Show Me the Money: Industry Payments to American Association of Endocrine Surgeons Members

INTRODUCTION

The Open Payments Program (OPP) was created through the Physician Payments Sunshine Act to disclose transactions between physicians and industry. Various surgical subspecialties have evaluated trends in OPP; however, this has not been looked at among endocrine surgeons. Our objective was to describe OPP trends among members of the American Association of Endocrine Surgeons (AAES).

METHODS

A list of members from the AAES was compiled using membership information from the AAES annual meetings. These surgeons were queried in the OPP database from 2014 to 2020. Payments were classified as general payments and research payments.

RESULTS

From 2014 to 2020, 417 surgeons in the AAES received a total of $5,870,113 in general payments with an annual range from $542,945 to $1,010,564. The median payment was $701 (interquartile range [IQR] $145-$4641) over all years. The top 10th percentile received >85% of the payments ($5,058,207) with the median payment in this decile being $37,535.06 (IQR $26,599-$112,380). The most common category for payments was food and beverage (63.5%) followed by travel and lodging (22.6%) and consulting fees (4.1%). Regarding research payments, 30 surgeons received $9,522,374 with a median payment of $45,635.68 (IQR $12,050-$158,863).

CONCLUSIONS

Members of the AAES received a total of $15,392,487 in money from industry between 2014 and 2020 in general and research payments demonstrating that the industry relationship is substantial. The majority of these payments were given to only a small portion of surgeons. The transparency created by OPP is critical for endocrine surgeons to prevent public misconceptions and identify the potential for any conflicts of interest.

Open Payments Data Analysis of General and Fellowship-trained Surgeons Receiving Industry General Payments From 2016 to 2020: Payment Disparities and COVID-19 Pandemic Impact

OBJECTIVE

To characterize industry nonresearch payments made to general and fellowship-trained surgeons between 2016 and 2020.

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Data (OPD) reports industry payments made to physicians related to drugs and medical devices. General payments are those not associated with research.

METHODS

OPD data were queried for general and fellowship-trained surgeons who received general payments from 2016 to 2020. Payments' nature, amount, company, covered product, and location were collected. Surgeons' demographics, subspecialty, and leadership roles in hospitals, societies, and editorial boards were evaluated.

RESULTS

From 2016 to 2020, 44,700 general and fellowship-trained surgeons were paid $535,425,543 in 1,440,850 general payments. The median payment was $29.18. The most frequent payments were for food and beverage (76.6%) and travel and lodging (15.6%); however, the highest dollar payments were for consulting fees ($93,128,401; 17.4%), education ($88,404,531; 16.5%), royalty or license ($87,471,238; 16.3%), and travel and lodging ($66,333,149; 12.4%). Five companies made half of all payments ($265,654,522; 49.6%): Intuitive Surgical ($128,517,411; 24%), Boston Scientific ($48,094,570; 9%), Edwards Lifesciences ($41,835,544, 7.8%), Medtronic Vascular ($33,607,136; 6.3%), and W. L. Gore & Associates ($16,626,371; 3.1%). Medical devices comprised 74.7% of payments ($399,897,217), followed by drugs and biologicals ($33,945,300; 6.3%). Texas, California, Florida, New York, and Pennsylvania received the most payments; however, the top dollar payments were in California ($65,702,579; 12.3%), Michigan ($52,990,904, 9.9%), Texas ($39,362,131; 7.4%), Maryland ($37,611,959; 7%), and Florida ($33,417,093, 6.2%). General surgery received the highest total payments ($245,031,174; 45.8%), followed by thoracic surgery ($167,806,514; 31.3%) and vascular surgery ($60,781,266; 11.4%). A total of 10,361 surgeons were paid >$5000, of which 1614 were women (15.6%); in this group, men received higher payments than women (means, $53,446 vs $22,571; P <0.001) and thoracic surgeons received highest payments (mean, $76,381; NS, P =0.14). A total of 120 surgeons were paid >$500,000 ($203,011,672; 38%)-5 non-Hispanic White (NHW) women (4.2%) and 82 NHW (68.3%), 24 Asian (20%), 7 Hispanic (5.8%), and 2 Black (1.7%) men; in this group, men received higher payments than women (means, $1,735,570 vs $684,224), and NHW men received payments double those of other men (means, $2,049,554 vs $955,368; NS, P =0.087). Among these 120 highly paid surgeons (>$500,000), 55 held hospital and departmental leadership roles, 30 were leaders in surgical societies, 27 authored clinical guidelines, and 16 served on journal editorial boards. During COVID-19, 2020 experienced half the number of payments than the preceding 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

