scholarly journals P.119 Industry relationships with neurological surgery in the 2015 Open Payments Database

Author(s):  
MP de Lotbiniere-Bassett ◽  
PJ McDonald

Background: The 2013 Physician Payments Sunshine Act mandates that all US drug and device manufacturers disclose payments to physicians annually in the Open Payments Database (OPD). We aimed to determine the prevalence, magnitude and nature of these payments to neurological surgery in 2015. Methods: Records of payments to physicians identified by the ‘neurological surgery’ taxonomy code in 2015 were accessed via the OPD. The data were analyzed in terms of the type and amounts of payments, companies making payments, and in comparison to previous studies. Results: In 2015, 330 companies made 83,690 payments ($99,048,607) to 7,613 physicians. The mean payment ($13,010) was substantially greater than the median ($114). Royalties and licensing accounted for the largest proportion of total payment value (74.2%), but only 1.7% of the total number. Food and beverage payments were the most commonly reported transaction (75%), but only 2.5% of the total value. Neurological surgery had the second highest average total payment per physician of any specialty. Conclusions: The overall value of payments to the neurological surgery specialty is driven by a small number of payments that may represent appropriate compensation for novel device development. The OPD provides an opportunity for increased transparency and for the interpretation of research in light of potential conflicts of interest.

Neurology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 92 (21) ◽  
pp. 1006-1013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aditi Ahlawat ◽  
Pushpa Narayanaswami

ObjectiveTo analyze research and nonresearch payments from the pharmaceutical and device industry to neurologists in 2015 using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments Database.MethodsIn this retrospective database analysis, we computed the percentage of neurologists in the United States receiving payments, the median/mean payments per neurologist, payment categories, regional trends, and sponsors. We computed the number of practicing neurologists from the Association of American Medical Colleges State Physician Workforce Data Book, 2015.ResultsIn 2015, approximately 96% of US neurologists received nonresearch payments totaling $93,920,993. The median payment per physician was $407. The highest proportion of neurologists (24%) received between $1,000 and $10,000. Food and beverage was the most frequent category (83% of the total number of payments). The highest amount was paid for serving as faculty/speaker for noncontinuing medical education activities (49%). The top sponsor of nonresearch payments was Teva Pharmaceuticals ($16,461,055; 17.5%). A total of 412 neurologists received $2,921,611 in research payments (median $1,132). Multiple sclerosis specialists received the largest proportion ($285,537; 9.7%). Daiichi Sankyo paid the largest amount in research payments ($826,029; 28%).ConclusionsThe Open Payments program was established to foster transparent disclosure of physician compensations from industry, in response to legislative and public concerns of the effect of conflicts of interest on practice, education, and research. The effects of this program remain unclear and studies of changes in prescribing practices, costs, and other outcomes are necessary. CMS should ensure that incorrect information can be rectified quickly and easily.


2018 ◽  
Vol 158 (6) ◽  
pp. 1028-1034 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Pathak ◽  
Rance J. T. Fujiwara ◽  
Saral Mehra

Objective To characterize, describe, and compare nonresearch industry payments made to otolaryngologists in 2014 and 2015. Additionally, to describe industry payment variation within otolaryngology and among other surgical specialties. Study Design Retrospective cross-sectional database analysis. Setting Open Payments Database. Subjects and Methods Nonresearch payments made to US otolaryngologists were characterized and compared by payment amount, nature of payment, sponsor, and census region between 2014 and 2015. Payments in otolaryngology were compared with those in other surgical specialties. Results From 2014 to 2015, there was an increase in the number of compensated otolaryngologists (7903 vs 7946) and in the mean payment per compensated otolaryngologist ($1096 vs $1242), as well as a decrease in the median payment per compensated otolaryngologist ($169 vs $165, P = .274). Approximately 90% of total payments made in both years were attributed to food and beverage. Northeast census region otolaryngologists received the highest median payment in 2014 and 2015. Compared with other surgical specialists, otolaryngologists received the lowest mean payment in 2014 and 2015 and the second-lowest and lowest median payment in 2014 and 2015, respectively. Conclusion The increase in the mean payment and number of compensated otolaryngologists can be explained by normal annual variation, stronger industry-otolaryngologist relationships, or improved reporting; additional years of data and improved public awareness of the Sunshine Act will facilitate determining long-term trends. The large change in disparity between the mean and median from 2014 to 2015 suggests greater payment variation. Otolaryngologists continue to demonstrate limited industry ties when compared with other surgical specialists.


2019 ◽  
Vol 161 (2) ◽  
pp. 265-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elliot Morse ◽  
Elisa Berson ◽  
Saral Mehra

Objective To characterize drug and device industry payments to otolaryngologists in 2017 and compare them with payments from 2014 to 2016. Study Design Retrospective cross-sectional analysis. Setting 2017 Open Payments Database. Subjects and Methods We identified otolaryngologists in the Open Payments Database receiving nonresearch industry payments in 2017. We determined the total number and value of payments and the mean and median payments per compensated otolaryngologist. We characterized payments by census region, nature of payment, and sponsor subspecialty. Results A total of 8131 otolaryngologists received 66,414 payments totaling to $11.2 million in industry compensation in 2017. This is decreased from $14.5 million in 2016. The mean and median payment per compensated otolaryngologist was $1383 ($10,459) and $159 ($64-$420), respectively. Of the total compensation, 85% was received by the top 10th percentile of otolaryngologists. Speaking fees accounted for $3.1 million (28% of total payments), and food and beverage was the most common payment type (57,691 payments; 87%). Consulting fees decreased by $1 million from 2016 to 2017, and ownership interests decreased by $1.2 million from 2016 to 2017. The south had the highest total compensation value ($4.2 million), while the west had the highest mean payment value ($1561). Rhinology accounted for the highest proportion of payments of all otolaryngology subspecialties at $3.9 million (34%). Conclusion Industry payments to otolaryngologists decreased to $11.2 million in 2017 from $14.5 million in 2016. Much of the decrease can be attributed to decreases in consulting fees and ownership payments. It is important that otolaryngologists remain aware of changes in industry funding with each release of the Open Payments Database.


Author(s):  
Grace Ha ◽  
Rachel Gray ◽  
Mona Clappier ◽  
Neil Tanna ◽  
Armen K. Kasabian

Abstract Background Industry relationships and conflicts of interest can impact research funding, topics, and outcomes. Little research regarding the role of biomedical companies at microsurgery conferences is available. This study evaluates the role of industry at conferences by comparing payments received by speakers at the American Society for Reconstructive Microsurgeons (ASRM) meeting with those received by speakers at the American Society of Aesthetic Plastic Surgeons (ASAPS) meeting, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) meeting, and an average plastic surgeon. It also compares payments made by different companies. Methods General payments received by speakers at the 2017 ASAPS, ASPS, and ASRM conferences were collected from the Open Payments Database. Mean payments received at each conference were calculated and the Mann–Whitney U test evaluated differences between conference speakers and the average plastic surgeon. The total amount of payments from each company was collected through the Open Payments Database, and Z-tests identified which companies paid significantly more than others. Results The mean (and median) general payments made to conference speakers at ASAPS (n = 75), ASPS (n = 247), and ASRM (n = 121) were $75,577 ($861), $27,562 ($1,021), and $16,725 ($652), respectively. These payments were significantly greater (p < 0.001 for all) than those of the average plastic surgeon ($4,441 and $327), but not significantly different from each other. Allergan contributed significantly more than other companies to speakers at ASPS and ASAPS, while LifeCell Corporation, Zimmer Biomet Holdings, and Axogen contributed significantly more to speakers at ASRM. Conclusion Payments to physicians at ASRM were significantly higher than those of an average plastic surgeon but not significantly different from those of speakers at ASAPS and ASPS. Certain companies paid significantly more than their peers at each conference. Given these findings, speakers should strive to make clear the nature and extent of their conflicts of interest when presenting at conferences.


