Association between Industry Payments and Published Position on Use of Devices for the Treatment of Lower Urinary Tract Symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the impact of industry payments to authors of opinion articles on the Urolift and Rezum devices. We also examined the extent to which authors omitted acknowledgements of financial conflicts-of-interest. METHODS: We searched Google Scholar for all articles that cite either of the respective pivotal trials for these devices. 2 blinded urologists coded the articles as favorable or neutral. A separate blinded researcher recorded industry payments from the manufacturers using the Open Payments Program database. RESULTS: We identified 29 articles written by 27 unique authors from an initial screening list of 235 articles. Of these articles, 15 (52%) were coded as positive and 14 (48%) were coded as neutral. 20 (74%) authors have accepted payments from the manufacturer of the device. Since 2014, these authors have collectively received $270,000 from NeoTract and $314,000 from Boston Scientific. Of the 20 authors with payments, 9 (45%) received more than $10,000 from either manufacturer. Of authors with payments, 65% (13/20) contributed to only positive articles. Authors who received payments had more than 4 times the number of article contributions than did authors without payments (42 vs 10). Authors of at least one favorable article were more likely to have received payments from the device manufacturers than authors of neutral articles (P = .014, Chi-squared test). Most (80%, 16/20) authors with payments did not report a relevant conflict-of-interest within any of their articles. CONCLUSION: These data suggest a relationship between payments from a manufacturer and positive published position on that company's device. There may be a critical lack of published editorial pieces by authors without financial conflicts of interest.

Challenging Ethical Scenarios in the Surgical Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction: A Survey of High-Volume Penile Prosthesis Surgeons.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how surgeons approach ethically challenging scenarios that arise in penile prosthesis surgery and identify patient-related factors that impact their approach. METHODS: A survey was distributed to the Society for Urologic Prosthetic Surgeons membership consisting of 6 ethically challenging scenarios: an HIV+ patient, a patient with cognitive disability, a registered sex offender, a nonverbal patient, a litigious patient, and an uncontrolled diabetic patient whose insurance will lapse soon. Additional clinical information was provided to assess how the likelihood to offer surgery might change. The primary outcome was the likelihood of offering surgery in each scenario. RESULTS: The response rate was 15.6% (n = 29). When compared to the baseline patient, respondents had a lower likelihood of offering surgery in all scenarios except the HIV+ patient, with the lowest likelihood of offering surgery to a sex offender (P < .01). Within each scenario, factors associated with an increased odds of offering surgery included knowledge that a patient with Down Syndrome is high functioning (odds ratio [OR] 5.0, confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-17.8), that a prior sex offender is currently married (OR 16.5, CI:3.5-99.8), that a litigious patient sued a surgeon for a retained sponge (OR 6.3, CI:1.7-24.3), and that a nonverbal patient had expressed prior interest in penile prosthesis surgery (OR 4.5, CI: 1.3-16.2). CONCLUSION: Ethical principles, including respect for autonomy, nonmaleficence, beneficence, and justice, are appropriately applied by urological prosthetic surgeons when ethical challenges arise. While the likelihood of offering penile prosthesis surgery is decreased with most ethical dilemmas, specific clinical factors often augment decision-making.

Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Urology Clinical Practice Guidelines.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have highlighted the presence of disclosed and undisclosed financial conflicts of interest among authors of clinical practice guidelines. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine to what extent urology guideline authors receive and report industry payments in accordance with the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We selected the 13 urology guidelines that were published by the American Urological Association (AUA) after disclosure was mandated by the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. Payments received by guideline authors were searched independently by two investigators using the Open Payments database. OUTCOME MEASURES AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Our primary outcome measure was the number of authors receiving payments from industry, stratified by amount thresholds. Our secondary outcome measure was the number of authors with accurate conflict of interest disclosure statements. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: We identified a total of 54 author disclosures. Thirty-two authors (59.3%) received at least one payment from industry. Twenty (37.0%) received >$10 000 and six (11.1%) received >$50 000. Median total payments were $578 (interquartile range $0-19 228). Twenty (37.0%) disclosure statements were inaccurate. Via Dollars for Docs, we identified $74 195.13 paid for drugs and devices directly related to guideline recommendations. We were limited in our ability to determine when authors began working on guideline panels, as this information was not provided, and by the lack of specificity in Dollars for Docs. CONCLUSIONS: Many of the AUA guideline authors received payments from industry, some in excess of $50 000. A significant portion of disclosure statements were inaccurate, indicating a need for more stringent enforcement of the AUA disclosure policy. PATIENT SUMMARY: Pharmaceutical company payments to doctors have been shown to influence how doctors treat patients. If these doctors are charged with making clinical recommendations to other doctors, in the form of clinical practice guidelines, the issue of industry payments becomes more severe. We found that many urologists on guideline panels receive money from industry and that a significant portion did not disclose all payments received.

Older and wiser? Changes in unprofessional content on urologists' social media after transition from residency to practice.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize changes in the frequency and nature of unprofessional content on urologists' Facebook accounts during the transition from residency to practice. METHODS: Facebook was queried with the names of all 2015 US urology graduates 1 year after completion of residency. We identified unprofessional and potentially objectionable content on the public Facebook accounts using a rubric based on professionalism guidelines by the American Urological Association, the American Medical Association and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education. Comparisons of unprofessional content were made with data from this cohort collected at the completion of residency. To assess how professional identities were reflected on social media, we determined which urologists self-identified as a urologist on Facebook and any changes in their unprofessional content. RESULTS: Of 281 urologists, 198 (70%) had publicly identifiable Facebook accounts. Of these, 85 (43%) contained any unprofessional or potentially objectionable content, including 35 (18%) with explicitly unprofessional content. Examples included images of and references to intoxication, explicit profanity, and offensive comments about patients. Of the 201 Facebook accounts that had been publicly identifiable at the completion of residency, most profiles (182, 91%) had remained public; of the 19 that were no longer public, about half had previously contained unprofessional content. Similarly, of the 80 urologists without public profiles 1 year previously, most (64, 80%) had remained unidentifiable on Facebook; of the 16 accounts that had since become publicly identifiable, half had unprofessional content. Among the urologists on Facebook overall, 11 (6%) had posted new unprofessional or potentially objectionable content since entering practice. Comparing this cohort in practice vs at the completion of residency, there were no significant differences in how many urologists had public Facebook accounts (70% vs 71%) or whose accounts had concerning content (43% vs 40%). The presence of unprofessional content at the completion of residency strongly predicted having unprofessional content later in practice. More urologists overall self-identified as being a urologist on Facebook, and a larger proportion of these profiles also displayed unprofessional content (53% vs 47% 1 year previously). CONCLUSION: Most urologists maintained public Facebook accounts after the transition to practice, and about half of these contained unprofessional or potentially objectionable content. Amidst their increasing self-identification as urologists on social media, the majority of practising urologists had posted concerning content, which could have an impact on their professional identities and public perceptions of the specialty.