General and fellowship-trained surgeons received substantial industry nonresearch payments. The highest-paid recipients were men. Further work is warranted in assessing how race, gender, and leadership roles influence the nature of industry payments and surgical practice. A significant decline in payments was observed early during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Development of Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trials in Surgical Oncology

Investigator-initiated trials (IITs) are designed by principal investigators who identify important, unaddressed clinical gaps and opportunities to answer these questions through clinical trials. Surgical oncologists are poised to lead IITs due to their multidisciplinary clinical practice and substantial research background. The process of developing, organizing, and implementing IITs is multifaceted and involves important steps including (but not limited to) navigating regulatory requirements, obtaining funding, and meeting enrollment targets. Here, the authors explore the steps, methodology, and barriers of IIT development by surgical oncologists and highlight the importance of IITs in oncology.

Tip of the Iceberg? Country- and Company-Level Analysis of Drug Company Payments for Research and Development in Europe

BACKGROUND

Creating new therapies often involves drug companies paying healthcare professionals and institutions for research and development (R&D) activities, including clinical trials. However, industry sponsorship can create conflicts of interest (COIs). We analysed approaches to drug company R&D payment disclosure in European countries and the distribution of R&D payments at the country and company level.

METHODS

Using documentary sources and a stakeholder survey we identified country- regulatory approaches to R&D payment disclosure. We reviewed company-level descriptions of disclosure practices in the United Kingdom, a country with a major role in Europe's R&D. We obtained country-level R&D payment data from industry trade groups and public authorities and company-level data from eurosfordocs.eu, a publicly available payments database. We conducted content analysis and descriptive statistical analysis.

RESULTS

In 32 of 37 studied countries, all R&D payments were reported without named recipients, following a self-regulatory approach developed by the industry. The methodological descriptions from 125 companies operating in the United Kingdom suggest that within the self-regulatory approach companies had much leeway in deciding what activities and payments were considered as R&D. In five countries, legislation mandated the disclosure of R&D payment recipients, but only in two were payments practically identifiable and analysable. In 17 countries with available data, R&D constituted 19%-82% of all payments reported, with self-regulation associated with higher shares. Available company-level data from three countries with self-regulation suggests that R&D payments were concentrated by big funders, and some companies reported all, or nearly all, payments as R&D.

CONCLUSION

The lack of full disclosure of R&D payments in countries with industry self-regulation leaves considerable sums of money unaccounted for and potentially many COIs undetected. Disclosure mandated by legislation exists in few countries and rarely enhances transparency practically. We recommend a unified European approach to R&D payment disclosure, including clear definitions and a centralised database.

Transition to Independent Research Funding Among National Institutes of Health K Grant Awardees at Departments of Orthopaedic Surgery

BACKGROUND

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports mentored research career development awards (K awards) to increase the pipeline of independently funded scientists. This study analyzed the portfolio of K grants that were awarded to orthopaedic surgery departments and characterized the factors that were associated with successful transition to independent NIH research funding, including R01 grants.

METHODS

This was a retrospective cohort study of K-award recipients in orthopaedic surgery departments in the United States from 1996 to 2018. A query was performed on the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT) database for NIH grants that were awarded to departments of orthopaedic surgery, general surgery, otolaryngology, obstetrics and gynecology, ophthalmology, and urology. Rates of transition to independent research funding were compared by specialty for K grants that were awarded from 1996 to 2011. The percentage of faculty with mentored research career development awards and the return on investment (ROI) were calculated. An internet and Scopus (Elsevier) database search determined the investigator characteristics. The factors that were associated with successful transition to independent funding were determined via chi-square and unpaired t tests.

RESULTS

Sixty K-award recipients were identified in orthopaedic surgery departments. Most were men (77%) and research scientists (53%). Fifty percent of the K-award recipients transitioned to independent research funding. Research scientists had the highest rate of transition to independent research funding (71%, p = 0.016) relative to clinicians (0%) and orthopaedic surgeons (40%). Higher levels of publication productivity were associated with successful transition to independent research funding. Similar rates of transition to independent research funding existed among surgical specialties (p = 0.107). Orthopaedic surgery had the lowest percentage of faculty with a K award (1.4%) but had the highest ROI (198%) of these awards.

CONCLUSIONS

Orthopaedic surgery had similar rates of transition to independent research funding when compared with other surgical specialties but had a lower prevalence of K awards among faculty. Orthopaedic surgeon-scientists have lower rates of transition to independent research funding when compared with their research-scientist colleagues. These findings highlight a need for greater support to foster the pipeline of future NIH-funded orthopaedic investigators.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

As the largest support of biomedical research in the U.S., the NIH is an important stakeholder in orthopaedic innovations and discoveries. This study highlights barriers in the procurement of NIH funding across surgical specialties and affirms the need for greater resources toward supporting NIH funding in orthopaedic surgery.