Neurology ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 90 (23) ◽  
pp. 1063-1070 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aditi Ahlawat ◽  
Pushpa Narayanaswami

ObjectiveTo analyze research and nonresearch payments from the pharmaceutical and device industry to neurologists in 2015 using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments database.MethodsIn this retrospective database analysis, we computed the percentage of neurologists in the United States receiving payments, the median/mean payments per neurologist, payment categories, regional trends, and sponsors. We computed the number of practicing neurologists from the Association of American Medical Colleges State Physician Workforce data book, 2015.ResultsIn 2015, approximately 51% of US neurologists received nonresearch payments totaling $6,210,414. The median payment per physician was $81. Payments to the top 10% of compensated neurologists amounted to $5,278,852 (84.5%). Food and beverage was the most frequent category (86.5% of the total number of payments). The highest amount was paid for serving as faculty/speaker for noncontinuing medical education activities (58%). The top sponsor of nonresearch payments was Teva Pharmaceuticals ($1,162,900; 18.5%). A total of 412 neurologists received $2,921,611 in research payments (median $1,132). Multiple sclerosis specialists received the largest proportion ($285,537; 9.7%). Daiichi Sankyo paid the largest amount in research payments ($826,029; 28%).ConclusionsThe Open Payments program was established to foster transparent disclosure of physician compensation from industry, in response to legislative and public concerns over the effect of conflicts of interest on practice, education, and research. The effects of this program remain unclear and studies of changes in prescribing practices, costs, and other outcomes are necessary. CMS should ensure that incorrect information can be rectified quickly and easily.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rebecca L Petlansky ◽  
Amadea D Bekoe-Tabiri ◽  
Vanessa N Bueno ◽  
AnnMarie N Onwuka ◽  
Michael R Gionfriddo ◽  
...  

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act requires disclosure of payments made by drug and medical device manufacturers to physicians or teaching hospitals. Academic literature extensively documents gender disparities in the medical profession with regard to salary, promotion, and government funded research. This investigation sought to quantify potential conflicts of interest (CoIs) in pediatric medical journals, specifically examining sex differences. To identify potential CoIs, we examined manuscripts published prior to 2019 in six pediatric journals (JAMA Pediatrics, Pediatrics, The Journal of Pediatrics, Pediatric Blood and Cancer, Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, and The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal). We collected physician demographics and specialty from the National Plan and Provider Enumeration System National Provider Identifier Registry and compensation data from both ProPublicas Dollars for Docs (PDD) and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments (CMSOP). Data was collected on 2,747 authors from 929 manuscripts. Of the 1,088 authors based in the United States with medical degrees (40.5% female), 510 (46.9%) had entries in PDD and CMSOP. Overall, 11,791 payments to these physician-authors totaled $9,586,089.97. Males were 19.6% more likely to receive payments (RR = 1.20, 95% CI [1.05, 1.37], p = 0.008). The mean amount received by males was $23,250.71 while that received by females was $10,970.78 (mean difference = 12,279.92, 95% CI = (2036.31, 22,523.54), p = 0.019). A comprehensive understanding of these CoIs can inform the disclosure policies of journals to promote transparency of authors.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (01) ◽  
pp. e1-e8
Author(s):  
Michael Solotke ◽  
Susan Forster ◽  
Jessica Chow ◽  
Jenesis Duran ◽  
Hasna Karim ◽  
...  

