Trends in Industry Payments to Dermatologists: A 5-Year Analysis of Open Payments Data (2017-2021).

Financial relationships between dermatologists and industry are prevalent and may have implications for patient care. To analyze reported industry payments made to dermatologists, we performed a retrospective analysis of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database (OPD) from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021. During this 5-year period, a total of $278 million in industry payments were made to dermatologists. It is important for all dermatologists to review their public profiles in the OPD to confirm the reported payments are accurate.

Increasing trends of pharmaceutical payments to breast cancer specialists in Japan: A retrospective study from 2016 to 2019.

INTRODUCTION: The 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. METHODS: This 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. RESULTS: Total 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. CONCLUSION: From 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.

Assessing the impact of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act on pharmaceutical companies' payments to physicians.

Enacted in 2010 as part of the Affordable Care Act, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act (PPSA) mandates transparency in financial interactions between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers. This study investigates the PPSA's effectiveness and its impact on industry payments to physicians. Utilizing ProPublica and Open Payments databases, a difference-in-difference analysis was conducted across ten states. Results reveal a significant reduction in pharmaceutical companies' meal-related payments post-PPSA, impacting both the total payment amount and the number of unique physicians reached. Conversely, travel payments showed no significant impact in the primary analysis. However, subsequent analyses revealed nuanced reductions in the number of unique physicians reached, highlighting a more intricate relationship wherein pharmaceutical companies likely adjusted their financial interaction strategies with physicians differently across states. State-level variations in meals further underscore the complexity of PPSA's influence. This pioneering research contributes valuable empirical evidence, addressing gaps in prior studies and emphasizing the ongoing need for policy assessment to guide industry-physician relationships.

Proportion of industry payment value by category in radiology relative to other specialties.

BACKGROUND: Industry payments to physicians are common, but it is unknown how the payments in different categories to radiologists compare to other specialties. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to assess the proportion of industry payments to physicians in radiology in certain categories relative to other specialties. METHODS: The Open Payments Database was analyzed from January 1, 2017 to December 31, 2021 for industry payments to all allopathic & osteopathic physicians, and classified into distinct clinical specialties. Payments to physicians in three categories were calculated in relation to total payments in each specialty during the study period: consulting fees, research, and royalties/ownership (royalty, license, or current or prospective ownership or investment). RESULTS: The total value of industry payments to physicians across all specialties was just under $13 billion over the six-year period from 2017 to 2022. During this period, 51.4 million total payments were made to 791,746 physicians. US physicians in radiology received 452,027 payments for a total value of $357 million (2.8 % of total value). For radiologists, 32.8 % of industry payment value was attributed to royalties/ownership and 9.9 % to research, collectively adding up to 42.7 % of all industry payment. The only specialties with higher payments in these two categories considered reflective of innovation payments were the surgical specialties with higher royalty payments. CONCLUSION: The proportion of industry payments in radiology in categories reflecting innovation (royalty/ownership and research fees) is high and second only to surgical specialties.

Quantifying Industry Spending on Promotional Events Using Open Payments Data.

Importance: Sponsorship of promotional events for health professionals is a key facet of marketing campaigns for pharmaceuticals and medical devices; however, there appears to be limited transparency regarding the scope and scale of this spending. Objective: To develop a novel method for describing the scope and quantifying the spending by US pharmaceutical and medical companies on industry-sponsored promotional events for particular products. Design and Setting: This was a cross-sectional study using records from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid's Open Payments database on payments made to prescribing clinicians from January 1 to December 21, 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: An event-centric approach was used to define sponsored events as groupings of payment records with matching variables. Events were characterized by value (coffee, lunch, dinner, or banquet) and number of attendees (small vs large). To test the method, the number of and total spending for each type of event across professional groups were calculated and used to identify the top 10 products related to dinner events. To validate the method, we extracted all event details advertised on the websites of 4 state-level nurse practitioner associations that regularly hosted industry-sponsored dinner events during 2022 and compared these with events identified in the Open Payments database. Results: A total of 1 154 806 events sponsored by pharmaceutical and medical device companies were identified for 2022. Of these, 1 151 351 (99.7%) had fewer than 20 attendees, and 922 214 (80.0%) were considered to be a lunch ($10-$30 per person). Seven companies sponsored 16 031 dinners for the top 10 products. Of the 227 sponsored in-person dinner events hosted by the 4 state-level nurse practitioner associations, 168 (74.0%) matched events constructed from the Open Payments dataset. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings indicate that an event-centric analysis of Open Payments data is a valid method to understand the scope and quantify spending by pharmaceutical and medical device companies on industry-sponsored promotional events attended by prescribers. Expanding and enforcing the reporting requirements to cover all payments to all registered health professionals would improve the accuracy of estimates of the true extent of all sponsored events and their impact on clinical practice.

Cross-sectional analysis of pharmaceutical industry payments to authors of clinical practice guidelines for bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder in Japan.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are essential for standardising patient care based on evidence-based medicine. However, the presence of financial conflicts of interest (COIs) among CPG authors can undermine their credibility. This study aimed to examine the extent and size of COIs among authors of psychiatry CPGs in Japan. METHODS: This cross-sectional analysis of disclosed payments from pharmaceutical companies assesses the prevalence and magnitude of personal payments for lecturing, consulting and writing to CPGs for bipolar disorder and major depressive disorder in Japan between 2016 and 2020. RESULTS: This study found that 93.3% of authors received payments over a 5-year period, with total payments exceeding US$4 million. The median payment per author was US$51 403 (IQR: US$9982-US$111 567), with a notable concentration of payments among a small number of authors, including the CPG chairperson. Despite these extensive financial relationships, only a fraction of authors disclosed their COIs in the CPGs. These large amounts of personal payments were made by pharmaceutical companies manufacturing new antidepressants and sleeping aids listed in the CPGs. CONCLUSIONS: This study found that more than 93% of authors of CPGs for major depressive disorder and bipolar disorder in Japan received considerable amounts of personal payments from the pharmaceutical industry. The findings highlight deviations from international COI management standards and suggest a need for more stringent COI policies for psychiatry CPGs in Japan.

Trends in financial payments from industry to US cancer centers, 2014-2021.

BACKGROUND: Industry payments to US cancer centers are poorly understood. METHODS: US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers were identified (n = 51). Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers from 2014 to 2021 were obtained from Open Payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). Given our focus on cancer centers, we measured the subset of industry payments related to cancer drugs specifically and the subset of NIH funding from the NCI. RESULTS: Despite a pandemic-related decline in 2020-2021, cancer-related industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased from $482 million in 2014 to $972 million in 2021. Over the same period, NCI research grant funding increased from $2 481  million to $2 724  million. The large majority of nonresearch payments were royalties and licensing payments. CONCLUSION: Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased substantially more than NCI funding in recent years but were also more variable. These trends raise concerns regarding the influence and instability of industry payments.

Drug Promotions Between Ethics, Regulations, and Financial Interests.

BACKGROUND: The promotion of the latest medicines produced by the pharmaceutical industry is an important issue both from an ethical point of view (the level of accessibility, the way research is carried out) and from the point of view of marketing and especially from the lobbying issues raised. AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY: The ethical dilemmas raised by the promotion of new drugs revolve between the need to discover new molecules important for treating a wide range of diseases and the need to establish a battery of ethical rules, absolutely necessary for regulations in the field to be compliant with all ethical principles. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted through PubMed, MEDLINE, Plus, Scopus, and Web of Science (2015-2023) using combinations of keywords, including drugs, medical publicity, and pharma marketing plus ethical dilemma. ETHICS AND THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES: The promotion of medicines is governed by advertising laws and regulations in many countries, including at EU level, based on the need for countries to ensure that the promotion and advertising of medicines is truthful, based on information understood by consumers. The ethical analysis of the issues raised is more necessary and complex as the channels used for promotion are more accessible to the population, and the information, easier to obtain, can be the cause of increased self-medication and overeating. Large amounts of money invested in the development of new molecules, but also the risk of scientific fraud through manipulation of data during clinical trials, selective or biased publication of information can have repercussions on the health of the population. CONCLUSIONS: The development of new pharmaceutical molecules is necessary to intervene and treat as many conditions as possible, but marketing must not neglect the observance of ethical principles. The promotion of medicines should be the attribute especially of the medical staff, which should also be a mandatory part of the mechanism for approving the marketing methods and means used by the pharmaceutical companies.

Health Care Industry Payments to Editorial Board Members of Major Neurosurgery Journals Between 2017 and 2022.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Financial conflicts of interest between editorial board members and industry could lead to biases and impartial editorial decisions. We aimed to evaluate the frequency, amount, and characteristics of payments to editorial board members of neurosurgery journals over a 6-year period. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, editorial board members were derived from the top 10 neurosurgery journals based on Google Scholar metrics. The Open Payments database by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was accessed to evaluate industry payments to editorial board members from 2017to 2022. Descriptive analyses were performed on payment data, adjusted for inflation using the consumer price indices. RESULTS: We included 805 editorial board members. After excluding duplicate names, 342 (53.9%) of 634 had received payments between 2017 and 2022. Eight of 10 journals had more than 50% of editorial board members listed in the Open Payments database. Between 2017 and 2022, the total number of payments to editorial board members was $143 732 057, encompassing $1 323 936 in research payments, $69 122 067 in associated research funding, $5 380 926 in ownership and investment interests, and $67 905 128 in general payments. General payments decreased from $13 676 382 in 2017 to $8 528 003 in 2022. Royalties ($43 393 697) and consulting ($13 157 934) contributed the most to general payments between 2017 and 2022. Four journals had a percentage increase in total payments, whereas general payments decreased for 6 journals. CONCLUSION: Around 54% of editorial board members of neurosurgical journals received industry payments between 2017 and 2022. We identified journal-specific trends in industry payments and highlighted the importance of transparency and disclosure of financial conflicts of interests for neurosurgery journals.

Industry payments to academic neurosurgeons in 2021: an open payments cross-sectional analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The Open Payments Program (OPP) was a database started in 2013 by the US government to report payments made by the medical device and pharmaceutical industry to physicians. Neurosurgery is a technologically advanced field that relies heavily on the latest innovations for complex treatment of its patient population. This study sought to explore the financial relationship between academic neurosurgeons and the industry. METHODS: OPP data were reviewed for the year 2021 of all faculty neurosurgeons affiliated with a neurosurgery residency program. Trends related to general payments, research payments, associated research funding, ownership and investment interest, name of the companies making payments, monetary amount of payments per company, and number of payments per company were analyzed. RESULTS: Industry payments to 1151 US academic neurosurgeons were reviewed. These neurosurgeons received $121.4 million in payments. Three hundred thirty-two companies made 18,466 payments. The average payment per neurosurgeon was approximately six-fold higher than that of all other physicians. Vascular and spine subspecialties received the highest payments. A higher proportion of research money was allocated to the Pacific division, while all other categories (including total amount) were higher in the Eastern US. Most financial contributions were made by a small number of companies. CONCLUSIONS: Neurosurgery has been rated by many as a field fueled by research, innovation, and technology. In 2021, academic neurosurgeons had a strong relationship with the medical device and pharmaceutical industry as reflected in the OPP data. While the true impact on patient care cannot be directly measured, the advancement of the field relies heavily on these collaborations.

ChatGPT for Automated Cross-Checking of Authors' Conflicts of Interest Against Industry Payments.

OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services "OpenPayments" database tracks industry payments to US physicians to improve research conflicts of interest (COIs) transparency, but manual cross-checking of articles' authors against this database is labor-intensive. This study aims to assess the potential of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT to automate COI data analysis in medical publications. STUDY DESIGN: An observational study analyzing the accuracy of ChatGPT in automating the cross-checking of COI disclosures in medical research articles against the OpenPayments database. SETTING: Publications regarding Food and Drug Administration-approved biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab. METHODS: First, ChatGPT evaluated author affiliations from PubMed to identify those based in the United States. Second, for author names matching 1 or multiple payment recipients in OpenPayments, ChatGPT undertook a comparative analysis between author affiliation and OpenPayments recipient metadata. Third, ChatGPT scrutinized full article COI statements, producing an intricate matrix of disclosures for each author against each relevant company (Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline). A random subset of responses was manually checked for accuracy. RESULTS: In total, 78 relevant articles and 294 unique US authors were included, leading to 980 LLM queries. Manual verification showed accuracies of 100% (200/200; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 98.1%-100%) for country analysis, 97.4% (113/116; 95% CI: 92.7%-99.1%) for matching author affiliations with OpenPayments metadata, and 99.2% (1091/1100; 95% CI: 98.5%-99.6%) for COI statement data extraction. CONCLUSION: LLMs have robust potential to automate author-company-specific COI cross-checking against the OpenPayments database. Our findings pave the way for streamlined, efficient, and accurate COI assessment that could be widely employed across medical research.

Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Physician Authors of ACR Appropriateness Criteria.

BACKGROUND: The accuracy and completeness of self-disclosures by authors of imaging guidelines are not well known. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the accuracy of financial disclosures by US authors of ACR appropriateness criteria. METHODS: We reviewed financial disclosures provided by US-based authors of all ACR-AC published in 2019, 2021 and 2023. For each US- based author, payment reports were extracted from the Open Payments Database (OPD) in the previous 36 months related to general category and research payments categories. We analyzed each author individually to determine if the reported disclosures matched results from OPD. RESULTS: A total of 633 authorships, including 333 unique authors were included from 38 ACR AC articles in 2019, with 606 authorships (387 unique authors) from 35 ACR-AC articles published in 2021, and 540 authorships (367 unique authors) from 32 ACR AC articles published in 2023. Among authors who received industry payments, failure to disclose any financial relationship was seen in 125/147 unique authors in 2019, 142/148 authors in 2021 and 95/125 unique authors in 2023. The proportion of nondisclosed total value of payments was 86.1% in 2019, 88.6% in 2021 and 56.7% in 2023. General category payments were nondisclosed in 94.1% in 2019, 89.7% in 2021 and 94.4% in 2023 by payment value. CONCLUSION: Industry payments to authors of radiology guidelines are common and frequently undisclosed.

Financial Conflicts of Interest: Payment at the Expense of Patients?

This provocative editorial proposes four steps that can be immediately implemented to reduce the impact of financial conflicts of interest in oncology without stifling collaboration.

The Prevalence of Financial Conflict of Interest Disclosures by Endovascular Specialists on X (Twitter).

PURPOSE: To evaluate conflicts of interest (COIs) among interventional radiologists and related specialties who mention specific devices or companies on the social media (SoMe) platform X, formerly Twitter. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In total, 13,809 posts between October 7, 2021, and December 31, 2021, on X were evaluated. Posts by U.S. interventional radiologists and related specialties who mentioned a specific device or company were identified. A positive COI was defined as receiving a payment from the device manufacturer or company within 36 months prior to posting. The Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payment database was used to identify financial payments. The prevalence and value of COIs were assessed and compared between posts mentioning a device or company and a paired control group using descriptive statistics and chi-squared tests and independent t tests. RESULTS: Eighty posts containing the mention of 100 specific devices or companies were evaluated. COIs were present in 53% (53/100). When mentioning a specific device or product, 40% interventional radiologists had a COI, compared with 62% neurosurgeons. Physicians who mentioned a specific device or company were 3.7 times more likely to have a positive COI relative to the paired control group (53/100 vs 14/100; P < .001). Of the 31 physicians with a COI, the median physician received $2,270. None of the positive COIs were disclosed. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians posting on SoMe about a specific device or company were more likely to have a financial COI than authors of posts not mentioning a specific device or company. No disclosure of any COI was present in the posts, limiting followers' ability to weigh potential bias.

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.