Dataset Information

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

ABSTRACT:

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.

SUBMITTER: Modi PK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6005747 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Modi Parth K PK Wang Ye Y Kirk Peter S PS Dupree James M JM Singer Eric A EA Chang Steven L SL

Urology 20180420

<h4>Objective</h4>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.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>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 betwee ...[more]

PMID: 29680480

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceReported 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.ObjectiveTo 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 participantsThis 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 measuresMultivariable 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.ResultsA 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 relevanceWhile 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.

Project description:An increased awareness of the interactions between the medical industry and health care professionals may lead to lower health care costs and more effective health care practices. To assess the characteristics of industry payments made to ophthalmologists between 2013 and 2017. This analysis included data reported in the June 29, 2018, update of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database (OPD). The OPD contains public records of industry payments made to physicians and teaching hospitals from August 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017, as reported by the medical industry. All general or research payments distributed to US ophthalmologists and contained in the OPD were included in this study. Data are summarized by practitioner, manufacturer, payment category, and geographic location. Main outcomes were the distribution, quantity, and value of payments made to ophthalmologists practicing in the United States or US territories. The financial characteristics of payment category, manufacturer, product, and location were also assessed. This analysis revealed that the OPD showed industry reporting a total of 20 943 ophthalmologists receiving 736 517 payments worth $543 679 603.53 (1.67% of all industry-reported funds in the OPD). The median payment value was $22.44. Most payments were for food and beverages (581 588 [78.96%]), whereas most funds were allocated toward research ($310 142 151.88 [57.05%]) and consulting fees ($73 565 327.71 [13.51%]). The median payout to each ophthalmologist was $637.75 (interquartile range, $167.33-$2065.54). California was the highest-grossing state, receiving $101 135 980.34 (18.60%) of all payments. Fifteen companies were responsible for 87.68% of all funds distributed ($476 719 470.11) and were mostly involved in the production of pharmaceutical agents (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents, glaucoma eyedrops, and ocular lubricants) and surgical devices (cataract and glaucoma). Although there is no way to know the veracity of these reports, the findings suggest the financial ophthalmologist-industry relationship is substantial. These relationships may be adding to health care costs and affecting the quality of care, although those associations were not evaluated in this study.

Project description:Importance:It is well documented that financial conflicts of interest influence medical research and clinical practice. Prior to the Open Payments provisions of the Affordable Care Act, financial ties became apparent only through self-disclosure. The nature of financial interests has not been studied among physicians who develop dermatology clinical practice guidelines. Objective:To evaluate payments received by physicians who author dermatology clinical practice guidelines, compare disclosure statements for accuracy, determine whether pharmaceutical companies from which the authors received payments manufactured products related to the guidelines, and examine the extent to which the American Academy of Dermatology enforced their Administrative Regulations for guideline development. Design, Setting, and Participants:Three American Academy of Dermatology guidelines published from 2013 to 2016 were retrieved. Double data extraction was used to record financial payments received by 49 guideline authors using the Open Payments database. Payments received by the authors from the date of the initial literature search to the date of publication were used to evaluate disclosure statement accuracy, detail the companies providing payments, and evaluate Administrative Regulations enforcement. This study is applicable to clinical practice guideline panels drafting recommendations, physicians using clinical practice guidelines to inform patient care, and those establishing policies for guideline development. Main Outcomes and Measures:Our main outcomes are the monetary values and types of payments received by physicians who author dermatology guidelines and the accuracy of disclosure statements. Data were collected from the Open Payments database and analyzed descriptively. Results:Of the 49 authors evaluated, 40 received at least 1 reported industry payment, 31 accepted more than $1000, 25 accepted more than $10?000, and 18 accepted more than $50?000. Financial payments amounted to a mean of $157?177 per author. The total reimbursement among the 49 authors from 2013 to 2015 was $7?701?681. Of the 40 authors receiving payments, 22 did not accurately disclose industry relationships. Authors received payments from companies with products directly related to the guideline topic. Violations to the Administrative Regulations were found. Conclusions and Relevance:Dermatology clinical practice guideline authors received sizable industry payments and did not completely disclose these payments. The American Academy of Dermatology policies may benefit from stricter enforcement or the adoption of new standards.

