Dataset Information

Promotional Payments to Medical Oncologists and Urologists and Prescriptions for Abiraterone and Enzalutamide.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To understand the influence of drug manufacturers on the prescribing patterns of medical oncologists and urologists, we examined the relationship between promotional payments from the manufacturers of abiraterone and enzalutamide and prescriptions for either drug by medical oncologists and urologists.

Methods

Promotional payments for abiraterone or enzalutamide made to medical oncologists and urologists between January 2014 and December 2017 reported through the Open Payments Program were categorized as $0, $1$999, and $1000 or more. Prescriptions filled between January 2013 and December 2017 were identified in the Medicare Part D File. Associations between promotional payments and prescribing were assessed using generalized linear models.

Results

From 2013 through 2017, the number of medical oncologists and urologists prescribing abiraterone or enzalutamide increased by 38% - 298%, respectively. The odds of prescribing among medical oncologists receiving $1--$999 and those receiving $1,000 or more were 1.69 (95%CI:1.59--1.79) and 2.61 (95% CI: 2.14--3.18) times that of medical oncologists receiving no payments. Among urologists receiving $1--$999 and those receiving $1,000 or more, the odds of prescribing were 4.04 (95%CI: 3.59--4.54) and 13.57 (95%CI: 9.69--19.0) times that of urologists receiving no payments.

Conclusion

Increasing promotional payments were associated with prescribing among medical oncologists and urologists, with a stronger relationship evident for urologists. Prescribing patterns for abiraterone and enzalutamide, particularly among urologists, may be influenced by payments from drug manufacturers.

SUBMITTER: Lai LY

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8940668 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Promotional Payments to Medical Oncologists and Urologists and Prescriptions for Abiraterone and Enzalutamide.

Lai Lillian Y LY Oerline Mary K MK Kaufman Samuel R SR Herrel Lindsey A LA Skolarus Ted A TA Dusetzina Stacie B SB Ellimoottil Chad C Shahinian Vahakn B VB Hollenbeck Brent K BK Caram Megan E V MEV

Urology 20211201

<h4>Objective</h4>To understand the influence of drug manufacturers on the prescribing patterns of medical oncologists and urologists, we examined the relationship between promotional payments from the manufacturers of abiraterone and enzalutamide and prescriptions for either drug by medical oncologists and urologists.<h4>Methods</h4>Promotional payments for abiraterone or enzalutamide made to medical oncologists and urologists between January 2014 and December 2017 reported through the Open Pay ...[more]

PMID: 34861316

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPersonal 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsThere 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.ConclusionsPharmaceutical 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.

Project description:Industry-physician collaboration is critical for anticancer therapeutic development, but financial relationships introduce conflicts of interest. We examined the specialty variation and context of physician payments and ownership interest among oncologists. We performed a population-based multivariable analysis of 2014 Open Payments reports of industry payments to US physicians matched to physician and practice data, including sex, specialty, practice location, and sole proprietor status. Payment data were aggregated per physician and compared by specialty (medical, radiation, surgical, and nononcology), and practice location linked with spending level (low, average, and high). Primary outcomes included likelihood, mean annual amount, and number of general payments. Secondary outcomes included likelihood of holding ownership interests and receipt of royalty/license payments. Estimates for each outcome were determined using multivariable models, including logistic regression for likelihood and linear regression with gamma distribution and log-link for value, adjusted for physician specialty, sex, sole proprietor status, and practice spending. All statistical tests were two-sided. In 2014, there were 883 438 physicians, including 22 712 oncologists, licensed to practice in the United States. Among oncology specialties, 52.4% to 63.0% of physicians received a general payment in 2014, totaling $76 million, $4 million, and $5 million to medical, radiation, and surgical oncology, respectively. The median annual per-physician payment to medical oncologists was $632 (IQR = 136-2500), compared with $124 (IQR = 39-323) in radiation oncology and $250 (IQR = 84-1369) in surgical oncology. After controlling for physician and practice characteristics, oncologists were 1.09 to 1.75 times as likely to receive a general payment compared with nononcologists (overall P < 001). There was a 67.6% difference (95% confidence interval [CI] = 63.6 to 71.5, P < .001) in the mean annual value of payments between medical oncology and nononcology specialties (vs -92.7%, 95%CI = -100.2 to -85.0, P < .001] for radiation oncology). Medical and radiation oncologists were more likely to hold ownership interest (adjusted OR = 3.72, 95% CI = 3.22 to 4.27, and 2.27, 95% CI = 1.65 to 3.03, respectively, P < .001 both comparisons). In 2014, industry-oncologist financial relationships were common, and their impact on oncology practice should be further explored.

Project description:ImportanceAbiraterone acetate and enzalutamide are recommended as preferred treatments for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC), but differences in their relative efficacy are unclear due to a lack of head-to-head clinical trials. Clear guidance is needed for making informed mCRPC therapeutic choices.ObjectiveTo compare clinical outcomes in patients with mCRPC treated with abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective, multicenter cohort study included patients with mCRPC in the US Department of Veterans Affairs health care system who initiated treatment with abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide between January 1, 2014, and October 30, 2022.ExposuresAbiraterone acetate or enzalutamide.Main outcomes and measuresThe study used inverse probability of treatment weighting to balance baseline characteristics between patients initiating abiraterone acetate or enzalutamide and evaluated restricted mean survival time (RMST) differences in overall survival (OS), prostate cancer-specific survival (PCS), time to next treatment switching or death (TTS), and time to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) response (TTR) at different time points after treatment initiation.ResultsThe study included 5779 patients (median age, 74.42 years [IQR, 68.94-82.14 years]). Median follow-up was between 38 and 60 months. Patients initiating enzalutamide on average had longer OS than those initiating abiraterone acetate, with RMSTs of 24.29 months (95% CI, 23.58-24.99 months) and 23.38 months (95% CI, 22.85-23.92 months), respectively, and a difference in RMST of 0.90 months (95% CI, 0.02-1.79 months) at 4 years. Similarly, TTS and TTR were improved in patients initiating enzalutamide, with an RMST at 4 years of 1.95 months (95% CI, 0.92-2.99 months) longer for TTS and 3.57 months (95% CI, 1.76-5.38 months) shorter for TTR. For PCS, the RMST at 2 years was 0.48 months (95% CI, 0.01-0.95 months) longer. An examination of subgroups identified that enzalutamide initiation was associated with longer RMST in OS among patients without prior docetaxel treatment (1.14 months; 95% CI, 0.19-2.10 months) and in those with PSA doubling time of 3 months or longer (2.23 months; 95% CI, 0.81-3.66 months) but not among patients with prior docetaxel (-0.25 months; 95% CI, -2.59 to 2.09 months) or with PSA doubling time of less than 3 months (0.05 months; 95% CI, -1.05 to 1.15 months).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of patients with mCRPC, initiation of enzalutamide was associated with small but statistically significant improvements in OS, PCS, TTS, and TTR compared with initiation of abiraterone acetate. The improvements were more prominent in short-term outcomes, including TTS and TTR, and in patient subgroups without prior docetaxel or with PSA doubling time longer than 3 months.

Dataset Information

Promotional Payments to Medical Oncologists and Urologists and Prescriptions for Abiraterone and Enzalutamide.

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Promotional Payments to Medical Oncologists and Urologists and Prescriptions for Abiraterone and Enzalutamide.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets