RESUMEN

Background: Pharmaceutical drug promotion has the potential to improve rational drug use by creating awareness among healthcare workers and patients as well as increasing access to life-saving medicines. This study aimed to determine whether pharmaceutical drug promotion can improve rational drug use among healthcare workers. Methods: Semi-structured questionnaires were filled by selected dispensers and prescribers in central Uganda. Forms of pharmaceutical drug promotion, sources of drug information, and views on the influence of drug promotion on rational drug use were investigated. Associations amongst selected variables were tested at bivariate and multivariate levels. Results: Of the 383 participants enrolled in the study, 49.6% were dispensers. More dispensers (49.0%, 92/188) favored 1 on 1 discussion whereas prescribers (32.0%, 61/191) preferred continuous medical education. Most dispensers (85.6%, 161/188) and prescribers (68.6%, 131/191) reported that drug promotion influences their choice of drug use, with most (dispensers: 85.1%, 160/188 vs prescribers: 72.3%, 1/191) admittedly relying on drug promotion as their primary source of drug information. Conclusion: Pharmaceutical drug promotion influences prescription and dispensing practices among health workers, and it should be strictly regulated to ensure accurate and essential information for health workers while prioritizing rational use of medicines.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Physicians gain knowledge about medical product uses from a variety of information vehicles including FDA-approved labeling, peer-reviewed journal articles, compendia, continuing medical education (CME), and physician-directed promotion. The source of this information, the quality of the information, and environmental pressures such as lack of time may impact perceptions. OBJECTIVE: The authors tested the effect of three types of information sources (journal abstract, sales aid without graphics, sales aid with graphics), the presence or absence of time pressure to read the information, and two levels of methodological rigor (high, low) on perceptions of study quality, perceptions of product effectiveness and riskiness, and prescribing likelihood. METHODS: Primary care physicians (n = 630) were randomly assigned to view one version of a study abstract and then answered questions. RESULTS: Participants who viewed a high-methodological rigor study reported more perceived credibility and importance of the data (ps < .05), and less need for interpreting the study data with caution and less bias than those who viewed a low-rigor study. Those who were not under time pressure to read the stimuli rated the fictitious study description as more credible, rigorous, important, and had more confidence in study data than those who were under time pressure. Participants who had less time to review high-rigor journal abstracts and sales aids with graphics were less likely to agree the study data should be interpreted with caution than doctors who had more time with the stimuli. No effects of source type were observed. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that prominently disclosing methodological rigor helps the audience form an accurate perception of the presented information. This also further highlights the importance that any promotional communications should be truthful and non-misleading.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Background A vital method used by pharmaceutical companies to make physicians aware of new drugs and increase the prescription and sale of the same is through drug promotion literature (DPL) published in scientific journals and distributed in outpatient departments (OPDs). It is important that drug promotion is done ethically to avoid the spread of false information for which guidelines are available at the international level by the World Health Organization (WHO) and at the national level by the Organisation of Pharmaceutical Producers of India (OPPI). In this study, we aim to review the DPLs used for promotion by market authorization holders (pharmaceutical business entities) in scientific healthcare journals and OPDs for their compliance with the "Ethical criteria for medicinal drug promotion" of the WHO and OPPI Code of Ethics Practice. In addition, we compare the ethical standard of the DPL available in scientific journals and OPDs with respect to existing norms and guidelines. Methodology A cross-sectional, observational study was conducted at a tertiary care teaching institute in Navi Mumbai, India. DPLs were collected from journals available at the institute library nearby published from January-June 2022 and from the outpatient departments of our hospital and other clinics nearby during the same time duration. Analysis was done according to the criteria given in WHO and OPPI guidelines. Each point in the criteria was scored as 1 or 0 based on whether the DPL was compliant or not respectively. DPLs were graded into 3 categories based on percentage compliance: Grade A (>70%), Grade B (35-70%), and Grade C (<35%). Results A total of 370 DPLs were collected, of which 191 (51.6%) were collected from scientific journals and 179 (48.4%) from OPDs. DPLs collected from journals showed that only 7.85% belonged to Grade A (WHO guidelines). According to the OPPI guidelines, 57.59% of the same DPLs belonged to Grade A. DPLs from OPDs showed similar results by both guidelines with >90% belonging to Grade B. Approximately less than 5% of the DPLs belonged to Grade C from both scientific journals and OPDs. Conclusions None of the DPLs were found to be entirely compliant with either of the guidelines. Most of the DPLs from both sources belong to Grade B, with information about adjuvants, adverse drug reactions, contraindications, drug interaction, and references to scientific literature missing from them. DPLs belonging to Grade C even had information about active ingredients missing from them which can lead to serious harm due to the wrong prescription of drugs.

RESUMEN

Due to sanitary restrictions secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic, various interactions between the pharmaceutical industry and physicians have changed. One of them has been the method for promoting medicinal products through academic meetings around diseases of financial interest. A recent modality has been unilateral promotion by the pharmaceutical industry through academic events with the invitation of so-called "experts" for the promotion of a specific drug. These meetings are often biased not towards optimal care of a disease, but rather towards commercial promotion of a specific drug, which may or may not be the best option, without considering associated therapeutic alternatives. The Committee of Ethics and Transparency in the Physician-Industry Relationship, of the National Academy of Medicine, analyzes this new circumstance and proposes some considerations to the medical community.

Debido a las restricciones sanitarias secundarias a la pandemia de COVID-19, diversas interacciones entre la industria farmacéutica y los médicos cambiaron. Una de ellas ha sido el método promocional de medicamentos a través de reuniones académicas en torno a padecimientos de interés financiero. Una modalidad reciente ha sido la promoción unilateral de un fármaco determinado por parte de la industria farmacéutica por medio de eventos académicos con la invitación de aparentes "expertos". Estas reuniones frecuentemente están sesgadas no hacia la atención óptima de un padecimiento, sino a la promoción comercial de un medicamento específico que pudiera o no ser la mejor opción o sin la consideración de alternativas terapéuticas asociadas. El Comité de Ética y Transparencia en la Relación Médico-Industria, de la Academia Nacional de Medicina de México, analiza esta nueva circunstancia y propone algunas consideraciones a la comunidad médica.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Resumen Debido a las restricciones sanitarias secundarias a la pandemia de COVID-19, diversas interacciones entre la industria farmacéutica y los médicos cambiaron. Una de ellas ha sido el método promocional de medicamentos a través de reuniones académicas en torno a padecimientos de interés financiero. Una modalidad reciente ha sido la promoción unilateral de un fármaco determinado por parte de la industria farmacéutica por medio de eventos académicos con la invitación de aparentes "expertos". Estas reuniones frecuentemente están sesgadas no hacia la atención óptima de un padecimiento, sino a la promoción comercial de un medicamento específico que pudiera o no ser la mejor opción o sin la consideración de alternativas terapéuticas asociadas. El Comité de Ética y Transparencia en la Relación Médico-Industria, de la Academia Nacional de Medicina de México, analiza esta nueva circunstancia y propone algunas consideraciones a la comunidad médica.

Abstract Due to sanitary restrictions secondary to the COVID-19 pandemic, various interactions between the pharmaceutical industry and physicians have changed. One of them has been the method for promoting medicinal products through academic meetings around diseases of financial interest. A recent modality has been unilateral promotion by the pharmaceutical industry through academic events with the invitation of so-called "experts" for the promotion of a specific drug; these meetings are often biased not towards optimal care of a disease, but rather towards commercial promotion of a specific drug, which may or may not be the best option, without considering associated therapeutic alternatives. The Committee of Ethics and Transparency in the Physician-Industry Relationship, of the National Academy of Medicine, analyzes this new circumstance and proposes some considerations to the medical community.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Prior U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) surveys with healthcare providers (HCPs) have focused on attitudes toward direct-to-consumer advertising and have not specifically examined professionally-targeted prescription drug promotion. Similarly, there are no recent national surveys of HCPs examining their interactions with the pharmaceutical industry. OBJECTIVES: The goal of this study was to use a national sample of HCPs to examine exposure to professionally-targeted prescription drug promotions and interactions with industry, and knowledge, attitudes and practices related to FDA approval of prescription drugs. METHODS: An online national survey was conducted with 2000 HCPs representing primary care physicians (PCPs), specialists (SPs), physician assistants (PAs), and nurse practitioners (NPs). The sample was randomly drawn from WebMD's Medscape subscriber network, stratified by HCP group, and designed to yield target numbers of completed surveys in each group. Weights were computed to correct for unequal selection probabilities, differential response rates, and differential coverage and used to generalize completed surveys to a national population of PCPs, SPs, NPs, and PAs. RESULTS: Exposure and attention to pharmaceutical promotions and contact with industry were significantly associated with reported increase in pharmaceutical industry influence on decisions about prescription drugs. SPs were significantly more likely to prescribe off-label and serve as opinion leaders for the pharmaceutical industry compared to other provider groups. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate pharmaceutical promotions directed at HCPs occur in many forms and are disseminated through multiple channels. By using a nationally representative sample of HCPs, this study provides population-level estimates for exposure and attention to prescription drug promotion and contact with industry and evidence for their influence on prescriber decisions. Findings from this study will help to inform FDA of HCP responses to and impacts of prescription drug promotion.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Consumers and primary care physicians (PCPs) sometimes encounter deceptive promotional claims about prescription drugs. Whether consumers and PCPs can detect deceptive claims or whether those claims negatively affect medical decision making, however, remain important, unanswered research questions. OBJECTIVES: This article explores (1) the ability of consumers and PCPs to identify deceptive prescription drug promotion at various levels of deception, (2) the influence of such tactics on obstructing risk recognition, and (3) whether perceived deception mediates relationships between exposure to deceptive tactics and various outcomes (including false-claim acceptance, attitudes, information-seeking intentions, and interest toward the promoted drug). METHODS: Two experiments-1 with consumers (N = 366) and 1 with PCPs (N = 378)-were conducted to determine whether participant exposure to deceptive prescription drug website content corresponds to detection and acceptance (or rejection) of claims and tactics. In each experiment, the number of deceptive claims and tactics on a consumer- or PCP-targeted website for a fictitious chronic pain medication were varied, in a 1 × 3 (none, fewer, more) between-subjects design. RESULTS: Among consumers, exposure to more deceptive claims or tactics did not increase suspicion about the veracity of the website (relative to fewer claims and tactics) and actually had a limited positive direct effect on false-claim acceptance and attitudes toward the drug. Among PCPs, a mediation effect existed such that exposure to more deceptive claims and tactics resulted in higher perceived website deceptiveness relative to those in the fewer deceptive claims condition, which, in turn, resulted in lower acceptance of deceptive claims and tactics, lower perceived drug effectiveness, more negative attitudes toward the drug, and lower interest and intentions. CONCLUSION: These experiments demonstrate potential differences between consumers and PCPs as well as implications for consumer and PCP vulnerability to website deception.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Pharmaceutical companies engage heavily in promoting their products worldwide, and India is no exception. This article begins with an analysis of the therapeutic value of medications on the Indian market because, by definition, if a drug has no therapeutic value or has a negative benefit-to-harm ratio, then any promotion of that drug is inappropriate. It then examines 2 Indian case studies: drug promotion in Mumbai and the misuse of the World Health Organization logo in promotion. Next it describes specific types of promotion: advertisements in medical journals, brochures, and pamphlets; the actions of sales representatives; and the content of continuing medical education courses and medical conferences. The next sections examine medical students' and trainees' exposure to promotion and their attitudes about promotion; the attitudes of doctors about their interactions with the pharmaceutical industry; and whether promotion has an influence on prescribing. The article concludes with a critique of the existing industry, professional, and government regulatory regimes in India.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Drug Promotional Literatures are usually relied upon for drug promotion, however studies have shown them to contain several pitfalls. World Health Organization has time and often revised the guideline to address the issue and World Health Organization Ethical Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion was established. Based on this guideline, several regional as well as national guidelines have been formulated. Though laws to regulate drug promotion is existent, studies have shown problems with drug promotional literatures in Nepal also. This study was carried out to analyse the drug promotional literatures distributed by pharmaceutical companies in Nepal as per World Health Organization Ethical Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion. METHODS: A cross-sectional study over a period of one year was conducted at our department. Pharmaceutical companies registered in Department of Drug Administration, Kathmandu and consenting for the study were requested to provide ten unique drug promotional literatures of their products. Collected drug promotional literatures were analysed for inclusion of essential information as per World Health Organization Ethical Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion, level of biasness. Different drug promotional literatures were also classified and compared for these aspects. RESULTS: A total of 48 pharmaceutical companies were included in the study. Drug promotional literatures (n = 372) were analysed during the study. Adherence to criteria concerned with positive attributes of the promoted medicine was found to be higher, most of the drug promotional literatures adhered to 5-8 criteria of World Health Organization Ethical Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion and were categorised into grade B. Difference in adherence as well as number of biased drug promotional literatures was also seen when drug promotional literatures were compared on different basis. CONCLUSIONS: Adherence to World Health Organization Ethical Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion was found to vary when drug promotional literatures were classified as per pharmaceutical company, type of formulation being promoted, type of drug promotional literatures.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

PURPOSE: This study was conducted to evaluate the validity of drug promotion materials (DPMs) in Ethiopia. METHODS: A cross sectional document review was done. DPMs were evaluated for fulfilment of the World Health Organization's (WHO) criteria for ethical promotion of drugs. They were also evaluated for font size, type of formulation, claims made, pictures depicted, retrievability and source of references used. RESULTS: A total of 235 DPMs were collected from the community and hospital pharmacies. Documents promoting devices and equipment, orthopedic appliances, reminder cards and drug lists were excluded, leaving 173 promotional materials. Antimicrobials were the most promoted drugs (27.2%) followed by respiratory drugs (11.0%) and gastrointestinal drugs (9.8%). Brand name was written in all of the DPMs while approved generic names, indication and active ingredient per dosage form were written in 94.8%, 92.5% and 62.4% respectively. Side effects and contraindications were written in 27.2% and 18.5% of the DPMs. A total of 223 claims were made. Efficacy was the dominant claim (62.3%) followed by safety (8.5%). Pictorial demonstrations were used in 84.4% of the DPMs. Almost half of the pictures depicted, 47.3%, were the cover of the drug products. Only 48.6% of the DPMs has supported their claims with references. Review articles account for 23.3% of the references. Only 5.8% of the journal articles were published after the year 2013. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the design and content of studied drug promotional materials are most effective as sales materials rather than thorough informational vehicles. The WHO and Food, Medicine and Health Care Administration and Control Authority of Ethiopia recommendations are rarely met.

RESUMEN

Doctors require flexibility for prescription. However, some limits are laid down both by current knowledge and by restrictions imposed by access and rules and regulations. The Committee for Ethics and Transparency in the Physician-Industry Relationship (CETREMI) of the National Academy of Medicine proposes several suggestions to help patients, which include the selection of the best alternatives for each case, formalization of prescription standards variations (doses, drug indications, etc.) written down in the medical records, and avoidance of fashions, untested novelties, argumentations solely based on advertising or commercial promotion and conflicts of interest.

Los médicos requieren flexibilidad para sus prescripciones. Sin embargo, algunos límites están marcados tanto por el conocimiento vigente como por las restricciones de acceso, normas y reglamentos. El Comité de Ética y Transparencia en la Relación Médico-Industria (CETREMI) propone varias sugerencias para ayudar a los pacientes, que incluyen la selección de las mejores alternativas para cada caso, la protocolización de variaciones a los estándares de prescripción (dosis, indicaciones, etcétera) por escrito en el expediente y eludir modas, novedades no probadas, argumentos simplemente publicitarios o promocionales y conflictos de interés.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Resumen Los médicos requieren flexibilidad para sus prescripciones. Sin embargo, algunos límites están marcados tanto por el conocimiento vigente como por las restricciones de acceso, normas y reglamentos. El Comité de Ética y Transparencia en la Relación Médico-Industria (CETREMI) propone varias sugerencias para ayudar a los pacientes, que incluyen la selección de las mejores alternativas para cada caso, la protocolización de variaciones a los estándares de prescripción (dosis, indicaciones, etcétera) por escrito en el expediente y eludir modas, novedades no probadas, argumentos simplemente publicitarios o promocionales y conflictos de interés.

Abstract Doctors require flexibility for prescription. However, some limits are laid down both by current knowledge and by restrictions imposed by access and rules and regulations. The Committee for Ethics and Transparency in the Physician-Industry Relationship (CETREMI) of the National Academy of Medicine proposes several suggestions to help patients, which include the selection of the best alternatives for each case, formalization of prescription standards variations (doses, drug indications, etc.) written down in the medical records, and avoidance of fashions, untested novelties, argumentations solely based on advertising or commercial promotion and conflicts of interest.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

The impact of prescription drug promotion on health-care professionals (HCPs) is significant. Pharmaceutical industry spending on promotion to HCPs greatly outpaces spending on direct-to-consumer promotion. According to Syneos Health™ PromotionalAnswers, in 2017, the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $24 billion on drug promotion, with more than $18.5 billion allotted for marketing to HCPs. Although prescription drug promotion can provide valuable information about drug therapies, it is essential that it be truthful, balanced, and not misleading, because HCPs may consider this information when making treatment decisions for their patients.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Pharmaceutical companies spend significant amount of resources on promotion influencing the prescribing behavior of physicians. Drug promotion can negatively impact on rational prescribing, which may adversely affect the quality of patient care. However, little is known about these activities in Nigeria as the most populous country in Africa. We therefore aimed to explore the nature of encounters between Nigerian physicians and pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSRs), and how these encounters influence prescribing habits. METHODS: Cross-sectional questionnaire-based study conducted among practicing physicians working in tertiary hospitals in four regions of Nigeria. RESULTS: 176 questionnaires were completed. 154 respondents (87.5%) had medicines promoted to them in the previous three months, with most encounters taking place in outpatients' clinics (60.2%), clinical meetings (46%) and new medicine launches (17.6%). Information about potential adverse effects and drug interactions was provided in 41.5%, and 27.3% of cases, respectively. Food, in the form of lunch or dinner, was the most common form of incentive (70.5%) given to physicians during promotional activities. 61% of physicians felt motivated to prescribe the drug promoted to them, with the quality of information provided being the driving factor. Most physicians (64.8%) would agree to some form of regulation of the relationship between medical doctors and the pharmaceutical industry. CONCLUSION: Interaction between PSRs and physicians is a regular occurrence in Nigeria, influencing prescribing practices. Meals and cheap gifts were the most common items offered to physicians during their encounters with PSRs. The need for some form of regulation by professional organizations and the government was expressed by most respondents to address current concerns.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Over the years, the pharmaceutical industry has been at the forefront of research and innovation in drug discovery and development. The process of drug discovery extending from preclinical studies to multicentric clinical trials and postmarketing phase is a costly affair running into billions of dollars. On the flip side, not all investigational molecules clear the trial phases and get approved, which puts pressure on the manufacturers to maximize the profit from approved drugs. It is in this key area that the practice of drug promotion plays its role. The World Health Organization defines drug promotion as "all informational and persuasive activities by manufacturers and distributors, the effect of which is to influence the prescription, supply, purchase or use of medicinal drugs". With its humble intent of creating awareness among healthcare professionals and updating their knowledge on recent advances in treatment options, drug promotion has been an important tool, but gradually it has evolved to embrace aggressive marketing strategies and sometimes unethical business and scientific practices where the need for profit-making eclipses commitment to patient care and scientific exploration. In this review, we discuss the evolution of drug promotion practices, the various types, its merits and demerits, the influence of drug promotion on physician prescribing behaviour, the role of regulatory bodies, unethical promotional practices and finally summarize with future directions.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Introduction: Attention to undergraduate medical education on the relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry has been increasing in North America and Europe. There are no reports, however, regarding this relationship in Japanese medical education.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey using a self-administered questionnaire to investigate formal undergraduate curricula on the relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry.Results: Forty-four of 80 medical schools approved participation in the study, with 16 (36.0%) reporting having a formal curriculum on drug promotion. Many of the themes included in the programs were related to research ethics or conflict of interest in research, with drug promotion covered in only a few programs.Discussion: More discussion and investigation into undergraduate education on the relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry, especially on drug promotion, is warranted.

