Researchers examined data on payments drug companies made to doctors
in 2013 for research funding as well general payments such as gifts,
fees for speaking or consulting work, meals or travel. Then,
researchers looked at how often doctors prescribed different drugs
for two types of cancers with multiple treatment options: kidney
cancer and a rare blood cell cancer known as chronic myeloid
leukemia.
Compared to physicians who didn't receive any payments from the
manufacturers of those drugs, those who did were 84 percent more
likely to prescribe a kidney medication from those companies, the
study found.
Payments from manufacturers were also associated with 31 percent
greater likelihood that doctors would choose one of their drugs for
chronic myeloid leukemia.
"While others have studied industry payments in relation (to)
prescribing of other kinds of drugs, like blood pressure and
cholesterol medications, ours is the first study examining oncology
drugs," said senior study author Stacie Dusetzina, a researcher at
Vanderbilt University Medical Center and the Vanderbilt-Ingram
Cancer Center in Nashville, Tennessee.
"Because oncology is a high-risk disease area and the drugs are very
expensive, decisions about prescribing should ideally be determined
by a doctor-patient discussion that is free from outside
influences," Dusetzina said by email.
Physicians and teaching hospitals receive approximately $7 billion
each year from the pharmaceutical industry. While these payments
have long been associated with prescriptions for more expensive
brand-name drugs, the extent of this link for cancer drugs in
particular has been unclear, researchers note in JAMA Internal
Medicine.
Data for the current study came from the U.S. Centers for Medicare
and Medicaid.
The researchers focused on three drugs used to treat kidney cancer:
sorafenib (Nexavar), sunitinib malate (Sutent), and pazopanib
hydrochloride (Votrient). They also looked at three drugs for
chronic myeloid leukemia: dasatinib (Sprycel), imatinib mesylate (Gleevec),
and nilotinib hydrochloride monohydrate (Tasigna).
Among the 354 physicians prescribing kidney cancer drugs, 32, or 9
percent, received research funding and 89, or 25 percent, received
general payments for things like meals, travel or speaking or
consulting gigs.
[to top of second column] |
For the 2,225 doctors prescribing leukemia drugs, 38, or 4 percent,
received research funding and 879, or 40 percent, received general
payments.
Receipt of research payments was associated with increased
prescribing for kidney cancer but not leukemia.
Results varied for individual medicines in the study.
The study wasn't a controlled experiment designed to prove whether
or how research funding or other payments from drug companies
directly influences the medicines doctors prescribe for cancer.
Another limitation is that researchers lacked data on the exact
diagnoses that prompted prescriptions, the authors note. They also
had limited data on research funding.
Still, the results highlight the potential for company payments to
influence doctors' treatment decisions, said Dr. Yoram Unguru of the
Johns Hopkins Berman Institute of Bioethics in Baltimore, who wasn't
involved in the study.
"Patients trust that their physicians will make objective and
evidence-based decisions on their behalf, which reflect their
interests and that these decisions will also limit harms," Unguru
said by email.
"Gifts (payment) cloud our ability to remain objective and as such,
(negatively) influence the patient-provider relationship, in
particular trust that physicians will place patients' needs
primary," Unguru added.
While it's possible physicians might not deliberately change
treatment decisions based on drugmaker payments, the potential is
still troubling, said Dr. Reshma Jagsi, director of the Center for
Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine at the University of
Michigan in Ann Arbor.
"Each drug has a unique risks and benefit profile, even when
considering two drugs from the same class, and often costs to the
patient and society vary as well," Jagsi, who wasn't involved in the
study, said by email.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/2GLnc3h JAMA Internal Medicine, online April
9, 2018.
[© 2018 Thomson Reuters. All rights
reserved.] Copyright 2018 Reuters. All rights reserved. This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Thompson Reuters is solely responsible for this content. |