Person:

Franklin, Jessica

Background: Professional societies use metrics to evaluate medical schools' policies regarding interactions of students and faculty with the pharmaceutical and medical device industries. We compared these metrics and determined which US medical schools' industry interaction policies were associated with student behaviors. Methods and Findings: Using survey responses from a national sample of 1,610 US medical students, we compared their reported industry interactions with their schools' American Medical Student Association (AMSA) PharmFree Scorecard and average Institute on Medicine as a Profession (IMAP) Conflicts of Interest Policy Database score. We used hierarchical logistic regression models to determine the association between policies and students' gift acceptance, interactions with marketing representatives, and perceived adequacy of faculty–industry separation. We adjusted for year in training, medical school size, and level of US National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. We used LASSO regression models to identify specific policies associated with the outcomes. We found that IMAP and AMSA scores had similar median values (1.75 [interquartile range 1.50–2.00] versus 1.77 [1.50–2.18], adjusted to compare scores on the same scale). Scores on AMSA and IMAP shared policy dimensions were not closely correlated (gift policies, r = 0.28, 95% CI 0.11–0.44; marketing representative access policies, r = 0.51, 95% CI 0.36–0.63). Students from schools with the most stringent industry interaction policies were less likely to report receiving gifts (AMSA score, odds ratio [OR]: 0.37, 95% CI 0.19–0.72; IMAP score, OR 0.45, 95% CI 0.19–1.04) and less likely to interact with marketing representatives (AMSA score, OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.15–0.69; IMAP score, OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.14–0.95) than students from schools with the lowest ranked policy scores. The association became nonsignificant when fully adjusted for NIH funding level, whereas adjusting for year of education, size of school, and publicly versus privately funded school did not alter the association. Policies limiting gifts, meals, and speaking bureaus were associated with students reporting having not received gifts and having not interacted with marketing representatives. Policy dimensions reflecting the regulation of industry involvement in educational activities (e.g., continuing medical education, travel compensation, and scholarships) were associated with perceived separation between faculty and industry. The study is limited by potential for recall bias and the cross-sectional nature of the survey, as school curricula and industry interaction policies may have changed since the time of the survey administration and study analysis. Conclusions: As medical schools review policies regulating medical students' industry interactions, limitations on receipt of gifts and meals and participation of faculty in speaking bureaus should be emphasized, and policy makers should pay greater attention to less research-intensive institutions. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

In the past decade, the federal government has frequently investigated and prosecuted pharmaceutical manufacturers for illegal promotion of drugs for indications not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) (“off-label” uses). State governments can choose to coordinate with the federal investigation, or pursue their own independent state investigations. One of the largest-ever off-label prosecutions relates to the atypical antipsychotic drug olanzapine (Zyprexa). In a series of settlements between 2008 and 2010, Eli Lilly paid $1.4 billion to the federal government and over $290 million to state governments. We examined the effect of these settlements on off-label prescribing of this medication, taking advantage of geographical differences in states’ involvement in the investigations and the timing of the settlements. However, we did not find a reduction in off-label prescribing; rather, there were no prescribing changes among states that joined the federal investigation, those that pursued independent state investigations, and states that pursued no investigations at all. Since the settlements of state investigations of off-label prescribing do not appear to significantly impact prescribing rates, policymakers should consider alternate ways of reducing the prevalence of non-evidence-based off-label use to complement their ongoing investigations.

Objective: Gout patients have a high burden of co-morbid conditions including diabetes mellitus (DM), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and cardiovascular disease (CVD). We sought to evaluate the association between changes in serum uric acid (SUA) levels over time and the risk of incident DM, CVD, and renal function decline in gout patients. Methods: An observational cohort study was conducted among enrollees of private health insurance programs in the US between 2004 and 2015. Gout patients were included on the index date of a SUA measurement ≥6.8 mg/dl. The exposure of interest was cumulative change in SUA levels from baseline. Hazard ratios (HR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for incident DM, incident CVD, and renal function decline (≥30% reduction in glomerular filtration rate) were derived using marginal structural models with stabilized inverse probability weights accounting for baseline confounders (age, gender, co-morbidities, co-medications) and time-varying confounders (serum creatinine, blood urea nitrogen, glycated hemoglobin). Results: Among 26,341 patients with gout, the average age was 62, 75% were men, and the median baseline SUA was 8.6 mg/dl (interquartile range 7.7 to 9.5). The incidence rates/100 person-years (95% CI) were 1.63 (1.51–1.75) for DM, 0.77 (0.70–0.84) for CVD, and 4.32 (4.14–4.49) for renal function decline. The adjusted HR (95% CI) per 3 mg/dl reduction in SUA, corresponding on average to achieving the target level of <6 mg/dl in this population, was 1.04 (0.92–1.17) for DM, 1.07 (0.89–1.29) for CVD, and 0.85 (0.78–0.92) for renal function decline. Conclusions: Reduction in SUA in patients with gout may be associated with a reduced risk of renal function decline, but not with DM or CVD.