Association Between Industry Marketing Payments and Prescriptions for PCSK9 (Proprotein Convertase Subtilisin/Kexin Type 9) Inhibitors in the United States

Industry-sponsored meal payments are associated with prescriptions and Medicare expenditures on brand-name colchicine in the United States

AIM

To investigate the association between industry-sponsored meal payments and the prescribing patterns of brand-name colchicines, namely Colcrys and Mitigare, among Medicare beneficiaries in the United States from 2014 to 2021.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study utilized data from the Open Payments Database and Medicare Part D covering the years 2014 to 2021. The study included 54 836 physicians who submitted more than 10 colchicine claims. Exposure was defined as the receipt of one or more industry-sponsored meals from the manufacturers of Colcrys or Mitigare. The primary outcomes included the likelihood of prescribing Colcrys and Mitigare, as well as the associated number of claims and Medicare expenditures.

RESULTS

Among 54 836 eligible physicians, 44.9% received meal payments from the Colcrys manufacturer, and 8.0% from the Mitigare manufacturer, over the eight-year study period. The average meal payment value was $14.9 for Colcrys and $15.1 for Mitigare. The receipt of meal payments was significantly associated with an increased likelihood of prescribing Colcrys (odds ratio: 1.24 [95% CI: 1.21-1.27], p < .001) and Mitigare (odds ratio: 3.54 [95% CI: 2.98-4.20], p < .001). Each additional meal payment corresponded with a significant increase in Medicare expenditures: $55.4 (95% CI: $48.3-$62.5, p < .001) for Colcrys and $153.7 (95% CI: $17.7-$289.6, p = .03) for Mitigare. These associations remained consistent across different specialties and genders.

CONCLUSION

This study reveals that receipt of meal payments from manufacturers of brand-name colchicine was significantly associated with an increased rate of prescriptions for these brand-name drugs, leading to higher Medicare expenditures in the United States.

Intensive Lipid-Lowering Therapy as per the Latest Dyslipidemia Management Guideline in Predicting Favorable Long-Term Clinical Outcomes in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: A Retrospective Cohort Study

Background There are limited data on low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) goal achievement per the 2019 European Society of Cardiology/European Atherosclerosis Society dyslipidemia management guidelines and its impact on long-term outcomes in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We investigated the association between LDL-C levels attained 1 year after CABG and the long-term outcomes. Methods and Results A total of 2072 patients diagnosed with multivessel coronary artery disease and undergoing CABG between 2011 and 2020 were included. Patients were categorized by lipid levels at 1 year after CABG, and the occurrence of major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) was evaluated. The goal of LDL-C <1.40 mmol/L was attained in only 310 patients (14.9%). During a mean follow-up of 4.2 years after the index 1-year assessment, 25.0% of the patients experienced MACCEs. Multivariable-adjusted hazard ratios (95% CIs) for MACCEs, cardiac death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, nonfatal stroke, revascularization, and cardiac rehospitalization were 1.94 (1.41-2.67), 2.27 (1.29-3.99), 2.45 (1.55-3.88), 1.17 (0.63-2.21), 2.47 (1.31-4.66), and 1.87 (1.19-2.95), respectively, in patients with LDL-C ≥2.60 mmol/L, compared with patients with LDL-C <1.40 mmol/L. The LDL-C levels at 1-year post-CABG were independently associated with long-term MACCEs. Conclusions This retrospective analysis demonstrates that lipid goals are not attained in the vast majority of patients at 1 year after CABG, which is independently associated with the increased risk of long-term MACCEs. Further prospective, multicenter studies are warranted to validate if intensive lipid management could improve the outcomes of patients undergoing CABG.

Assessment of Financial Relationships Between Otorhinolaryngologists and Pharmaceutical Companies in Japan Between 2016 and 2019

INTRODUCTION

There are prevalent financial relationships between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry in medical specialties, including otorhinolaryngology. Although these relationships might cause conflicts of interest, no studies have assessed the size and contents of the financial relationships between otorhinolaryngologists and pharmaceutical companies in Japan. This study aims to evaluate the magnitude, prevalence, and trend of the financial relationship between Japanese otolaryngologists and pharmaceutical companies.

METHODS

 Using payment data publicly disclosed by 92 pharmaceutical companies, we examined the size, prevalence, and trend in personal payments made to the otorhinolaryngologist board certified by the Japanese Society of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (JSO-HNS) between 2016 and 2019 in Japan. Furthermore, differences in payments were evaluated by whether otolaryngologists were clinical practice guideline authors, society board members, and academic journal editors or not. Trends in payments were evaluated by generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

 Of 8,190 otorhinolaryngologists, 3,667 (44.8%) were paid a total of $13,873,562, in payments for lecturing, consulting, and writing by 72 pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. The median four-year combined payment per physician was $1,022 (interquartile range: $473-$2,526). Top 1%, 5%, and 10% of otorhinolaryngologists received 42.3% (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 37.2%-47.4%), 69.3% (95% CI: 65.9%-72.8%), and 80.6% (95% CI: 78.3%-82.9%) of overall payments, respectively. The median payments per physician were significantly higher among otorhinolaryngologists authoring clinical practice guidelines ($11,522), society board members ($22,261), and journal editors ($35,143) than those without. The payments and number of otorhinolaryngologists receiving payments remained stable between 2016 and 2019.

CONCLUSION

 This study demonstrates that a minority but a large number of otorhinolaryngologists received personal payments from pharmaceutical companies for the reimbursement of lecturing, consulting, and writing in Japan. Large amounts of these personal payments were significantly concentrated on a small number of leading otorhinolaryngologists.

Pharmaceutical payments to Japanese board-certified dermatologists: a 4-year retrospective analysis of personal payments from pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019

There are prevalent financial relationships between dermatologists and pharmaceutical companies in Japan. However, little was known about the extent of whole picture of the personal payments made to dermatologists by pharmaceutical companies. This study aimed to examine the personal payments to the board-certified dermatologists by the Japanese Dermatological Association from the pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. Using the publicly disclosed payments data by the pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019, we evaluated the magnitude, prevalence, and trends in the personal payments made to all board-certified dermatologists for the lecturing, writing, and consulting compensations. The payments were descriptively analyzed overall and by dermatologist demographics. Additionally, the payment trends were assessed by generalized estimating equation models. Of 6883 active board-certified dermatologists, 3121 (45.3%) received a total of $33,223,806 personal payments between 2016 and 2019. The median per-physician payments and number of payments (interquartile range) were $1737 ($613-$5287) and 4.0 (2.0-10.0) over the 4 years, respectively. Only top 1%, 5%, 10% of dermatologists received 41.7% (95% confidence interval [CI] 38.2-45.1%), 76.9% (95% CI 74.7-79.1%), and 87.6% (95% CI 86.2-88.9%) of overall payments. The number of dermatologists receiving payments and per-dermatologist payments increased by 4.3% (95% CI 3.1‒5.5%, p < 0.001) and 16.4% (95% CI 13.5‒19.4%, p < 0.001) each year. The board-certification in dermatology-oncology, in cosmetic dermatology, and male sex were significantly associated with higher personal payments with relative monetary values of 2.29 (95% CI 1.65-3.19, p < 0.001), 3.16 (95% CI 1.89-5.26, p < 0.001), and 5.38 (95% CI 4.12-7.04, p < 0.001). Less than half of Japanese board-certified dermatologists received lower personal payments from the pharmaceutical companies than those to other specialists. However, these personal payments were increasingly more prevalent and greater over the 4 years.

Industry Payments to Physicians Are Kickbacks. How Should Stakeholders Respond?

Payments from the pharmaceutical industry to US physicians are common. In determining which payments rise to the level of an illegal kickback under the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS), the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Inspector General (OIG) has stated in nonbinding guidance that influencing or "swaying" physician prescribing is key. OIG has highlighted as a compliance standard the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Code on Interactions with Health Professions, which stipulates that permissible payments are those that do not interfere with prescribing. However, recent evidence has shown that most payments influence physician prescribing, driving higher prescription drug costs by increasing use of brand-name and low-value drugs. This evidence implies that many payments that are currently commonplace could be subject to prosecution under AKS. Given that these payments increase costs to patients and the health care system, there is a public interest in curtailing them. This article proposes a range of actions available to stakeholders-including industry, providers, regulators, and payers-to mitigate the cost-increasing effect of industry payments to physicians.

Trends in Industry Payments to Diabetologists and Endocrinologists in the United States During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Introduction Limited evidence suggests there were substantial amounts of payments from the healthcare industry to diabetologists and endocrinologists in the United States before the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic period. However, there is no study on how these industry payments changed during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to evaluate trends in non-research industry payments to physicians specializing in diabetology and endocrinology in the United States during the COVID-19 pandemic.  Methods Using the open payments database between 2013 and 2021, we examined trends in general payments made to physicians whose primary specialty was diabetology and endocrinology by the healthcare industry in the United States. Trends in industry payments during the COVID-19 pandemic were evaluated by interrupted time series analysis with generalized estimating equation models. Results Of 7965 active endocrinologists and diabetologists, 6991 (87.8%) received one or more general payments from the healthcare industry in the United States between August 2013 and December 2021. Median per-physician payments were $116.68 (interquartile range (IQR): $41.66-$390.00) before the COVID-19 pandemic period and $97.91 (IQR: $32.81-$314.04) during the COVID-19 pandemic period. Monthly per-physician payments, the number of per-physician payments, and the number of physicians receiving payments decreased by 61.0% (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 58.1%-63.7%, p<0.001), 59.2% (95% CI: 57.9%-60.4%, p<0.001), and 39.7% (95% CI: 38.3%-41.0%, p<0.001) at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 2020), compared to those before pandemic period, respectively.  Conclusion The non-research payments to endocrinologists and diabetologists from the healthcare industry sharply decreased by about 60% in payment amounts due to the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.

Pharmaceutical Payments to Japanese Board-Certified Infectious Disease Specialists: A Four-Year Retrospective Analysis of Payments from 92 Pharmaceutical Companies between 2016 and 2019

Backgrounds: Conflict of interest with pharmaceutical companies is one of the most concerned issues in infectious diseases. However, there is a lack of whole picture of detailed payments in Japan. Methods: This retrospective study assessed financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and all infectious disease specialists board-certified by the Japanese Association for Infectious Disease, using publicly disclosed payment data from 92 major pharmaceutical companies. Descriptive analyses were conducted for the payments. Payment trends were examined by the generalized estimating equations. Results: Of 1614 board-certified infection disease specialists, 1055 (65.4%) received a total of $17,784,070 payments, corresponding to 21,680 contracts between 2016 and 2019. The mean ± SD and median (interquartile range: IQR) were $16,857 ± $45,010 and $3183 ($938–$11,250) in payments. All board executive members of Japanese Association of Infectious Disease received higher payments averaging $163,792. There were no significant changes in payments per specialist (annual change rate: −1.4% [95% CI: −4.7–2.3%], p = 0.48) and prevalence of specialists with payments (annual change rate: −1.4% [95% CI: −3.1–0.2%], p = 0.093) over the four years. Conclusion: There were substantial financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and board-certified infectious disease specialists in Japan. Furthermore, high ranked specialists such as those in the executive board had stronger financial ties with the companies.

Bias amplification in the g-computation algorithm for time-varying treatments: a case study of industry payments and prescription of opioid products

Background

It is often challenging to determine which variables need to be included in the g-computation algorithm under the time-varying setting. Conditioning on instrumental variables (IVs) is known to introduce greater bias when there is unmeasured confounding in the point-treatment settings, and this is also true for near-IVs which are weakly associated with the outcome not through the treatment. However, it is unknown whether adjusting for (near-)IVs amplifies bias in the g-computation algorithm estimators for time-varying treatments compared to the estimators ignoring such variables. We thus aimed to compare the magnitude of bias by adjusting for (near-)IVs across their different relationships with treatments in the time-varying settings.

Methods

After showing a case study of the association between the receipt of industry payments and physicians’ opioid prescribing rate in the US, we demonstrated Monte Carlo simulation to investigate the extent to which the bias due to unmeasured confounders is amplified by adjusting for (near-)IV across several g-computation algorithms.

Results

In our simulation study, adjusting for a perfect IV of time-varying treatments in the g-computation algorithm increased bias due to unmeasured confounding, particularly when the IV had a strong relationship with the treatment. We also found the increase in bias even adjusting for near-IV when such variable had a very weak association with unmeasured confounders between the treatment and the outcome compared to its association with the time-varying treatments. Instead, this bias amplifying feature was not observed (i.e., bias due to unmeasured confounders decreased) by adjusting for near-IV when it had a stronger association with the unmeasured confounders (≥0.1 correlation coefficient in our multivariate normal setting).

