Trends in Botulinum Toxin-Related Industry Payments to Physicians.

Objectives: To evaluate trends in botulinum toxin (BTX) industry payments to physicians. Methods: Cross-sectional analysis of nonroyalty, BTX-specific payments made by Allergan (Botox), Ipsen (Dysport), and Merz (Xeomin) to physicians using the 2016-2020 Open Payments Database. Results: Between 2016 and 2020, >$27 million in payments was made for BTX-related activities to dermatologists, neurologists, ophthalmologists, otolaryngologists, and plastic surgeons, with payments ranging from $3.9 million in 2016 to $8.7 million in 2019. 21.7% was paid to dermatologists, 57.5% to neurologists, 5.9% to ophthalmologists, 5.7% to otolaryngologists, and 9.1% to plastic surgeons. Conclusions: Growing amounts are being paid to physicians for BTX-related activities-both medical and aesthetic. Despite the variety of indications for BTX within otolaryngology, otolaryngology payments were overshadowed by other specialties, which may reflect greater BTX utilization in those specialties.

Determinants of physician assessment of chronic rhinosinusitis disease control using EPOS 2020 criteria and the importance of incorporating patient perspectives of disease control.

BACKGROUND: We identify chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) manifestations associated with how rhinologists assess CRS control, with a focus on patient perspectives (patient-reported CRS control). METHODS: Fifteen rhinologists were provided with real-world data from 200 CRS patients. Participating rhinologists first classified patients' CRS control as "controlled," "partly controlled," and "uncontrolled" using seven CRS manifestations reflecting European Position Paper on Rhinosinusitis and Nasal Polyps (EPOS) CRS control criteria (nasal obstruction, drainage, impaired smell, facial pain/pressure, sleep disturbance, use of systemic antibiotics/corticosteroids in past 6 months, and nasal endoscopy findings) and patient-reported CRS control. They then classified patients' CRS control without knowledge of patient-reported CRS control. Interrater reliability and agreement of rhinologist-assessed CRS control with patient-reported CRS control and EPOS guidelines were determined. RESULTS: CRS control classification with and without knowledge of patient-reported CRS control was highly consistent across rhinologists (κw  = 0.758). Rhinologist-assessed CRS control agreed with patient-reported CRS control significantly better when rhinologists had knowledge of patient-reported CRS control (κw  = 0.736 vs. κw  = 0.554, p < 0.001). Patient-reported CRS control, nasal obstruction, drainage, and endoscopy findings were most strongly associated with rhinologists' assessment of CRS control. Rhinologists' CRS control assessments weakly agreed with EPOS CRS control guidelines with (κw  = 0.529) and without (κw  = 0.538) patient-reported CRS control. Rhinologists classified CRS as more controlled than EPOS guidelines in almost 50% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: This study directly demonstrates the importance of patient-reported CRS control as a dominant influence on rhinologists' CRS control assessment. Knowledge of patient-reported CRS control may better align rhinologists' CRS control assessments and treatment decisions with patients' perspectives.