Dataset Information

Nature and Trends in Personal Payments Made to the Respiratory Physicians by Pharmaceutical Companies in Japan between 2016 and 2019.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Financial relationships between healthcare professionals and pharmaceutical companies have historically caused conflicts of interest and unduly influenced patient care. However, little was known about such relationship and its effect in clinical practice among specialists in respiratory medicine.

Methods

Based on the retrospective analysis of payment data made available by all 92 pharmaceutical companies in Japan, this study evaluated the magnitude and trend of financial relationships between all board-certified Japanese respiratory specialists and pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. Magnitude and prevalence of payments for specialists were analyzed descriptively. The payment trends were assessed using the generalized estimating equations for the payment per specialist and the number of specialists with payments.

Results

Among all 7,114 respiratory specialists certified as of August 2021, 4,413 (62.0%) received a total of USD 53,547,391 and 74,195 counts from 72 (78.3%) pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. The median (interquartile range) 4-year combined payment values per specialist were USD 2,210 (USD 715-8,178). At maximum, one specialist received USD 495,332 personal payments over the 4 years. Both payments per specialist and number of specialists with payments significantly increased during the 4-year period, with 7.8% (95% CI: 5.5-9.8; p < 0.001) in payments and 1.5% (95% CI: 0.61-2.4; p = 0.001) in number of specialists with payments, respectively.

Conclusion

The majority of respiratory specialists had increasingly received more personal payments from pharmaceutical companies for the reimbursement of lecturing, consulting, and writing between 2016 and 2019. These increasing financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies might cause conflicts of interest among respiratory physicians.

SUBMITTER: Murayama A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9811425 | biostudies-literature | 2022

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Nature and Trends in Personal Payments Made to the Respiratory Physicians by Pharmaceutical Companies in Japan between 2016 and 2019.

Murayama Anju A Hoshi Momoko M Saito Hiroaki H Kamamoto Sae S Tanaka Manato M Kawashima Moe M Mamada Hanano H Kusumi Eiji E Sapkota Binaya B Shrestha Sunil S Shrestha Rajeev R Bhandari Divya D Sawano Toyoaki T Yamashita Erika E Tanimoto Tetsuya T Ozaki Akihiko A

Respiration; international review of thoracic diseases 20221109 12

<h4>Background</h4>Financial relationships between healthcare professionals and pharmaceutical companies have historically caused conflicts of interest and unduly influenced patient care. However, little was known about such relationship and its effect in clinical practice among specialists in respiratory medicine.<h4>Methods</h4>Based on the retrospective analysis of payment data made available by all 92 pharmaceutical companies in Japan, this study evaluated the magnitude and trend of financia ...[more]

PMID: 36353778

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. It is unknown whether participation on clinical practice guideline committees is associated with differences in the amounts of industry money received.Materials and methodsWe conducted a nested case-control study from August 2013 to December 2018. We manually abstracted membership records of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines committees for the 20 most common cancers and linked to Open Payments. The study sample included medical oncologists selected to join an NCCN Guidelines committee ("joiners") during the study period. Joiners were matched 1:2 to medical oncologists who had no participation on NCCN committees (controls) by gender, NCCN institution, and medical school graduation year. We performed difference-in-differences (DiD) estimation to assess whether selection to an NCCN committee was associated with the dollar value of payments received from industry, using generalized estimating equations to address correlation between matched pairs and between repeated observations of the same pair.ResultsDuring the study period, 54 physicians joined an NCCN Guidelines committee. These physicians received more payments than matched controls in the year prior to joining ($11,259 vs. $3,427; p = .02); this difference did not increase in the year after joining (DiD = $731; p = .45).ConclusionMedical oncologists selected to NCCN Guidelines committees had greater financial ties to industry than their peers. The potential influence of industry in oncology clinical practice guidelines may be reduced through the selection of committee members with fewer ties to industry.Implications for practiceOncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. This creates concern about the potential for industry influence on guidelines. However, it is unknown whether oncologists who author guidelines have greater industry relationships than their peers. This study compared medical oncologists who were newly selected to join a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines panel with medical oncologists at the same institutions and at similar career stages. At the time they joined, oncologists joining NCCN Guidelines panels had received more than three times the dollar value of industry payments than their peers. The potential for industry influence may be reduced by the selection of less-conflicted panel members.