Project description:ImportanceThose responsible for medical education-specialties, sponsoring institutions, and program directors (PD)-are independently associated with the professional identity formation of the trainees with respect to potential conflicts of interest.ObjectiveTo identify the relative degree to which factors in the training environment are associated with resident acceptance of payments from pharmaceutical and medical device companies.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional, retrospective study of residents enrolled in the 3 largest primary-care specialties (internal medicine [IM], family medicine [FM], obstetrics and gynecology [OBGYN]) and 3 largest surgical disciplines (general surgery [GS], orthopedic surgery, and urology) during academic year 2020 to 2021. All analyses were conducted January through August 2023.ExposuresSpecialty, sponsoring institutions' ownership (nonprofit, for-profit, federal government, local government, or state government), and the number of payments PDs accepted.Main outcomes and measuresModified Poisson regression assessed the relative risk of ownership, specialty, and PD behavior on residents' acceptance of industry payments as recorded in the Open Payments Program (OPP) database.ResultsIn total, there were 124 715 residents in all training programs during 2020 to 2021, 12% of whom received payments totaling $6.4 million. There were 65 992 residents in training during 2020 to 2021 in the 6 specialties evaluated in this study, with 4438 in orthopedics, 1779 in urology, 9177 in GS, 5819 in OBGYN, 14 493 in FM, and 30 286 in IM. OPP records $3.9 million in payments to the 8750 residents (13.4%) who received at least 1 industry payment. The record of all payments to residents in OPP totals $6.4 million. Compared with residents in federal sponsoring institutions, those affiliated with for-profit institutions were 3.50 (95% CI, 2.32-5.28) times more likely to accept industry payments, while those affiliated with nonprofit organizations were 2.00 (95% CI, 1.36-2.93) times more likely to accept payments. Compared with IM, residents in each of the following specialties have an elevated risk of accepting payments: orthopedics, 3.21 (95% CI, 2.73-3.77) times; urology, 2.95 (95% CI, 2.44-3.56) times; GS, 1.21 (95% CI, 1.00-1.45) times; OBGYN, 1.30 (95% CI, 1.05-1.62) times. The difference in the risk of accepting a payment between FM and IM residents was not statistically significant. The number of payments PDs accepted slightly elevated the risk of residents to accept a payment by 1.01 (95% CI, 1.01-1.01).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional, retrospective study, receipt of industry payments by residents was associated with specialty, institutional control, and PD behavior.

Project description:Study objectiveTo estimate the incidence of 10 common cancers among patients treated with antimuscarinic medications for overactive bladder (AMOABs).DesignRetrospective cohort study.Data sourceUnited Kingdom's Clinical Practice Research Datalink.PatientsA total of 119,912 adults with no previous cancer diagnosis who were new users of AMOABs-darifenacin, fesoterodine, oxybutynin, solifenacin, tolterodine, or trospium-between January 2004 and December 2012.Measurements and main resultsSex-specific incidence rates per 1000 person-years and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were estimated for each study cancer (bladder, breast, colorectal, lung, melanoma, non-Hodgkin lymphoma, pancreatic, prostate, renal, and uterine cancer) overall and stratified by time since cohort entry and by cumulative AMOAB dose. Among the 119,912 patients followed for 399,365 person-years, 4117 incident study cancers occurred. The incidence rate of prostate cancer was 14.2 (95% CI 12.9-15.5) in the year after cohort entry and decreased markedly thereafter. The incidence rate of bladder cancer was also higher in the year after cohort entry than subsequently (men: 5.5, 95% CI 4.8-6.4; women: 1.2, 95% CI 1.0-1.5). The incidence rates of both prostate and bladder cancer decreased with increasing cumulative dose of AMOAB. We observed no similar relations between incidence rates of other study cancers and time since cohort entry.ConclusionHigh incidence rates of bladder and prostate cancer soon after AMOAB initiation and a negative correlation between incidence and cumulative AMOAB dose suggest that protopathic bias is a more likely explanation for these findings than causality. (Protopathic bias in this context means patients' urinary symptoms prompted treatment with an AMOAB, but the symptoms were actually due to a cancer that was already present, although not yet diagnosed or not yet recorded.) To avoid unnecessary delays in the diagnosis of prostate and bladder cancer, physicians should consider these diseases in patients for whom treatment with AMOABs is indicated.

Dataset Information

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

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets