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

Abstract

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.

Evaluation of Financial and Nonfinancial Conflicts of Interest and Quality of Evidence Underlying Psoriatic Arthritis Clinical Practice Guidelines: Analysis of Personal Payments From Pharmaceutical Companies and Authors’ Self‐Citation Rate in Japan and the United States

“…Since the COI of CPG authors have been reported in multiple countries (20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26), comparing directly how financial and nonfinancial COI are managed in different countries is important for all stakeholders, including health care professionals, patients, and CPG authors. However, our previous study has been the only study that evaluated the financial COI of CPG authors in both Japan and the US, or nonfinancial COI by self-citation rates in CPGs (10).…”

Evaluation of financial relationships between Japanese certified pediatric hematologist/oncologists and pharmaceutical companies: a cross‐sectional analysis of personal payments from pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019

“…However, unlike payments for clinical trials and research, personal payments such as lecturing reimbursement, consulting payments, and meal and beverages may undermine patient trust and influence physicians' treatment choices. [6][7][8][9][10][11] As oncologists and hematologists have been increasingly targeted by pharmaceutical companies over the past few years mainly reported by studies in the United States, [12][13][14] it is particularly important to properly manage financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) in order to prevent undue influence on patient care by financial interests from pharmaceutical companies and to build patients' trust among the PHOs. 15 This trend in the financial relationship between PHOs and pharmaceutical companies could also apply to the situation in Japan, the third world-largest pharmaceutical market.…”

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act and Medical Oncology: A Seven-Year Financial Analysis

“…While the trend was similar for both medical and hematological oncologists, the overall payments made to medical oncologists was relatively higher across all the years. Prior research has shown that oncological physicians in the US receive non-research nancial payments from pharmaceutical drug and medical device manufacturers at a prevalence of 63% 10 , and our ndings reveal that the majority of the overall sum goes to medical oncologists. Our analysis revealed that the majority of the payments (over 80%) were in the $0 to $50 range suggesting that most of the individual payments made were relatively small.…”