Purpose The aim of this article is to examine the association between industry payments to ophthalmologists and scholarly impact. Design Retrospective cross-sectional study. Methods All ophthalmology faculty at United States accredited ophthalmology residency programs were included in this study. The main exposure was industry payments to ophthalmologists in 2016, as reported in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database. The primary outcome was Hirsch index (H-index), a measure of scholarly impact. Results Among 1,653 academic ophthalmologists in our study, 1,225 (74%) received industry payments in 2016. We did not observe a difference between the mean H-index of ophthalmologists receiving any industry payments versus those not receiving any payments (p = 0.68). In analysis including only ophthalmologists who received industry payments, H-index differed significantly by payment amount: 12.6 for ophthalmologists receiving less than $100, 12.2 for those receiving $100 to 1,000, 18.8 for those receiving $1,000 to 10,000, 21.3 for those receiving $10,000 to 100,000, and 29.4 for those receiving greater than $100,000 (p < 0.001). Within each academic rank and gender, industry payments greater than $1,000 were associated with a higher H-index (p < 0.05). Conclusions Although our analysis cannot prove causality, we observed a significant association between industry payments and scholarly impact among academic ophthalmologists, even after adjusting for gender, academic rank, and subspecialty. Prospective studies should further evaluate this relationship.


2018 ◽  
Vol 103 (12) ◽  
pp. 4339-4342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R McCartney ◽  
Clifford J Rosen

Abstract An analysis of the Endocrine Society’s clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published from 2010 to 2017—presented by Irwig et al. in the current issue of The Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism—suggested that the Endocrine Society met five of seven National Academy of Medicine (NAM) standards concerning financial conflicts of interest in CPGs. As current contributors to the Endocrine Society’s CPG efforts, we offer additional context related to the 2011 NAM standards and the current environment concerning industry support in medicine, and we comment on the nature of industry support received by the Society’s CPG authors according to Irwig and colleagues’ analysis of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Open Payments database. Perhaps most importantly, we outline the Society’s recent and ongoing efforts to enhance the value of its CPGs. Such efforts include a 2016 revision of CPG author conflict of interest rules—a change that was invisible to the investigatory methods used by Irwig et al.—in addition to other processes designed to enhance CPG objectivity. We conclude our commentary by recognizing that good-faith attempts to enhance transparency and to reduce conflicts of interest (real or apparent) in CPGs will ultimately serve the best interests of patients and providers; we confirm the Endocrine Society’s resolute commitment to providing high-quality, evidence-based clinical guidance via a CPG development process that faithfully accords with current CPG best practices.


Author(s):  
PJ McDonald ◽  
ER Shon ◽  
AV Kulkarni

Background: Industry involvement in neurosurgical research is common, creating financial conflicts of interest (COIs). Most journals require voluntary disclosure of financial COIs. In 2013, the Sunshine Act (SA) was passed in the US, mandating industry disclosure of all payments to physicians. The accuracy of voluntary disclosure can now be determined by comparing voluntary author disclosure with industry data. Methods: We reviewed disclosure statements and calculated rates of voluntary disclosure in major neurosurgical journals before (2011) and after (2013) the Sunshine Act to determine if voluntary disclosure increased after its implementation. We then determined the accuracy of voluntary disclosure in 2013, comparing voluntary disclosure with industry disclosure on the Open Payments Database (OPD). Mean, median and range of industry payments to neurosurgeons were calculated Results: Voluntary disclosure significantly increased in JNS-Spine only (10.7% to 35.4%,p<0.001) after implementation of the SA. The average rate of non-disclosure in all journals studied was 38.3% (Range 33.8%-42.2%)$32,598,522.97 of industry payments were provided to 656 authors in the five-month period studied (Average $49,692.87/author) Conclusions: Voluntary COI disclosure in JNS- Spine increased after implementation of the Sunshine Act. Industry payments to physicians publishing in neurosurgery journals are common and rates of non-disclosure of COIs are high. The ethical implications of COIs and non-disclosure are discussed.


Blood ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 134 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 3827-3827
Author(s):  
Francesca Ferraro ◽  
Christopher A Miller ◽  
Amy Abdalla ◽  
Nichole Helton ◽  
Nathan Salomonis ◽  
...  

