Influence of pharmaceutical marketing on Medicare prescriptions in the District of Columbia.

IMPORTANCE: Gifts from pharmaceutical companies are believed to influence prescribing behavior, but few studies have addressed the association between industry gifts to physicians and drug costs, prescription volume, or preference for generic drugs. Even less research addresses the effect of gifts on the prescribing behavior of nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs), and podiatrists. OBJECTIVE: To analyze the association between gifts provided by pharmaceutical companies to individual prescribers in Washington DC and the number of prescriptions, cost of prescriptions, and proportion of branded prescriptions for each prescriber. DESIGN: Gifts data from the District of Columbia's (DC) AccessRx program and the federal Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments program were analyzed with claims data from the CMS 2013 Medicare Provider Utilization and Payment Data. SETTING: Washington DC, 2013. PARTICIPANTS: Physicians, nurse practitioners, physician assistants, podiatrists, and other licensed Medicare Part D prescribers who participated in Medicare Part D (a Federal prescription drug program that covers patients over age 65 or who are disabled). EXPOSURE(S): Gifts to healthcare prescribers (including cash, meals, and ownership interests) from pharmaceutical companies. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Average number of Medicare Part D claims per prescriber, number of claims per patient, cost per claim, and proportion of branded claims. RESULTS: In 2013, 1,122 (39.1%) of 2,873 Medicare Part D prescribers received gifts from pharmaceutical companies totaling $3.9 million in 2013. Compared to non-gift recipients, gift recipients prescribed 2.3 more claims per patient, prescribed medications costing $50 more per claim, and prescribed 7.8% more branded drugs. In six specialties (General Internal Medicine, Family Medicine, Obstetrics/Gynecology, Urology, Ophthalmology, and Dermatology), gifts were associated with a significantly increased average cost of claims. For Internal Medicine, Family Medicine, and Ophthalmology, gifts were associated with more branded claims. Gift acceptance was associated with increased average cost per claim for PAs and NPs. Gift acceptance was also associated with higher proportion of branded claims for PAs but not NPs. Physicians who received small gifts (less than $500 annually) had more expensive claims ($114 vs. $85) and more branded claims (30.3% vs. 25.7%) than physicians who received no gifts. Those receiving large gifts (greater than $500 annually) had the highest average costs per claim ($189) and branded claims (39.9%) than other groups. All differences were statistically significant (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Gifts from pharmaceutical companies are associated with more prescriptions per patient, more costly prescriptions, and a higher proportion of branded prescriptions with variation across specialties. Gifts of any size had an effect and larger gifts elicited a larger impact on prescribing behaviors. Our study confirms and expands on previous work showing that industry gifts are associated with more expensive prescriptions and more branded prescriptions. Industry gifts influence prescribing behavior, may have adverse public health implications, and should be banned.

Treatment of Men for "Low Testosterone": A Systematic Review.

Testosterone products are recommended by some prescribers in response to a diagnosis or presumption of "low testosterone" (low-T) for cardiovascular health, sexual function, muscle weakness or wasting, mood and behavior, and cognition. We performed a systematic review of 156 eligible randomized controlled trials in which testosterone was compared to placebo for one or more of these conditions. We included studies in bibliographic databases between January 1, 1950 and April 9, 2016, and excluded studies involving bodybuilding, contraceptive effectiveness, or treatment of any condition in women or children. Studies with multiple relevant endpoints were included in all relevant tables. Testosterone supplementation did not show consistent benefit for cardiovascular risk, sexual function, mood and behavior, or cognition. Studies that examined clinical cardiovascular endpoints have not favored testosterone therapy over placebo. Testosterone is ineffective in treating erectile dysfunction and controlled trials did not show a consistent effect on libido. Testosterone supplementation consistently increased muscle strength but did not have beneficial effects on physical function. Most studies on mood-related endpoints found no beneficial effect of testosterone treatment on personality, psychological well-being, or mood. The prescription of testosterone supplementation for low-T for cardiovascular health, sexual function, physical function, mood, or cognitive function is without support from randomized clinical trials.