Australian Cancer Physicians and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A Survey of Attitudes and Interactions.

PURPOSE: Interactions between cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry may create conflicts of interest that can adversely affect patient care. We aimed to survey cancer physicians regarding their attitudes toward and interactions with industry. METHODS: We surveyed Australian cancer physicians between December 2020 and February 2021, questioning how often they interacted with industry and their attitudes toward this. We also assessed factors associated with accepting payments from industry and the amount received, and opinions on policies and industry influence. We used logistic and linear regression to examine links between attitudes and behaviors. RESULTS: There were 116 responses (94 complete). Almost half (n = 53 of 115, 46.1%) felt that there was a positive relationship between cancer physicians and industry. Most (n = 79 of 104, 76.0%) interacted with industry at least once a month, and 67.7% (n = 63 of 93) had received nonresearch payments from industry previously, with a median value of 2,000 Australian dollars over 1 year. Most respondents believed that interactions could influence prescribing while simultaneously denying influence on their own prescribing (n = 66 of 94, 70.2%). Those who judged general sales representative interactions (odds ratio [OR] 9.37 [95% CI, 1.05 to 83.41], P = .045) or clinician sponsorship (OR 3.22 [95% CI, 1.01 to 10.30], P = .049) to be more acceptable also met with sales representatives more frequently. Physicians were more likely to accept industry payments when they deemed sponsorship of clinicians for conferences (OR 10.55 [95% CI, 2.33 to 47.89], P = .002) or honoraria for advisory board membership more acceptable (OR 3.91 [95% CI, 1.04 to 14.74], P = .04) or when they had higher belief in industry influence over own prescribing (OR 25.51 [95% CI, 2.70 to 241.45], P = .005). CONCLUSION: Australian cancer physicians interact with industry frequently, and those who feel positive about these interactions are likely to do so more often. More research is needed to understand the motivations behind these interactions.

Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and the practice, knowledge and beliefs of medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: No previous review has assessed the extent and effect of industry interactions on medical oncologists and haematologists specifically. METHODS: A systematic review investigated interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and how these might affect the clinical practice, knowledge and beliefs of cancer physicians. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched from inception to February 2021. RESULTS: Twenty-nine cross-sectional and two cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. These were classified into three categories of investigation: (1) extent of exposure to industry for cancer physicians as whole (n = 11); (2) financial ties among influential cancer physicians specifically (n = 11) and (3) associations between industry exposure and prescribing (n = 9). Cancer physicians frequently receive payments from or maintain financial ties with industry, at a prevalence of up to 63% in the United States (US) and 70.6% in Japan. Among influential clinicians, 86% of US and 78% of Japanese oncology guidelines authors receive payments. Payments were associated with either a neutral or negative influence on the quality of prescribing practice. Limited evidence suggests oncologists believe education by industry could lead to unconscious bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial evidence of frequent relationships between cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry in a range of high-income countries. More research is needed on clinical implications for patients and better management of these relationships. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO identification number CRD42020143353.

Regulatory authority and clinical acceptability: Physicians' responses to regulatory drug safety warnings.

AIMS: Medicines regulators issue post-market safety warnings to advise of newly uncovered risks, but with mixed impacts. We aimed to identify factors influencing the use of regulatory warnings by primary care and specialist physicians in the US and Australia. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews were carried out with 40 primary care physicians, endocrinologists and other generalist specialists in Boston (USA) and Australia. Coding and analysis were performed inductively and iteratively to identify and examine key factors. Analysis centred around four areas: physicians' awareness of drug safety information, preferred information sources, opinion-forming and sharing of information with patients. RESULTS: Uncertainty, trust and clinical authority emerged as factors influencing use of advisories. Although regulators were trusted as authoritative institutions, they appeared to lack clinical authority, and physicians validated regulatory information against other trusted sources including evidence, expert opinion and experience. Specialists became aware of drug safety issues through specialised literature, using evidence and clinical consensus to form opinions. Primary care physicians, fielding high volumes of information, relied on convenient, accessible information sources including the media and the "clinical grapevine" for awareness, and on clinical colleagues, specialists and experience for interpretation. Communicating risk to patients was complicated by uncertainty; physicians tailored information to patients' health literacy and information needs. US physicians were more aware of their national regulator's post-market safety role than Australian physicians of theirs. CONCLUSION: Drug safety warnings may not be optimally received or used. Regulators should consider strategies that increase trust, clinical relevance and accessibility, and address physicians' needs in communicating risk to patients.