Currently, it is not clear why some patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) can be "cured" with chemotherapy alone; are they living with small amounts of disease that is held in check by immunologic (or other) mechanisms, or is their disease really eradicated? The percentage of cytogenetically normal AML patients who have long (>5 years) first remissions (LFRs) after chemotherapy alone is low (about 9.1% in patients <60 years and 1.6% in >60 years1). For this reason, most intermediate risk patients are offered allogeneic transplantation to decrease their risk for relapse. To better understand mechanisms of chemotherapy sensitivity in AML, we performed an analysis of the mutation landscape and persistence, using samples from 8 normal karyotype LFR patients (without CEBPA mutations) who received standard "7+3" induction and high dose cytarabine consolidation as their only therapy. The mean age at diagnosis was 43.5 years, and the mean follow up in first remission is 7.6 years; none of these patients has relapsed to date. For each case, we performed enhanced exome sequencing at diagnosis (235x coverage of the entire exome, and ~1008x coverage of recurrently mutated AML genes). Each case had at least one documented AML driver mutation, with a median of 29 somatic mutations in the exome space. We created probes for 225 mutations (mean 28 per case), and performed error-corrected sequencing (Haloplex) for all available remission samples. The mean depth of Haloplex coverage was 1607x, and each sample had at least one AML-specific mutation assayed, with a sensitivity of 1 cell in 1,750 (0.06%). 7/8 patients demonstrated complete clearance of all mutations in all remission samples tested, which was confirmed with digital droplet PCR for 5 cases, with a sensitivity of detection of 1 cell in 100,000. In one case, we detected a persistent ancestral clone harboring DNMT3AR882H, which can be associated with long first remissions for some patients2. Strikingly, the founding clone in all 8 cases had one or more somatic mutations in genes known to drive cell proliferation (e.g. MYC, FLT3, NRAS, PTPN11, Figure 1 top panel). These are usually subclonal mutations that occur late during leukemic progression, suggesting that the presence of a "proliferative hit" in the founding clone might be important for chemotherapy clearance of all the AML cells in a given patient. To support this hypothesis, we analyzed the mutational clearance of 82 AML cases with paired diagnosis and day 30 post-chemotherapy bone marrow samples. We observed that, whether present in the founding clone or in subclones, mutations in MYC, CEBPA, FLT3, NRAS, and PTPN11 cleared after induction chemotherapy in all samples, while other mutations were often persistent at day 30 (e.g. DNMT3A, IDH1, IDH2, NPM1, TET2; Figure 1 bottom panel). Compared to other published sequencing studies of AML, MYC and NRAS mutations were significantly enriched in this small cohort (MYC p= 0.002, and NRAS p= 0.034), with MYC enrichment being particularly striking (37.5% versus 1.8%). All MYC mutations were canonical single base substitutions occurring in the highly conserved MYC Box 2 domain at the N-terminus of MYC (p.P74Q or p.T73N). Overexpression of MYCP74Q in murine hematopoietic progenitors prolonged MYC half life (89 min vs. 44 min for wild type), and enhanced cytarabine sensitivity at all concentrations tested (range 10-1000 nM, p=0.0003), both in vitro and in a MYC-driven leukemia model in vivo. MYC expression measured with flow cytometry in the blasts of the LFR samples was significantly higher (p=0.045) compared to unfavorable risk (complex karyotype) or other intermediate risk categories, but similar to good risk AML (biallelic CEBPA mutations, core binding factor fusion-associated AML, and AML with isolated NPMc), suggesting that activation of the MYC pathway may represent a shared feature of chemosensitive patients. Taken together, these data suggest that some intermediate patients who are effectively "cured" with chemotherapy alone may not have persistent subclinical disease, nor retained ancestral clones that could potentially contribute to relapse. Importantly, these patients often have mutations driving cell proliferation in the founding clone, indicating that the presence of specific mutations in all malignant cells may be critical for complete AML cell clearance with chemotherapy. 1. Blood Adv. 2018 Jul 10; 2(13): 1645-1650 2. N Engl J Med 2018; 378:1189-1199 Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document