Conclusion

It would be recommended to avoid adjusting for perfect IV in the g-computation algorithm to obtain a less biased estimate of the time-varying treatment effect. On the other hand, it may be recommended to include near-IV in the algorithm unless their association with unmeasured confounders is very weak. These findings would help researchers to consider the magnitude of bias when adjusting for (near-)IVs and select variables in the g-computation algorithm for the time-varying setting when they are aware of the presence of unmeasured confounding.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01563-3.

Changes in industry marketing payments to physicians during the covid-19 pandemic: quasi experimental, difference-in-difference study

Objective

To determine changes in industry marketing payments to physicians due to the covid-19 pandemic.

Design

Quasi experimental, difference-in-difference study.

Data source

US nationwide database of licensed physicians, the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System, which was linked to a database of industry marketing payments made to physicians, Open Payments.

Population

All licensed US physicians from 2018 to 2020 and those who received payments from industry.

Main outcome measures

Changes in the value and the number of monthly industry payments physician received before (January-February 2020) and during the pandemic (April-December 2020) were assessed, adjusting for physicians' characteristics (gender and specialty). As the control, data for the same months in 2019 were used. Industry payments by type of payments (eg, meals, travel, consulting fees, speaker compensation, honorariums), were also examined.

Results

Among 880 589 US physicians included in this study, 267 463 (30.4%) physicians received a total of 4 117 482 non-research payments with $626 million ($710 per physician; £610; €708) in 2020 (40-44% decrease from $1047m in 2018 and $1115m in 2019). Industry payments decreased significantly in the months of the covid-19 pandemic (adjusted change in the value of -48.4%; 95% confidence interval -50.6 to -46.2; P<0.001; and adjusted change in the number of -47.4%, 95% confidence interval -47.7 to -47.1; P<0.001), particularly for meals and travel fees. No evidence was seen of a decrease in the number of industry payments for consulting and honorariums. A similar pattern was observed across physicians' gender and specialty.

Conclusions

Industry payments to physicians, particularly those involving physical interactions such as meals and travel, substantially decreased during the pandemic. How such changes affect prescription practices and the quality of clinical practice in the long term should be investigated.

Association between industry payments and prescriptions of long-acting insulin: An observational study with propensity score matching

BACKGROUND

The rapidly increased spending on insulin is a major public health issue in the United States. Industry marketing might be one of the upstream determinants of physicians' prescription of long-acting insulin-the most commonly used and costly type of insulin, but the evidence is lacking. We therefore aimed to investigate the association between industry payments to physicians and subsequent prescriptions of long-acting insulin.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Using the databases of Open Payments and Medicare Part D, we examined the association between the receipt of industry payments for long-acting insulin in 2016 and (1) the number of claims; (2) the costs paid for all claims; and (3) the costs per claim of long-acting insulin in 2017. We also examined the association between the receipt of payments and the change in these outcomes from 2016 to 2017. We employed propensity score matching to adjust for the physician-level characteristics (sex, years in practice, specialty, and medical school attended). Among 145,587 eligible physicians treating Medicare beneficiaries, 51,851 physicians received industry payments for long-acting insulin worth $22.3 million. In the propensity score-matched analysis including 102,590 physicians, we found that physicians who received the payments prescribed a higher number of claims (adjusted difference, 57.8; 95% CI, 55.8 to 59.7), higher costs for total claims (adjusted difference, +$22,111; 95% CI, $21,387 to $22,836), and higher costs per claim (adjusted difference, +$71.1; 95% CI, $69.0 to $73.2) of long-acting insulin, compared with physicians who did not receive the payments. The association was also found for changes in these outcomes from 2016 to 2017. Limitations to our study include limited generalizability, confounding, and possible reverse causation.

CONCLUSIONS

Industry marketing payments to physicians for long-acting insulin were associated with the physicians' prescriptions and costs of long-acting insulin in the subsequent year. Future research is needed to assess whether policy interventions on physician-industry financial relationships will help to ensure appropriate prescriptions and limit overall costs of this essential drug for diabetes care.