a novel database, the Opioid Industry Documents Archive, to determine notable elements of industry and non-industry documents citing the scientific articles to advance each claim. We found that 15 scientific articles were collectively mentioned in 3666 documents supporting 5 common, inaccurate claims: opioids are effective for treatment of chronic, non-cancer pain; opioids are \"rarely\" addictive; \"pseudo-addiction\" is due to inadequate pain management; no opioid dose is too high; and screening tools can identify those at risk of developing addiction. The articles contributed to the eventual normalization of these claims by symbolically associating the claims with scientific evidence, building credibility, expanding and diversifying audiences and the parties asserting the claims, and obfuscating conflicts of interest. These findings have implications for regulators of industry products and corporate activity and can inform efforts to prevent similar public health crises.</p>","PeriodicalId":94025,"journal":{"name":"Health affairs scholar","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11500661/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health affairs scholar","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/haschl/qxae119","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

It is widely recognized that pharmaceutical marketing contributed to the ongoing US opioid epidemic, but less is understood about how the opioid industry used scientific evidence to generate product demand, shape opioid regulation, and change clinician behavior. In this qualitative study, we characterize select scientific articles used by industry to support safety and effectiveness claims and use a novel database, the Opioid Industry Documents Archive, to determine notable elements of industry and non-industry documents citing the scientific articles to advance each claim. We found that 15 scientific articles were collectively mentioned in 3666 documents supporting 5 common, inaccurate claims: opioids are effective for treatment of chronic, non-cancer pain; opioids are "rarely" addictive; "pseudo-addiction" is due to inadequate pain management; no opioid dose is too high; and screening tools can identify those at risk of developing addiction. The articles contributed to the eventual normalization of these claims by symbolically associating the claims with scientific evidence, building credibility, expanding and diversifying audiences and the parties asserting the claims, and obfuscating conflicts of interest. These findings have implications for regulators of industry products and corporate activity and can inform efforts to prevent similar public health crises.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
阿片类药物行业利用科学证据来宣传处方阿片类药物的安全性和有效性。
人们普遍认为,药品营销是美国阿片类药物持续流行的原因之一,但人们对阿片类药物行业如何利用科学证据产生产品需求、制定阿片类药物法规以及改变临床医生行为的了解较少。在这项定性研究中,我们对阿片行业用于支持安全性和有效性声明的部分科学文章进行了描述,并使用一个新颖的数据库--阿片行业文件档案--来确定引用科学文章来推动每项声明的行业和非行业文件中的显著要素。我们发现,在 3666 份文件中总共提到了 15 篇科学文章,这些文章支持了 5 种常见的、不准确的说法:阿片类药物对治疗慢性非癌症疼痛有效;阿片类药物 "很少 "成瘾;"假性成瘾 "是由于疼痛管理不当造成的;阿片类药物剂量不会过高;筛查工具可以识别有成瘾风险的人群。这些文章将这些说法与科学证据象征性地联系在一起,建立了可信度,扩大了受众和主张这些说法的各方的范围并使其多样化,同时还掩盖了利益冲突,从而促使这些说法最终正常化。这些发现对行业产品和企业活动的监管者具有启示意义,并可为预防类似的公共卫生危机提供参考。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The opioid industry's use of scientific evidence to advance claims about prescription opioid safety and effectiveness. Medigap-guaranteed issue associated with Medicare Advantage disenrollment for beneficiaries administered a part B drug. Learning from employer experiences with paid leave policy expansions during the COVID-19 pandemic. No Surprises Act independent dispute resolution outcomes for emergency services. Correction to: The state of health information organizations and plans to participate in the federal exchange framework.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1