A single-center retrospective comparative analysis of urinary continence in robotic prostatectomy with a combination of umbilical ligament preservation and Hood technique.

OBJECTIVES: Data available on the effect of the recently developed Hood technique and its modified iterations in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy on postoperative urinary continence are insufficient. We evaluated the time to achieve urinary continence with the modified Hood technique compared with the standard or umbilical ligament preservation robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. METHODS: This retrospective analysis examines patient records for those who underwent robot-assisted radical prostatectomy at the Jyoban Hospital of Tokiwa Foundation in Fukushima, Japan, from 2017 to 2021. The main outcome was to determine significant differences in the time taken to achieve urinary continence among the three procedure types. We employed the Kaplan-Meier survival analysis to estimate the time to achieve urinary continence in the three procedure types of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. Additionally, we used a Cox regression hazard model to evaluate the association between the time to achieve urinary continence and the procedure types. RESULTS: We considered 196 patients in this study. The estimated rates of achieving urinary continence at 6 months following standard, umbilical ligament preservation, and modified Hood technique robot-assisted radical prostatectomy were 77.6%, 89.5%, and 100%, respectively. The multivariable Cox hazard regression model showed that patients who underwent the modified Hood technique were significantly more likely to achieve urinary continence than those who underwent the standard robot-assisted radical prostatectomy. CONCLUSIONS: The modified Hood technique achieved better urinary continence outcomes, with all patients with the procedure achieving urinary continence at 6 months. Further randomized controlled trials are required to validate this finding.

Evaluation of Financial Conflicts of Interest and Quality of Evidence Underlying the American Diabetes Association Clinical Practice Guidelines: The Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes, 2021.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines make recommendations based on the best available evidence. Proper management and disclosure of financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) are necessary for trustworthy clinical practice guidelines. This study evaluated the prevalence of FCOIs and quality of evidence underlying the American Diabetes Association (ADA) guidelines. METHODS: Using the Open Payments Database (OPD) between 2018 and 2020, we examined the research and general payments to all authors of the Standards of Medical Care in Diabetes, 2021. The quality of evidence and tone of recommendations were assessed and the associations between the two were evaluated by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of the 25 guideline authors, 15 (60.0%) were United States (US)-based physicians eligible for the OPD search. Eight (32.0%) and 12 (48.0%) received one or more industry payments one year and three years prior to the guideline publication, respectively. The median total payments (interquartile range) per author were $33,262 ($4,638‒$101,271) in 2020 and $18,053 ($2,529‒$220,659) in 2018-2020. One author received a research payment of over $10,000 undeclared. Of 471 recommendations, 61 (13.0%) and 97 (20.6%) were supported by low-quality evidence and expert opinions, respectively. Also, 439 (93.2%) recommendations had a positive tone. The lower quality of evidence tended to recommend positively with an odds ratio of 1.56 (95% confidence interval: 0.96-2.56, p=0.075) without reaching statistical significance. CONCLUSION: A minority of the guideline authors received industry payments from the healthcare industry, and declared FCOIs were mostly accurate. However, the ADA FCOI policy required the guideline authors to declare their FCOIs for one year before publication. A more transparent and rigorous FCOI policy is needed in the ADA guidelines.

Pharmaceutical Payments to Japanese Board-Certified Head and Neck Surgeons Between 2016 and 2019.

Objective: To evaluate the magnitude, prevalence, and trend of the financial relationship between Japanese head and neck surgeons and pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. Study Design: Cross-sectional analysis. Setting: Japan. Methods: This study evaluated personal payments concerning lecturing, consulting, and writing paid by 92 major pharmaceutical companies to all Japanese head and neck surgeons board-certified by the Japan Society for Head and Neck Surgery between 2016 and 2019. The payments were descriptively analyzed and payment trend were assessed using population-averaged generalized estimating equations. Further, the payments to board executive board members with specialist certification were also evaluated separately. Results: Of all 443 board-certified head and neck surgeons in Japan, 365 (82.4%) received an average of $6443 (standard deviation: $12,875), while median payments were $2002 (interquartile ranges [IQR] $792-$4802). Executive board specialists with a voting right received much higher personal payments (median $26,013, IQR $12,747-$35,750) than the non-executive specialists (median $1926, IQR $765‒$4134, p < .001) and the executive board specialists without a voting right (median $4411, IQR $963-$5623, p = .015). The payments per specialist and prevalence of specialists with payments annually increased by 11.4% (95% CI: 5.8%-17.2%; p < .001) and 7.3% (95% CI: 3.8%-11.0%; p < .001), respectively. Conclusion: There were increasingly widespread and growing financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies among head and neck surgeons in Japan, alongside of introduction of novel drugs. The leading head and neck surgeons received much higher personal payments from pharmaceutical companies, and no sufficient regulation was implemented by the society in Japan.

Duration and Influencing Factors of Postoperative Urinary Incontinence after Robot-Assisted Radical Prostatectomy in a Japanese Community Hospital: A Single-Center Retrospective Cohort Study.

OBJECTIVES: Post-operative urinary incontinence (PUI) after robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) is an important complication; PUI occurs immediately after postoperative urethral catheter removal, and, although approximately 90% of patients improve within one year after surgery, it can significantly worsen their quality of life. However, information is lacking on its nature in community hospital settings, particularly in Asian countries. The purposes of this study were to investigate the time required to recover from PUI after RARP and to identify its associated factors in a Japanese community hospital. METHODS: Data were extracted from the medical records of 214 men with prostate cancer who underwent RARP from 2019 to 2021. We then calculated the number of days elapsed from the surgery to the initial outpatient visit confirming PUI recovery among the patients. We estimated the PUI recovery rate using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and evaluated associated factors using the multivariable Cox proportional hazards model. RESULTS: The PUI recovery rates were 5.7%, 23.4%, 64.6%, and 93.3% at 30, 90, 180, and 365 days following RARP, respectively. After an adjustment, those with preoperative urinary incontinence experienced significantly slower PUI recovery than their counterparts, while those with bilateral nerve sparing experienced recovery significantly sooner than those with no nerve sparing. CONCLUSION: Most PUI improved within one year, but a proportion of those experiencing recovery before 90 days was smaller than previously reported.

Financial Relationships Between Pharmaceutical Companies and Rheumatologists in Japan Between 2016 and 2019.

BACKGROUNDS: Given the increasing number of novel and expensive drugs for rheumatoid diseases, the financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and rheumatologists could be prevalent and substantial. However, little was known about the information in Japan. METHODS: Using payment data publicly disclosed by 92 major pharmaceutical companies, we evaluated the financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and rheumatologists who were board certified by the Japan College of Rheumatology between 2016 and 2019. The trends in payments were estimated by the generalized estimating equations with 4-year payment data. Differences in payments between general and leading rheumatologists including the board members, clinical practice guideline authors, and medical journal editors were assessed. RESULTS: Of the board-certified rheumatologists, 70.7% (3563 of 5038) received a total of $55,246,485 in personal payments for lecturing, writing, and consulting from 79 pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. The median payments per rheumatologist receiving payments were $3447 (interquartile range, $1124-$11,974) in payment amounts. There were increasing trends in the payments per rheumatologist and the number of rheumatologists with payments, with average yearly change rates of 5.9% (95% confidence interval, 3.9%-7.9%; p < 0.001) and 1.2% (95% CI, 0.3%-2.0%; p = 0.008). The leading rheumatologists such as the society board members, clinical practice guideline authors, and medical journal editors received much more payments than other rheumatologists. CONCLUSION: Most rheumatologists increasingly received personal payments for lecturing, consulting, and writing reimbursements from pharmaceutical companies in Japan. These payments were significantly concentrated on rheumatologists in authoritative and influential positions.

Evaluation of non-research payments from pharmaceutical companies to urologists in Japan between 2016 and 2019.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the magnitude and trends in personal payments from pharmaceutical companies to urologists in Japan. METHODS: This cross-sectional study examined the personal payments made to urologists by the major pharmaceutical companies in Japan between 2016 and 2019. Descriptive analyses were performed on the payment data. All urologists board-certified by the Japanese Urological Association as of March 2022 were included in this study. Trends in personal payments were assessed using the population-averaged generalized estimating equations with panel data of per-physician personal payments. RESULTS: Among 7016 active board-certified urologists, 4962 (70.7%) accepted 53,070 payments totaling $36,424,239 for reimbursement of lecturing, writing, and consulting compensations from 66 pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. The median payments per urologist receiving payments were $1714 [interquartile range(IQR): $700-$4583] in payment amounts and 4.0 (IQR: 2.0-10.0) in the number of payments. Only 1%, 5%, 10%, and 25% of top-paid urologists accepted 36.2%, 64.8%, 75.8%, and 90.1% of overall payments respectively. The payments per urologist and the number of payment contracts had annually increased over this period by 4.1% (95% CI: 2.3%-6.0%, p < 0.001) and 2.4% (95% CI: 1.2%-3.7%, p < 0.001), but there was no significant change in the number of urologists receiving payments, with a relative average annual change of 0.7% (95% CI: -0.15%-1.6%, p = 0.10) between 2016 and 2019. CONCLUSION: Most urologists received personal payments for lecturing, consulting, and writing compensations from pharmaceutical companies in Japan. The payments from pharmaceutical companies had been increasing over the 4-year period. These payments were substantially concentrated on a small number of urologists.

Industry Payments During the COVID-19 Pandemic to Cardiologists in the United States.

In the US, research has established that a funding relationship exists between pharmaceutical industries and physicians, particularly cardiologists. This study aimed to fill a research gap via an in-depth data analysis of the impact that the coronavirus 2019 restrictions had on this dynamic. The payments per cardiologist declined by 55.7% (95% confidence interval: 52.0%‒-59.0%, P < 0.001) in monetary amounts, and by 66.6% (95% confidence interval: 66.1%-67.1%, P < 0.001) in the number of payments right after the COVID-19 pandemic onset, respectively. Cardiologists must consider the ethical implications of the potential for their clinical practice to be influenced by industry payments.

Aux États-Unis, la recherche a établi l'existence d'une relation de financement entre l'industrie pharmaceutique et les médecins, particulièrement les cardiologues. Cette étude visait à combler une lacune dans la recherche grâce à une analyse approfondie des données concernant les répercussions des restrictions relatives à la COVID-19 sur cette dynamique. Les rétributions versées par cardiologue ont baissé de 55,7 % (intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % : 52,0 % à 59,0 %, p < 0,001) en argent et de 66,6 % (IC à 95 % : 66,1 % à 67,1 %, p < 0,001) en nombre de versements, juste après le début de la pandémie de COVID-19. Les cardiologues doivent considérer les implications éthiques liées à l'influence potentielle de ces versements sur leur pratique.