Pharmaceutical company payments to dermatology Clinical Practice Guideline authors in Japan

Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) play significant roles in most medical fields. However, little is known about the extent of financial Conflicts of Interest (FCOIs) related to pharmaceutical companies (Pharma) selling dermatology prescription products and dermatology CPG authors in Japan. The aims of this study were to elucidate the characteristics and distribution of payments from Pharma to dermatology CPG authors in Japan, and to evaluate the extent of transparency and accuracy in their FCOI disclosures. We analyzed the records of 296 authors from 32 dermatology CPGs published by the Japanese Dermatological Association from the beginning of 2015 to the end of 2018. Using the payment data reported by 79 Pharma between 2016–2017 in Japan, we investigated the characteristics of the CPG authors and the payments from the Pharma to them. Furthermore, we evaluated the transparency and accuracy of the FCOI disclosures of the individual CPG authors. Of the 296 CPGs authors, 269 authors (90.6%) received at least one payment from the Pharma. The total monetary value of payments for the 2-year period was $7,128,762. The median and mean monetary value of payments from the Pharma reporting were $10,281 (interquartile range $2,796 -$34,962) and $26,600 (standard deviation $40,950) for the two years combined. Of the 26 CPG authors who disclosed FCOIs due to the monies received from Pharma, only the atopic dermatitis CPG authors and the acne vulgaris CPG authors published their potential FCOIs. In Japan, most dermatology CPG authors received financial payments from Pharma. The transparency of the CPGs, as reported by the CPG authors, was inadequate, and a more rigorous framework of reporting and monitoring FCOI disclosure is required to improve the accuracy and transparency with relation to possible Conflicts of Interest.

Sponsorship of national and regional professional paediatrics associations by companies that make breast-milk substitutes: evidence from a review of official websites

OBJECTIVES

Professional paediatrics associations play an important role in promoting the highest standard of care for women and children. Education and guidelines must be made in the best interests of patients. Given the importance of breastfeeding for the health, development and survival of infants, children and mothers, paediatric associations have a particular responsibility to avoid conflicts of interest with companies that manufacture breast-milk substitutes (BMSs). The objective of this study was to investigate the extent to which national and regional paediatric associations are sponsored by BMS companies.

METHODS

Data were collected on national paediatric associations based on online searches of websites and Facebook pages. Sites were examined for evidence of financial sponsorship by the BMS industry, including funding of journals, newsletters or other publications, conferences and events, scholarships, fellowship, grants and awards. Payment for services, such as exhibitor space at conferences or events and paid advertisements in publications, was also noted.

RESULTS

Overall, 68 (60%) of the 114 paediatric associations with a website or Facebook account documented receiving financial support from BMS companies. Sponsorship, particularly of conferences or other events, was the most common type of financial support. The prevalence of conference sponsorship is highest in Europe and the Americas, where about half of the associations have BMS company-sponsored conferences. Thirty-one associations (27%) indicated that they received funding from BMS companies as payment for advertisements or exhibitor space. Only 18 associations (16%) have conflict of interest policies, guidelines, or criteria posted online.

CONCLUSION

Despite the well-documented importance of breastfeeding and the widespread recognition that commercial influences can shape the behaviours of healthcare professionals, national and regional paediatric associations commonly accept funding from companies that manufacture and distribute BMS. Paediatric associations should function without the influence of commercial interests.

Physician activism in American politics: The opposition to the Price nomination

Although a substantial literature considers physician advocacy fundamental to medical professionalism, only a minority of physicians actually pursue it. We analyze the characteristics of 6,402 physicians who engaged in political advocacy by signing the Clinician Action Network's 2016 petition objecting to the American Medical Association's endorsement of the nomination of Tom Price as Secretary of Health and Human Services. These physicians were matched to the NPI (all physicians) and PECOS (largely Medicare payment recipients) directories. Physicians in the directories were matched to publicly disclosed campaign contributions. Contributions are used to measure political preferences expressed on a liberal-conservative scale. We document a pronounced generational realignment in the politics of the medical profession, with recent graduates trending sharply Democratic. Petition signing vs. non-signing is responsive to gender, specialty, geographic location, personal liberal-conservative preferences and year of graduation from medical school. Petition signers were more likely to be women (62% of signers versus 34% of non-signers), recent medical school graduates (58% of signers versus 42% of non-signers), and in lower-paying specialties (27% of signers versus 12% of non-signers). The changing face of physician advocacy has important implications for understanding how the medical profession is likely to influence health care policy in coming decades.