Industry payments to Australian medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a cross-sectional analysis of publicly available disclosures.

BACKGROUND: Payments to medical oncologists and clinical haematologists can negatively affect prescribing practice, but the extent of payments to these specialists is unknown in Australia. AIMS: To analyse the extent of payments from the pharmaceutical industry to Australian cancer physicians as reported during the first collated period of the Disclosure Australia website. METHODS: We performed a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of payments made from November 2018 to April 2019, using a file downloaded from the Disclosure Australia website. We checked the names of listed medical practitioners against Medical Board of Australia records to assign specialties. The number of medical oncologists, clinical haematologists, other specialist physicians and non-specialist physician medical practitioners was calculated, along with the payments to each of these groups. RESULTS: A total of A$7 332 407 was paid to 2775 medical practitioners. Of these, 236 were medical oncologists, 189 were haematologists and 1145 were other specialist physicians. This represents 31.7% of Australian medical oncologists and 30.9% of Australian haematologists, compared with 11.7% of all other specialist physicians and 1.1% of all other non-specialist physician medical practitioners. Medical oncologists received significantly higher payments (median A$2131.26) than other specialist physicians (median A$1376.00, 2-tailed P = 0.004) and other medical practitioners (median A$709.00, 2-tailed P < 0.001), while haematologists received significantly higher payments (median A$1519.95) than other medical practitioners (2-tailed P < 0.001), but similar payments to other specialist physicians (2-tailed P = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Australian cancer physicians receive payments at a higher proportional frequency and in greater dollar amounts than other specialist physicians and other medical practitioners in general.

Postmarket Safety Communication for Protection of Public Health: A Comparison of Regulatory Policy in Australia, Canada, the European Union, and the United States.

In the wake of the withdrawal of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug rofecoxib, regulators worldwide reconsidered their approach to postmarket safety. Many have since adopted a "life cycle" approach to regulation of medicines, facilitating faster approval of new medicines while planning for potential postmarket safety issues. A crucial aspect of postmarket safety is the effective and timely communication of emerging risk information using postmarket safety advisories, commonly issued as letters to healthcare professionals, drug safety bulletins, media alerts, and website announcements. Yet regulators differ in their use of postmarket safety advisories. We examined the capacity of regulators in the United States, Europe, Canada, and Australia to warn about postmarket safety issues through safety advisories by assessing their governance, legislative authority, risk communication capabilities, and transparency.

Correction to: Medical, pharmacy and nursing students in the Baltic countries: interactions with the pharmaceutical and medical device industries.

Following publication of the original article [1], we have been notified that the publication is missing a link to the data repository.

Medical, pharmacy and nursing students in the Baltic countries: interactions with the pharmaceutical and medical device industries.

BACKGROUND: Interactions between pharmaceutical and medical device industries and students can lead to commercial influences on educational messages, with a potential to bias future treatment choice. This is the first study in the Baltic countries describing exposure and attitudes of medical, pharmacy and nursing students towards cooperation with industry. METHODS: A cross-sectional on-line survey of current medical, pharmacy and nursing students (n = 918) in three Baltic countries was carried out. RESULTS: We found that most students participate in events organized or sponsored by industry and accept a range of gifts and benefits. Students in the Baltic countries consider cooperation with industry important; at the same time, most do not feel that they have sufficient training on how to ethically interact with pharmaceutical and medical device companies and believe that these interactions can influence their prescribing or dispensing patterns. There is a tendency to rationalize cooperation with industry by referring to the current economic situation and patient benefits. Pharmacy students have higher rates of participation and they accept gifts and other benefits more often than nursing or medical students; therefore, they are likely to be more vulnerable to potential industry influence. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the need to include topics on ethics and conflicts of interests in cooperation with industry in curriculum of health care students in Baltic countries. Without proper training, students continue to be at risk to industry influence and may develop habits for their further practice differing from evidence-based practice in prescribing and dispensing of medicines, as well as use of medical devices.