Project description:ImportanceFinancial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and physicians can bias the conduct, findings, and reporting of clinical trials. In Japan, the valsartan scandal was a significant event: all 5 key articles on the valsartan clinical trials were retracted after the revelation of data falsification. Consequently, the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association issued transparency guidelines, and pharmaceutical payments have been publicly disclosed since 2013. However, the distribution of payments from pharmaceutical companies among authors involved in the valsartan scandal after its revelation has not been studied to date.ObjectiveTo identify the characteristics and distribution of payments from pharmaceutical companies to researchers involved in the valsartan scandal in Japan by using a comprehensive payment database.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cross-sectional study, conducted from January 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017, used information on payments from 78 pharmaceutical companies to 50 authors of 5 articles retracted after the valsartan scandal: the Kyoto Heart Study, Jikei Heart Study, SMART (Shiga Microalbuminuria Reduction Trial), VART (Valsartan Amlodipine Randomized Trial), and Nagoya Heart Study. Payments from companies to physicians were analyzed during the period from January 1, 2016, to September 30, 2017.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcomes were the amount and proportion of payments made by pharmaceutical companies to authors, and the forms of these payments.ResultsOf 50 eligible authors, 30 (60%) received payments from pharmaceutical companies in 2016. The payments in the Japanese yen totaled ¥67.15 million (US $590 896) and the mean (SD) payment was more than ¥1.34 million (¥3.01 million) (US $11 817 [$27 292]). Five authors (10%) received more than ¥5 million (US $44 000) and 3 authors (6%) received more than ¥10 million (US $88 000). The total payments to the corresponding author of each article was ¥29 million (US $255 307), accounting for 43.2% of the total payments. Regarding forms of the payments, lecture fees accounted for 81.3% of the total payment (¥54.56 million).Conclusions and relevanceMany authors involved in the valsartan scandal received payments from the pharmaceutical industry. Although whether such payments to these authors have decreased since the scandal is unclear, the findings appear to demonstrate that their financial relationships with the industry are still prominent. The findings of the study appear to support the need to encourage more transparency in such relationships because misconduct can occur within unclear relationships.