Plastic Surgery-Related Hashtag Utilization on Instagram: Implications for Education and Marketing

BACKGROUND

Recent data suggest patients are seeking aesthetic surgery to improve their appearance on Instagram and other social media. Despite the rising influence of Instagram in plastic surgery, few academic publications address Instagram, let alone evaluate its utilization in plastic surgery.

OBJECTIVES

We set out to answer the following three questions: 1) what plastic surgery-related content is being posted to Instagram; 2) who is posting this content; and 3) what specific hashtags are they using?

METHODS

Our study queried 21 Instagram plastic surgery-related hashtags. Content analysis was used to qualitatively evaluate each of the nine "top" posts associated with each hashtag (189 posts). Duplicate posts and those not relevant to plastic surgery were excluded.

RESULTS

A total of 1,789,270 posts utilized the 21 hashtags sampled in this study. Of the top 189 posts for these 21 queried hashtags, 163 posts met inclusion criteria. Plastic surgeons eligible for membership in American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (ASAPS) accounted for only 17.8% of top posts, whereas noneligible physicians accounted for 26.4%. All nonplastic surgery trained physicians marketed themselves as "cosmetic surgeons." Nine top posts (5.5%) were by nonphysicians, including dentists, spas with no associated physician, and a hair salon. The majority of these posts were self-promotional (67.1%) as opposed to educational (32.9%). Board-certified plastic surgeons were significantly more likely to post educational content to Instagram as compared to nonplastic surgeons (62.1% vs 38.1%, P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

ASAPS eligible board-certified plastic surgeons are underrepresented amongst physicians posting top plastic surgery-related content to Instagram.

Aesthetic Surgery Fellowship Selection Criteria: A National Fellowship Director Survey

BACKGROUND

Desirable candidate characteristics for aesthetic surgery fellowship applicants remain unknown because of a lack of data in the literature.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to identify the criteria used to select applicants for aesthetic surgery fellowship in the United States.

METHODS

A 38-question survey was sent in April 2015 to all directors of fellowships endorsed by the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery (n = 20) in the United States. The survey investigated various factors including residency training and fellowship interview. A 5-point Likert scale was used to grade 33 influential factors from 1 ("not at all important") to 5 ("essential"); a separate 5-point Likert scale was used for 5 controversial factors from 1 ("very negative impact") to 5 ("very positive impact").

RESULTS

Sixty-five percent (13 out of 20) of directors responsed. The most important factors were letters of recommendation by well-established plastic surgeons (4.6 ± 0.7), interpersonal skills (4.5 ± 0.8), overall interview performance (4.5 ± 0.7), professionalism and ethics (4.4 ± 1.0), and letters of recommendation by aesthetic surgeons (4.4 ± 1.2). The least important factors were Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society membership (1.8 ± 0.6), postgraduate degrees (1.9 ± 0.9), US Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 2 Clinical Knowledge (CK)/Comprehensive Osteopathic Medical Licensing Examination (COMLEX) Level 2 Cognitive Evaluation and USMLE/COMLEX Step 3 score (1.9 ± 0.9), and research fellowships (2.0 ± 0.6).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides data on the aesthetic surgery fellowship directors' perceptions about the criteria important for applicant selection. We trust that fellowship directors, residency programs, and applicants find this data useful as they prepare for the aesthetic surgery fellowship match.

Cost in Translation

In October, federal language access requirements for patients with limited English proficiency took effect. The new rules raise financial concerns for some physicians and their practices.

Balkanization Makes It Unclear Just What the Doctor Ordered

Divided into many different pressure groups, physicians mostly can live with the ACA. But now they have MACRA, MIPs, APM, and other puzzles to figure out.