The disclosure slide-Informative or obligatory, 5 years of SSO Cancer Symposium oral presentations

BACKGROUND

Financial disclosure (FD) highlights potential conflicts of interest but is often overlooked at academic conferences.

METHODS

Retrospective review of 2015-2019 Society of Surgical Oncology Cancer Symposium oral presentation slide and/or verbal FD frequency, duration, and content.

RESULTS

Of 963 presentations, 331 (34%) omitted disclosure slide/verbalization. 575 (60%) included a slide, 551 (57%) gave verbal disclosure and 133 (14%) stated relevance. 164 presentations (17%) cited 1 + FD. 2019 had greater median FDs/talk than 2015-2018 (3.50 vs. 2.00; p = .010). Compared to 2015-2018, 2019 yielded shorter median slide display of all disclosures (2.00 s vs. 2.47 s; p = .006), median 1 + FD display (3.37 s vs. 4.81 s; p = .04) and median 1 + FD verbalization (2.81 s vs. 3.66 s; p = .54). 2019 all disclosure verbalization increased (1.97 s vs. 1.14 s; p < .001). Multivariable modeling showed longer display with 2015-2018 (+1.3 s, 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.06 to 2.5 s, p = .04), <4 authors (+3.2 s, 95% CI: 2.1-4.3 s; p < .001) and longer verbalization with 2019 (+0.8 s, 95% CI: 0.2-1.4 s; p = .01), relevance (+1.0 s, 95% CI: 0.4-1.6 s; p = .002), ≤ 4 authors (+0.8 s, 95% CI: 0.3-1.3 s, p < .001) and noncommercial FD (+3.8 s, 95% CI: 2.0-5.0 s; p < .001). The five most cited commercial entities were in 39% of talks.

CONCLUSION

Presenters' FDs were brief or omitted. Despite FD increase, disclosure time decreased. Improved FD attention will highlight potential COIs.

Effect of Surgical Oncologist Turnover on Hospital Volume and Treatment Outcomes Among Patients With Upper GI Malignancies

PURPOSE

Lack of surgical expertise may affect cancer care delivery. Here, we examined the impact of surgical oncologist vacancy and turnover in a community cancer center serving a mixed urban and rural population.

METHODS

Survival outcomes of patients with potentially resectable esophageal, gastric, and pancreatic carcinomas treated in the index hospital (n = 519) were compared with those of a then-contemporary control group derived from the state-specific SEER registry (n = 3,340). The onboarding period (ie, the period without a surgical oncologist) and early and late periods with a surgical oncologist were defined.

RESULTS

At the state level, there was a steady trend of patients who were annually referred (290.4 ± 34.3 patients per year; P < .001) and underwent operation (158.7 ± 18.7 patients per year; P < .001). We observed the absence of an analogous trend in the index hospital (P = .141). The index hospital diagnosed 12.2% of state cancers of interest during the years with surgical oncologists but only 6.7% of cancers when surgical oncologists were absent (P = .031). The survival model adjusted for age, stage, and primary disease site comparing the early and late periods demonstrated that being treated in the index hospital did not result in inferior survival (hazard ratio, 1.067; P = .265).

CONCLUSION

Loss of surgical oncologists was associated with referral decline and likely out-migration of patients, whereas prompt restoration of surgical oncology services reinstated volumes and preserved survival outcomes.

Big Data vs. Clinical Trials in HPB Surgery

Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) are at the heart of "evidence-based" medicine. However, in surgical practice, RCTs remain uncommon. Conducting well-designed RCTs for surgical procedures is often challenged by inadequate recruitment accrual, blinding, or standardization of the surgical procedure, as well as lack of funding and evolution of the treatment strategy during the many years over which such trials are conducted. In addition, most clinical trials are performed in academic high-volume centers in highly selected patients, which may not necessarily reflect a "real-world" practice setting. Over the past decades, surgical outcomes research using nationwide administrative and registry databases has become increasingly common. Large databases provide easy and inexpensive access to data on a large and diverse patient population at a variety of treatment centers. Furthermore, large database studies provide the opportunity to answer questions that would be impossible or very arduous to answer using RCTs, including questions regarding health policy efficacy, trends in surgical practice, access to health care, impact of hospital volume, and adherence to practice guidelines, as well as research questions regarding rare disease, infrequent surgical outcomes, and specific subpopulation. Prospective data registries may also allow for quality benchmarking and auditing. This review outlines the role, advantages, and limitations of RCTs and large database studies in answering important research questions in surgery.