The Relationship of Industry Payments to Prescribing Behavior: A Study of Degarelix and Denosumab

Off-Label Use vs Off-Label Marketing of Drugs: Part 1: Off-Label Use-Patient Harms and Prescriber Responsibilities

Once medical drugs and devices are approved for marketing by the FDA they can legally be used for purposes and in ways other than the ones for which they have been tested and approved. However, it is illegal for manufacturers to advertise or promote such unapproved uses of the drugs and devices. Part 1 of this review focuses on off-label use of FDA-approved therapies. Part 2 addresses illegal off-label marketing of drugs and devices. While off-label use can be beneficial to patients, unless carefully undertaken off label use may undermine the important safety mission of the FDA, can expose patients to elevated risks without proven benefits (or possibly no benefit), and can reduce motivation of companies to study the safety and risks of off-label use of therapies. These problems are further amplified when off-label use occurs among very vulnerable patient populations such as the elderly, patients with mental health disorders, pregnant women and pediatric patients. This review considers ethical issues in off-label use, as well as important steps for physicians considering an off-label prescription of a drug or device.

Association Between Open Payments-Reported Industry Transfers of Value and Prostaglandin Analog Prescribing in the US

Importance

Reported transfers of value (TOV) from pharmaceutical companies have been associated with greater use of branded anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents by ophthalmologists, but payment under the Medicare Part B buy-and-bill model includes a financial incentive to choose costlier agents, potentially confounding analyses of pharmaceutical TOV and prescribing patterns. How these reported TOV are associated with prescribing patterns for prescription eye drops, not subject to the incentives created by Part B payments, should be considered.

Objective

To assess the association between prostaglandin analog (PGA) eye drop prescribing and reported nonresearch TOV by makers of branded PGAs to US vision care professionals.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This retrospective cohort analysis used a 20% nationally representative sample of 2018 Medicare Part D claims and industry TOV reported to the Open Payments program. Optometrists and ophthalmologists who had more than 10 claims for PGA drops in the 20% sample were analyzed. Analysis took place from June 2021 to February 2022.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Multivariable logistic regression assessing the association between membership in strata of reported TOV and branded PGA prescribing rate, controlling for prescriber demographic factors, local area practices, total PGA prescribing volume, and plan formularies involved.

Results

A total of 20 612 ophthalmologists and 5426 optometrists (7449 [29%] female and 18 589 [71%] male) prescribed PGA eye drops. Of these, 9685 (37%) were reported to have received TOV from manufacturers of branded PGAs in 2018, totaling $5 060 346. The median (IQR) reported TOV was $65 ($24-$147). Multivariable logistic regression showed that the predicted probability of primarily prescribing branded PGAs among prescribers who reported receiving no TOV was 12.9% (95% CI, 12.4%-13.4%). This figure increased to 19.6% (95% CI, 18.8%-20.4%) among prescribers receiving TOV, a 50% increase. There was a dose-response association, such that the top 10% of TOV recipients had a 29.2% probability (95% CI, 26.4%-31.9%) of preferential branded use.

Conclusions and Relevance

While the median reported TOV to a PGA prescriber was relatively low in this study, there was a positive association between amount of reported nonresearch TOV received from PGA makers and the frequency of branded PGA use. This shows that small reported TOV were associated with differences in prescribing. High rates of branded PGA prescribing may pose a cost burden to patients that affects adherence. Clinicians and policy makers should be aware of these associations.

Ten years later: a review of the US 2009 institute of medicine report on conflicts of interest and solutions for further reform

Conflicts of interest (COIs) in healthcare are increasingly discussed in the literature, yet these relationships continue to influence healthcare. Research has consistently shown that financial COIs shape prescribing practices, medical education and guideline recommendations. In 2009, the Institute of Medicine (IOM, now the National Academy of Medicine) published Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research, Practice, and Education-one of the most comprehensive reviews of empirical research on COIs in medicine. Ten years after publication of theIOM's report, we review the current state of COIs within medicine. We also provide specific recommendations for enhancing scientific integrity in medical research, practice, education and editorial practices.

Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and the practice, knowledge and beliefs of medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

No previous review has assessed the extent and effect of industry interactions on medical oncologists and haematologists specifically.

METHODS

A systematic review investigated interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and how these might affect the clinical practice, knowledge and beliefs of cancer physicians. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched from inception to February 2021.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine cross-sectional and two cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. These were classified into three categories of investigation: (1) extent of exposure to industry for cancer physicians as whole (n = 11); (2) financial ties among influential cancer physicians specifically (n = 11) and (3) associations between industry exposure and prescribing (n = 9). Cancer physicians frequently receive payments from or maintain financial ties with industry, at a prevalence of up to 63% in the United States (US) and 70.6% in Japan. Among influential clinicians, 86% of US and 78% of Japanese oncology guidelines authors receive payments. Payments were associated with either a neutral or negative influence on the quality of prescribing practice. Limited evidence suggests oncologists believe education by industry could lead to unconscious bias.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial evidence of frequent relationships between cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry in a range of high-income countries. More research is needed on clinical implications for patients and better management of these relationships.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO identification number CRD42020143353.

Increasing Financial Payments From Industry to Medical Oncologists in the United States, 2014-2017

BACKGROUND

Personal payments from the pharmaceutical industry to US physicians are common and are associated with changes in physicians' clinical practice and interpretation of clinical trial results. We assessed temporal trends in industry payments to oncologists, with particular emphasis on payments to authors of oncology clinical practice guideline and on payments related to immunotherapy drugs.

METHODS

We included US physicians with active National Plan and Provider Enumeration System records and demographic data available in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician Compare system who had a specialty type of medical oncology or general internal medicine. Medical oncologists serving on NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) Panels were identified manually. Industry payments, and the subset associated with PD-1/PD-L1 drugs, were identified in Open Payments, the federal repository of all transactions of financial value from industry to physicians and teaching hospitals, from 2014 to 2017.

RESULTS

There were 13,087 medical oncologists and 85,640 internists who received payments. The mean, annual, per-physician value of payments to oncologists increased from $3,811 in 2014 to $5,854 in 2017, and from $444 to $450 for internists; the median payment increased from $152 to $199 for oncologists and remained at $0 for internists. Oncologists who served on NCCN Guidelines Panels received a greater value in payments and experienced a greater relative increase: mean payments increased from $10,820 in 2014 to $18,977 in 2017, and median payments increased from $500 to $1,366. Among companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs, mean annual per-oncologist payments associated with PD-1/PD-L1 drugs increased from $28 to $773. Total per-oncologist payments from companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs experienced a 165% increase from 2014 to 2017, compared with a 31% increase among similar companies not marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Pharmaceutical industry payments increased for US oncologists from 2014 to 2017 more than for general internists. The increase was greater among oncologists contributing to clinical practice guidelines and among pharmaceutical companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs. The increasing flow of money from industry to US oncologists supports ongoing concern regarding commercial interests in guideline development and clinical decision-making.

Are Financial Payments From the Pharmaceutical Industry Associated With Physician Prescribing? : A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Financial payments from the drug industry to U.S. physicians are common. Payments may influence physicians' clinical decision making and drug prescribing.

PURPOSE

To evaluate whether receipt of payments from the drug industry is associated with physician prescribing practices.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and EconLit were searched without language restrictions. The search had no limiting start date and concluded on 16 September 2020.

STUDY SELECTION

Studies that estimated the association between receipt of industry payments (exposure) and prescribing (outcome).

DATA EXTRACTION

Pairs of reviewers extracted the primary analysis or analyses from each study and evaluated risk of bias (ROB).

DATA SYNTHESIS

Thirty-six studies comprising 101 analyses were included. Most studies (n = 30) identified a positive association between payments and prescribing in all analyses; the remainder (n = 6) had a mix of positive and null findings. No study had only null findings. Of 101 individual analyses, 89 identified a positive association. Payments were associated with increased prescribing of the paying company's drug, increased prescribing costs, and increased prescribing of branded drugs. Nine studies assessed and found evidence of a temporal association; 25 assessed and found evidence of a dose-response relationship.

LIMITATION

The design was observational, 21 of 36 studies had serious ROB, and publication bias was possible.

CONCLUSION

The association between industry payments and physician prescribing was consistent across all studies that have evaluated this association. Findings regarding a temporal association and dose-response suggest a causal relationship.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

Industry Payments to Orthopedic Spine Surgeons Reported by the Open Payments Database: 2014-2017

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective study of publicly available data.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to characterize and assess trends in Open Payments Database (OPD) industry payments reported to orthopedic spine surgeons from 2014 to 2017.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There have been a lack of studies characterizing OPD industry payments to orthopedic spine surgeons over the 4 full years of data available.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

General industry payments made to orthopedic spine surgeons from 2014 to 2017 were characterized by year with analysis of: number of compensated surgeons, median payment per surgeon, top strata of compensated surgeons, and subtype (ie, food/beverage). Research and Ownership Payments were characterized by median payment per surgeon. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare payments.

RESULTS

For General Payments, the number of compensated orthopedic spine surgeons increased from 1539 in 2014 to 1673 in 2017. Later year median General Payments per surgeon were compared with the 2014 median ($1051): 2015 ($1070: P=0.375), 2016 ($1263: P=0.012), and 2017 ($978: P=0.561). In 2014, the top 10% of compensated orthopedic spine surgeons received 89% of the total General compensation to orthopedic spine surgeons, top 5% received 79%, and the top 1% received 55%. The median General Payment for these 3 top strata remained similar over the 4 years evaluated (P>0.05). For subtype analyses, the median aggregate General Payment for "education" increased (P=0.002) across the years. Finally, it was determined that the median payment per surgeon for Research and Ownership Payment categories remained stable across the time period (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Many expected industry payments to surgeons to decrease under public scrutiny of the OPD, but the present study showed no net change in median payment (General, Research, and Ownership) over the years studied. In the age of greater transparency, these findings shed insight into the orthopedic spine surgeon-industry relationship.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Evaluating the Strength of the Association Between Industry Payments and Prescribing Practices in Oncology

BACKGROUND

Financial relationships between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry are common, but factors that may determine whether such relationships result in physician practice changes are unknown.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We evaluated physician use of orally administered cancer drugs for four cancers: prostate (abiraterone, enzalutamide), renal cell (axitinib, everolimus, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib), lung (afatinib, erlotinib), and chronic myeloid leukemia (CML; dasatinib, imatinib, nilotinib). Separate physician cohorts were defined for each cancer type by prescribing history. The primary exposure was the number of calendar years during 2013-2015 in which a physician received payments from the manufacturer of one of the studied drugs; the outcome was relative prescribing of that drug in 2015, compared with the other drugs for that cancer. We evaluated whether practice setting at a National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated Comprehensive Cancer Center, receipt of payments for purposes other than education or research (compensation payments), maximum annual dollar value received, and institutional conflict-of-interest policies were associated with the strength of the payment-prescribing association. We used modified Poisson regression to control confounding by other physician characteristics.

RESULTS

Physicians who received payments for a drug in all 3 years had increased prescribing of that drug (compared with 0 years), for renal cell (relative risk [RR] 1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.58-2.07), CML (RR 1.22, 95% CI 1.08-1.39), and lung (RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.58-1.82), but not prostate (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.93-1.02). Physicians who received compensation payments or >$100 annually had increased prescribing compared with those who did not, but NCI setting and institutional conflict-of-interest policies were not consistently associated with the direction of prescribing change.

CONCLUSION

The association between industry payments and cancer drug prescribing was greatest among physicians who received payments consistently (within each calendar year). Receipt of payments for compensation purposes, such as for consulting or travel, and higher dollar value of payments were also associated with increased prescribing.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

Financial payments from pharmaceutical companies are common among oncologists. It is known from prior work that oncologists tend to prescribe more of the drugs made by companies that have given them money. By combining records of industry gifts with prescribing records, this study identifies the consistency of payments over time, the dollar value of payments, and payments for compensation as factors that may strengthen the association between receiving payments and increased prescribing of that company's drug.

The Receipt of Industry Payments is Associated With Prescribing Promoted Alpha-blockers and Overactive Bladder Medications

OBJECTIVE

To determine the impact of physicians' financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry on prescribing marketed alpha-blockers and overactive bladder (OAB) medications. We also aim to examine if the number or total value of transactions is influential.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We linked the Open Payments Program database of industry payments to prescribers with Medicare Part D prescription data. We used binomial logistic regression to identify the association between receipt of industry payment and prescribing of marketed alpha-blockers (silodosin) and OAB medications (fesoterodine, solifenacin, and mirabegron). We also evaluated the impact of increasing total value and number of payments on prescribing of marketed drugs.

RESULTS

The receipt of industry payment was associated with increased odds of prescribing the marketed drug for all included drugs: silodosin (odds ratio [OR] 34.1), fesoterodine (OR 5.9), solifenacin (OR 2.7), and mirabegron (OR 6.8) (all P <.001). We also found that increasing value of total payment and increasing frequency of payments were both independently associated with increased odds of prescribing with a dose-response effect.

CONCLUSION

There is a consistent association between receipt of industry payment and prescribing marketed alpha-blockers and OAB medications. Both the total value and number of transactions were associated with prescribing.

The Association of Industry Payments to Physicians with Prescription of Brand-Name Intranasal Corticosteroids

Objectives To examine the association of industry payments for brand-name intranasal corticosteroids with prescribing patterns. Study Design Cross-sectional retrospective analysis. Setting Nationwide. Subjects and Methods We identified physicians prescribing intranasal corticosteroids to Medicare beneficiaries 2014-2015 and physicians receiving payment for the brand-name intranasal corticosteroids Dymista and Nasonex. Prescription and payment data were linked by physician, and we compared the proportion of prescriptions written for brand-name intranasal corticosteroids in industry-compensated vs non-industry-compensated physicians. We associated the number and dollar amount of industry payments with the relative frequency of brand-name prescriptions. Results In total, 164,587 physicians prescribing intranasal corticosteroids were identified, including 7937 (5%) otolaryngologists; 10,800 and 3886 physicians received industry compensation for Dymista and Nasonex, respectively. Physicians receiving industry payment for Dymista prescribed more Dymista as a proportion of total intranasal corticosteroid prescriptions than noncompensated physicians (3.1% [SD = 9.6%] vs 0.2% [SD = 2.5%], respectively, P < .001). Similar trends were seen for Nasonex (12.0% [SD = 16.8%] vs 4.8% [SD = 13.6%], P < .001). The number and dollar amount of payment were significantly correlated to the relative frequency of Dymista (ρ = 0.26, P < .001 and ρ = 0.20, P < .001, respectively) and Nasonex prescriptions (ρ = 0.09, P < .001 and ρ = 0.15, P < .001, respectively). For Dymista, this association was stronger in otolaryngologists than general practitioners ( P < .001). There was a stronger correlation between the percentage of prescriptions and the number and dollar amount of payments for Dymista than for Nasonex ( P = .014 and P < .001). Conclusions Industry compensation for brand-name intranasal corticosteroids is significantly associated with prescribing patterns. The magnitude of association may depend on physician specialty and the drug's time on the market.

Industry Payments to Physician Specialists Who Prescribe Repository Corticotropin

Importance

Despite great expense and little evidence supporting use over corticosteroids, prescriptions for repository corticotropin (H. P. Acthar Gel; Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals) have increased markedly. Aggressive sales tactics and payments from the manufacturer may influence prescribing behavior for this expensive medication.

Objective

To characterize industry payments to physician specialists who prescribe corticotropin in the Medicare program.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This study was a cross-sectional analysis of Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 2015 Part D prescribing data linked to 2015 Open Payments data. Nephrologists, neurologists, and rheumatologists with more than 10 corticotropin prescriptions (frequent prescribers) in 2015 were included.

Exposures

Frequency, category, and magnitude of corticotropin-related payments from Mallinckrodt recorded in the Open Payments database.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Frequency, category, and magnitude of corticotropin-related payments from Mallinckrodt, as well as corticotropin prescriptions and expenditures for Medicare beneficiaries.

Results

Of the 235 included physicians, 65 were nephrologists; 59, neurologists; and 111, rheumatologists. A majority of frequent corticotropin prescribers (207 [88%]) received corticotropin-related payments from Mallinckrodt. The median (range) total payment for 2015 was $189 ($11-$138 321), with the highest payments ranging from $56 549 to $138 321 across the specialties. More than 20% of frequent prescribers received more than $10 000 and the top quartile of recipients received a median (range) of $33 190 ($9934-$138 321) in total payments per prescriber. Payments for compensation for services other than consulting contributed the most to the total amount. Mallinckrodt payments were positively associated with greater Medicare spending on corticotropin (β = 1.079; 95% CI, 1.044-1.115; P < .001), with every $10 000 in payments associated with a 7.9% increase (approximately $53 000) in Medicare spending on corticotropin. There was no association between corticotropin-related payments and spending on prescriptions for synthetic corticosteroids.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this study, most nephrologists, neurologists, and rheumatologists who frequently prescribe corticotropin received corticotropin-related payments from Mallinckrodt. These findings suggest that financial conflicts of interest may be driving use of corticotropin in the Medicare program.

Increasing Industry Involvement in Otolaryngology: Insights from 3 Years of the Open Payments Database

Objectives

To characterize industry payments to otolaryngologists in 2016 versus 2014 and 2015.

Study Design

Cross-sectional retrospective analysis.

Setting

Open Payments Database.

Subjects and Methods

Using the Open Payments Database, we identified otolaryngologists receiving payments from industry sponsors from 2014 to 2016. We characterized the number and value of payments per physician overall and by census region, as well as by sponsor subspecialty and payment type. Study years were compared via analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Trends in payments to otolaryngologists were compared with trends in 21 other specialties.

Results

Payment to otolaryngologists increased 67% from 2014 to 2016—from $8.7 million in 2014 to $9.9 and $14.5 million in 2015 and 2016, respectively ( P < .001). While mean payment per compensated otolaryngologist increased ($1095, $1243, and $1834 in 2014, 2015, and 2016, respectively, P < .001), median payments stayed relatively constant ($169, $165, and $172), suggesting an increasingly unequal distribution. Much of the increase is accounted for by an increased number of payments for consulting fees and physician ownership. Most payments were made by companies specializing in rhinology. Otolaryngology received the lowest industry compensation per physician among the surgical specialties examined and lower compensation than most nonsurgical specialties. The increase in payments to otolaryngologists was proportionally greater than all but 1 of the other 21 specialties examined.

Conclusions

Industry compensation to otolaryngologists is increasing and increasingly unequal, although it is still less than that in most other specialties. In otolaryngology, the Open Payments Database has not decreased physician-industry relationships as intended.

Cross-sectional Analysis of the Relationship between Paranasal Sinus Balloon Catheter Dilations and Industry Payments among Otolaryngologists

Objective

To characterize the relationship between industry payments and use of paranasal sinus balloon catheter dilations (BCDs) for chronic rhinosinusitis.

Study Design

Cross-sectional analysis of Medicare B Public Use Files and Open Payments data.

Setting

Two national databases, 2013 to 2014.

Subjects and Methods

Physicians with Medicare claims with Current Procedural Terminology codes 31295 to 31297 were identified and cross-referenced with industry payments. Multivariate linear regression controlling for age, race, sex, and comorbidity in a physician’s Medicare population was performed to identify associations between use of BCDs and industry payments. The final analysis included 334 physicians performing 31,506 procedures, each of whom performed at least 11 balloon dilation procedures.

Results

Of 334 physicians, 280 (83.8%) received 4392 industry payments in total. Wide variation in payments to physicians was noted (range, $43.29-$111,685.10). The median payment for food and beverage was $19.26 and that for speaker or consulting fees was $409.45. One payment was associated with an additional 3.05 BCDs (confidence interval [95% CI],1.65-4.45; P < .001). One payment for food and beverages was associated with 3.81 additional BCDs (95% CI, 2.13-5.49; P < .001), and 1 payment for speaker or consulting fees was associated with 5.49 additional BCDs (95% CI, 0.32-10.63; P = .04).

Conclusion

Payments by manufacturers of BCD devices were associated with increased use of BCD for chronic rhinosinusitis. On separate analyses, the number of payments for food and beverages as well as that for speaker and consulting fees was associated with increased BCD use. This study was cross-sectional and cannot prove causality, and several factors likely exist for the uptrend in BCD use.