more_vert
The proposed sale of Vectura by Philip Morris International is a significant moment in the fight against Big Tobacco’s influence on health care. The Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand explores the implications of the sale and calls for continued vigilance to keep tobacco and vaping companies out of the pharmaceutical sector.
The proposed sale of Vectura, the asthma inhaler company, by Philip Morris International (PMI) marks the latest chapter in an ongoing battle between public health advocates and Big Tobacco. PMI, which purchased Vectura in 2021, has now entered into an agreement to sell the company at a large discount after a fierce backlash from the global health community. This development is a significant milestone, but it also raises new questions about the intentions of PMI and the future of respiratory health in Australia and globally.
State of play: Vectura’s troubling ties to Big Tobacco
In 2021, PMI acquired Vectura, a leading provider of medical inhalation products, sparking outrage from health care professionals and organisations worldwide. The acquisition signalled PMI’s entry into the pharmaceutical market, a move that was widely seen as problematic given the company’s role in promoting tobacco use, one of the leading causes of respiratory diseases like asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.
The proposed sale of Vectura by PMI in September 2024 is a direct result of sustained pressure from clinicians, scientists and public health workers. The Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand (TSANZ) and the Public Health Association of Australia (PHAA), alongside numerous international groups, have led a campaign against PMI’s ownership of Vectura due to a tobacco company being the ultimate financial beneficiary. This campaign and advocacy against Big Tobacco and vaping companies’ involvement in health care led to widespread condemnation and ultimately contributed to PMI retreating from its controversial venture.
The PMI–Vectura sale: what does it really mean?
Although the sale of Vectura appears to be a victory for public health advocates, there are lingering concerns about PMI’s broader strategy. PMI has publicly stated that although it is selling Vectura, it has accumulated enough knowledge from the inhaler business to continue developing its own pipeline of respiratory products and inhaled therapeutics. This is troubling as it suggests that PMI’s departure from Vectura does not necessarily signal a retreat from the respiratory health sector. Instead, PMI is likely to rebrand and re-enter the market under different guises, potentially circumventing the advocacy campaign and continuing to profit from products related to respiratory care.
The concern now is that Big Tobacco and vaping companies’ influence on health care is far from over. Even though PMI may intend to divest Vectura, its knowledge and resources acquired during the ownership could pose a significant threat to the integrity of the pharmaceutical industry.
Medicines Australia and ethical concerns
The sale also brings renewed focus on how Australia’s pharmaceutical and health care industries should respond to Big Tobacco’s involvement in medicines. In recent months, TSANZ has engaged with Medicines Australia, the peak body for the pharmaceutical industry, to call for stricter guidelines that prevent member firms from having direct or indirect links to tobacco and vaping companies.
We have urged Medicines Australia to establish policies that would create high barriers for tobacco and vaping companies wishing to enter or remain involved in the pharmaceutical market. Such measures are critical to maintaining the integrity of Australia’s health care system and ensuring that patients receive care that is not tainted by the unethical practices of tobacco and vaping companies.
Quality use of medicines: what role do clinicians play?
As PMI continues to explore ways to profit from respiratory medicines, Australian clinicians must remain vigilant in their role as gatekeepers of ethical medical practice. The quality use of medicines (QUM) is a guiding principle that ensures medications are used safely, judiciously, and in the best interests of patients. This principle takes on heightened importance when products are tied to industries, like tobacco, which have a long history of causing harm.
Australian clinicians are encouraged to carefully consider the origins of the medications they prescribe, particularly when those medications are linked to companies like PMI. The potential sale of Vectura may not remove PMI’s presence from the respiratory health sector, so health care providers must stay informed and critically evaluate the companies behind the treatments they offer. By prioritising ethical decision-making and the wellbeing of patients, clinicians can play a pivotal role in safeguarding the health care system from the influence of Big Tobacco.
The road ahead: continued vigilance and advocacy
Despite the proposed sale of Vectura, the battle is far from over. PMI’s stated intent to continue developing therapeutic inhalation products means that public health advocates and the clinical community must remain vigilant. TSANZ will continue its advocacy efforts to ensure that no tobacco or vaping company profits from health care products, particularly those that treat diseases caused by their own products.
We are also calling on governments, regulatory bodies and pharmaceutical companies to adopt stricter policies that prevent any further entanglement between tobacco and vaping companies and the health care sector. Ensuring that public funds, such as those provided through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, do not indirectly benefit tobacco and vaping companies remains a key priority for TSANZ.
A milestone, not an endpoint
The proposed sale of Vectura by PMI is a significant step forward, but it is not the end of the battle against tobacco’s influence on health care. The health care sector must remain resolute in its commitment to keeping tobacco companies out of medical innovation and treatment.
As health care professionals, we have a duty to ensure that patient wellbeing and ethical practices are prioritised over corporate profits. TSANZ will continue to advocate for a future where health care is free from the harmful influence of tobacco and vaping companies, and we urge all clinicians and scientists to join us in this effort.
Professor Anne Holland is the president of the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand (TSANZ).
Mr Vincent So is the CEO of TSANZ, and board director of the Public Health Association of Australia and its vice president of finance.
The statements or opinions expressed in this article reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official policy of the AMA, the MJA or InSight+ unless so stated.
Subscribe to the free InSight+ weekly newsletter here. It is available to all readers, not just registered medical practitioners.
If you would like to submit an article for consideration, send a Word version to mjainsight-editor@ampco.com.au.
Regardless of the corporate owner, patients prescribing needs to focus on the best therapy.
Lobbying activity that results in exclusion of options for patient care seems ethically fraught.
I agree with you, Dr E R. This could be seen as PMI getting close to Docs to tweak us, but tweaking can work the opposite way, especially if firmly applied.
An interesting point of view. Bad actors can do good things. To refuse to accept a therapeutically beneficial product because you dislike the body that produces it, for whatever reason, seems extremely foolish to me.