RESUMEN

Introduction: Attention to undergraduate medical education on the relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry has been increasing in North America and Europe. There are no reports, however, regarding this relationship in Japanese medical education.Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey using a self-administered questionnaire to investigate formal undergraduate curricula on the relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry.Results: Forty-four of 80 medical schools approved participation in the study, with 16 (36.0%) reporting having a formal curriculum on drug promotion. Many of the themes included in the programs were related to research ethics or conflict of interest in research, with drug promotion covered in only a few programs.Discussion: More discussion and investigation into undergraduate education on the relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry, especially on drug promotion, is warranted.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: Drug promotional literatures (DPLs) are used as a promotional tool to advertise new drugs entering the market to doctors. The objective of the present study is to evaluate the accuracy of DPLs by using the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. METHODS: An observational study was conducted from March to August 2014. The DPLs were collected from various departments at R.L. Jalappa Hospital and Research Centre attached to Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College, Kolar, India. The literature was evaluated based on 11 criteria laid down by the WHO. FINDINGS: Two-hundred DPLs were evaluated. Cardiovascular drugs (34 [17%]) were promoted the most, followed by antidiabetic drugs (31 [15.5%]) and antimicrobial agents (29 [14.5%]). Single drug was promoted in 134 (67%) and fixed drug combination in 66 (33%) brochures. Manufacturer's name was mentioned in 194 (97%), but their address was mentioned in 109 (54.5%) claims only. Drug cost was revealed only in 12 (6%) DPLs. Each ingredient's generic name, brand name, and dosage form were mentioned in 197 (98%) brochures. Indication for use was stated in 193 (96.5%) claims. Contraindications, adverse effects, precautions, and drug interactions were listed in 68 (34.5%), 65 (32.5%), 65 (32.5%), and 58 (29%) advertisements. References were cited in 133 (66.5%) brochures. Only 63 (31.5%) literatures had relevant pictures of drugs being promoted and 59 (29.5%) had a graphical representation of pharmacological properties. A total of 131 (69%) DPLs followed 50% of the WHO criteria. CONCLUSION: Majority of DPLs satisfied only half of the WHO criteria for rational drug promotion and none of them fulfilled all the specified criteria. Incomplete or exaggerated information in DPLs may mislead and result in irrational prescription. Therefore, physicians should critically evaluate DPLs regarding updated scientific evidence required for quality patient care.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: Evaluation and comparison of ethical standards of published drug promotional literatures (DPLs) between different Indian and non-Indian scientific medical journals regarding compliance to the World Health Organization (WHO) and International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMAs) guidelines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional, observational study was carried out at pharmacology department. DPLs published in Indian and non-Indian scientific medical journals available at central library of medical college during the period of 6 months were collected according to selection criteria. DPLs were evaluated and compared for compliance to ethical standards of drug promotion laid by the WHO and IFPMA. Data were analyzed using Fisher's exact test. RESULTS: Out of total 178 DPLs, 103 DPLs were from Indian journals and 75 DPLs were from non-Indian journals. When compared regarding compliance to all the 11 ethical criteria of WHO, no significant difference was found between DPLs published in Indian and non-Indian journals. However, DPLs from indian journals contained significantly less information regarding dosage regimen (P = 0.0096), adverse drug reactions (P = 0.0028), warnings (P = 0.0104) and major drug interactions (P < 0.0001) as compared to non-Indian journals. Compliance to all the five IFPMA criteria was significantly higher in DPLs of non-Indian journals (88%) than Indian journals (39%) (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Noncompliance to ethical standards of WHO and IFPMA guidelines is more common in DPLs of Indian journals as compared to non-Indian journals. Thus strict implementation of regulatory measures regarding DPLs published in Indian medical journals is recommended.