Project description:IntroductionThe introduction of new drugs often leads to aggressive promotion and potential financial conflicts of interest, which may bias treatment decisions and potentially harm patients. The breast cancer therapeutics market is rapidly evolving globally, and Japan is no exception. This study aimed to analyze trends in pharmaceutical payments to breast cancer specialists in Japan from 2016 to 2019, focusing on company-level data, relationships with new drug introductions, and individual specialist payment patterns.MethodsThis retrospective study examined financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and breast cancer specialists in Japan from 2016 to 2019. The analysis focused on certified specialists as of May 2023 and used payment data from 93 pharmaceutical companies for activities such as lecturing, writing, and consulting. First, a company-level analysis examined total payments, categories, and trends for all companies and the top 10 individually; second, a specialist-level analysis looked at payment amounts amount and counts. The Gini index was employed to assess the concentration of payments among specialists.ResultsTotal payments reached USD 13,329,911, growing at 10.1% annually, with 81.4% allocated to lecturing engagements. The top 10 companies, led by Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eisai, and AstraZeneca, accounted for 89.5% of all payments. Companies like Pfizer Japan and Eli Lilly Japan saw notable increases following the introduction of new drugs such as palbociclib and abemaciclib. Payment distribution was highly skewed, with an average of $7,692 per specialist but a median of only $2,884. A Gini index of 0.994 further confirmed that a small group of specialists received a disproportionately large share of the payments.ConclusionFrom 2016 to 2019, pharmaceutical payments to Japanese breast cancer specialists increased significantly, coinciding with new drug introductions. The concentration of payments among a select group of specialists raises concerns about potential influences on clinical decision-making and guideline recommendations.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate German physicians' attitudes towards and experiences with voluntary disclosure of payments by pharmaceutical companies in a public database and their impact on future decisions for or against disclosure.DesignA national cross-sectional survey conducted in 2018 among physicians who voluntarily disclosed at least one payment in the German transparency regulation.SettingRetrospective paper-pencil questionnaire about attitudes towards and experiences with voluntary payment disclosures in the first (2015) and second (2016) years of the German transparency regulation.ParticipantsGerman physicians who disclosed either in the first year only, the second year only, or in both years of the transparency regulation.Primary outcomes(1) The probability to disclose in 2016, predicted by physicians' experience of reactions from others in 2015, descriptive norms and attitudes towards transparency; (2) Frequency and (3) Content of reactions from others in 2015 compared with 2016.ResultsData of 234 respondents were analysed (n=42, 45 and 147 physicians who disclosed in 2015, 2016 or both years, respectively). The probability to disclose in 2016 was not predicted by perceived reactions, norms or attitudes towards transparency (p>0.01). Most participants reported not to have received any reactions by patients (190/234, 81%), colleagues (128/234, 55%) or the private environment (153/234, 65%). Neither frequency nor content of reactions differed between the first and second years (scale 1-5; frequency: Mdn 2015,2016 = 1.33 vs 1.00, r b=-0.17, p>0.01; content: Mdn 2015,2016 = 3.00 vs 3.00, r b=0.19, p>0.01). However, media reporting, fear of reputational damage and a feeling of being defamed were mentioned as reasons for non-disclosure.ConclusionsWhile confirmatory analyses did not provide significant results, descriptive analyses showed that participants who voluntarily disclose payments mainly do not experience any reactions towards their disclosures but report fears about losing their reputation due to disclosures.

Project description:ObjectivesLimited evidence is available regarding the financial relationships between gastroenterologists and pharmaceutical companies in Japan. This study analysed the magnitude, prevalence and trends of personal payments made by major pharmaceutical companies to board-certified gastroenterologists in Japan in recent years.DesignCross-sectional analysis SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Using payment data publicly disclosed by 92 major pharmaceutical companies, this study examined the non-research payments made to all board-certified gastroenterologists by the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology.Primary and secondary outcome measuresThe primary outcomes were payment amounts, the prevalence of gastroenterologists receiving payments, yearly trends in per-gastroenterologist payment values and the number of gastroenterologists with payments. Additionally, we evaluated the differences in payments among influential gastroenterologists, including clinical practice guideline authors, society board member gastroenterologists and other general gastroenterologists.ResultsApproximately 52.8% of all board-certified gastroenterologists received a total of US$89 151 253, entailing 134 249 payment contracts as the reimbursement for lecturing, consulting and writing, from 84 pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. The average and median payments per gastroenterologist were US$7670 (SD: US$26 842) and US$1533 (IQR: US$582-US$4781), respectively. The payment value per gastroenterologist did not significantly change during the study period, while the number of gastroenterologists with payments decreased by -1.01% (95% CI: -1.61% to -0.40%, p<0.001) annually. Board member gastroenterologists (median: US$132 777) and the guideline authoring gastroenterologists (median: US$106 069) received 29.9 times and 17.3 times higher payments, respectively, than general gastroenterologists (median: US$284).ConclusionMost gastroenterologists received personal payments from pharmaceutical companies, but only very few influential gastroenterologists with authority accepted substantial amounts in Japan. There should be transparent and rigorous management strategies for financial conflicts of interest among gastroenterologists working in influential positions.

Dataset Information

Nature and Trends in Personal Payments Made to the Respiratory Physicians by Pharmaceutical Companies in Japan between 2016 and 2019.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Nature and Trends in Personal Payments Made to the Respiratory Physicians by Pharmaceutical Companies in Japan between 2016 and 2019.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets