Pharmaceutical Payments to Japanese Board-Certified Infectious Disease Specialists: A Four-year Retrospective Analysis of Payments from 92 Pharmaceutical Companies between 2016 and 2019

Introduction

There has been an increasing concern on financial relationships between healthcare professionals, healthcare organizations and pharmaceutical companies, which sometimes become conflicts of interest (COI), because of its potential bias on healthcare. In response to this concern, many countries have started requesting pharmaceutical companies to disclose data on their donations and honoraria to healthcare professionals and healthcare organizations.[1, 2] Consequently, previous studies utilizing these data have demonstrated that there were substantial financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies.[3–7]

Among several specialties, infectious disease is one where there is a greatest concern about the influence from pharmaceutical companies. As in the case of Lyme disease guideline issued by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), the guideline chair and authors manipulated the guideline recommendations and statements for the benefits of testing and insurance companies, leading to inadmissible harms on the patients in the US.[8]

In cases of Japan, 91.7% of authors of clinical guideline for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus issued by the Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases received an average of $28,371 personal payments in 2016, and four pharmaceutical companies’ employees were involved in the guideline development.[9] Moreover, during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, substantial financial relationships were uncovered among healthcare professionals specialized in infectious diseases and pharmaceutical companies worldwide. However, the Japanese government COVID-19 advisory board members did not manage to disclose the detailed information on COI with pharmaceutical companies.[10] Although COI among influential infectious disease experts such as television commentators specialized in infectious diseases[11], guideline authors[7, 9], and government advisory members[10] were investigated, the whole picture of financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies remains to be elucidated. Since board-certified infectious disease specialists directly prescribe drugs for patients, it is crucial to understand financial relationships among pharmaceutical companies and those specialists.

This study aimed to elucidate the prevalence of board-certified infectious disease specialists receiving payment from pharmaceutical companies, the magnitude of the payments, and payments trend over last few years in Japan.

Methods

Data Analysis

Descriptive analyses were performed for payment values and number of cases on individual specialist and pharmaceutical company levels. Average and median payments, cases, number of companies making payments per specialist were calculated based on the only specialists receiving payment in each year, as in other studies assessing pharmaceutical payments to physicians.[17–20] To compare the payments among the specialists with and without a leading role in the Association, the average mean and median payments were evaluated by the specialists with and without the executive board membership. The difference between two groups was assessed by the Mann-Whitney U test, as the payments data were not normally distributed.

The Gini index and the shares of the payment values held by the top 1%, 5%, 10%, and 25% of the specialists were calculated to examine distribution and concentration of payments. The Gini index ranges from 0 to1, and the greater the Gini index is, the greater the disparity in the distribution of payments on the specialist basis, as performed previously.[14, 21, 22] Also payment distributions were geographically examined on prefectures and regions, as there were differences in number of the specialists and the medical institutions accredited by the Association.

The population-averaged generalized estimating equations (GEE) were performed to evaluate the payment trends. As the payment distribution was highly skewed (Supplemental Material 1), negative binomial GEE model for the payment values per specialist, and linear GEE log-linked model with binomial distribution for the prevalence of specialists with payments were used. The year of payments was set as independent variable, and the payment values per specialist and proportion of physicians receiving payments were set as dependent variables. The average annual changes in independent variables, payment values per specialist and prevalence of specialists with one or more payments, were reported as a relative percentage. As several pharmaceutical companies among all 92 companies disaffiliated from the JPMA and newly joined the JPMA, there were 18 companies without payment data over the four years. Thus, the average and median payments for each year and the trend of payments were calculated based on payments from all 92 companies and 74 companies with payment data for the four years between 2016 and 2019, as previously described.[3, 4, 23]

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Supplemental Material 1.

Distribution of payment values per specialist

Finally, we assessed association between number of drugs with new or additional indications and (1) total payments and (2) number of specialists with payments on company level using the Spearman’s correlation.

Japanese yen (¥) was converted into US dollars ($) using 2019 average monthly exchange rates of ¥109.0 per $1. All analyses were conducted using Microsoft Excel, version 16.0 (Microsoft Corp.) and Stata version 15 (StataCorp.).

Ethical approval

The Ethics Committee of the Medical Governance Research Institute approved this study (approval number: MG2018-04-20200605; approval date: June 5, 2020). As this study was a retrospective analysis of the publicly available information, informed consent was waived by the Ethics Committee.

Results

We identified 1,614 infectious disease specialists certified by the Association as of November 10, 2021. The Association stated that there were a total of 1,622 infectious disease specialists in Japan, and therefore, names of eight specialists missing were not disclosed on the webpage, as the specialists could have wished not to disclose their names on the webpage.

Overview and Per-Specialist Payments

Of 1,614 eligible board-certified infectious disease specialists, 1,055 (65.4%) received one or more payments, totaling $17,784,070 corresponding to 21,680 payment counts between 2016 and 2019. Among 92 companies, 78 (84.8%) made at least one payment to the specialists over the four-year period. The average (standard deviation: SD) and median (interquartile range: IQR) were $16,857 ($45,010) and $3,183 ($938□$11,250) in payments; 20.5 (41.6) and 6.0 (2.0□19.0) in payment cases; and 5.6 (5.2) and 4.0 (2.0□8.0) in number of pharmaceutical companies per specialist. (Table 1)

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup
• Download powerpoint

Table 1. Summary of personal payments from Japanese pharmaceutical companies to infectious disease specialists certified by the Japanese Association for Infectious Disease between 2016 and 2019

Regarding the payment distribution, although 34.6% of specialists had no payments, 5.1% and 2.7% received more than $50,000 and $100,000, respectively. The Gini index for the four-year cumulative payments per specialist was 0.86. Top 1%, 5%, 10% and 25% of the specialists occupied 26.3% (95% confidence interval (CI): 21.4%□31.2%), 61.5% (95% CI: 57.0%□65.9%), 77.2% (95% CI: 73.9%□80.4%), and 93.6% (95% CI: 92.5%□94.7%) of total payments, respectively. (Supplemental Material 2) One specialist received a maximum of $711,965 payments over the four-year from 21 pharmaceutical companies.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Supplemental Material 2.

Payment concentration

Of 18 executive members of the Association as of November 2021, 17 (94.4%) had certification of infectious disease specialists. All the 17 members with the specialist certification, including the current Association president, received more substantial payments averaging $163,792 (SD: $173,475; median: $95,551; IQR: $54,227□$207,948) than the specialists without executive board membership (p<0.001 in Mann-Whitney U test) over the four-year.

Payment by pharmaceutical companies

The top companies made 63.8% of the total payments, representing $11,340,870 and 13,247 cases. (Figure 1) In company level analysis, the average and median number of specialists with payments per company were 74.9 (SD: 98.8) and 27.0 (IQR: 5.0-113.0), respectively. The average payments and number of cases per specialist were $2,333 (SD: $2,578) and 2.8 (SD: 1.9) cases, respectively. In short, each company made an average of $2,333 payments, entailing 2.8 cases per specialist, to 74.9 specialists in average for the reimbursement of lecturing, consulting and writing.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1.

Total payment by company

MSD made the largest payments of $2,493,244 to 460 (28.5%) specialists. Pfizer with the second largest payments distributed a total of $1,376,045 payments to 267 (16.5%) infectious specialists. The average payments per specialist were the highest from FujiFilm Toyama Chemical ($7,269), followed by MSD ($5,456), Pfizer ($5,154), Boehringer Ingelheim ($5,002), and AstraZeneca ($4,990). Payment categories by each company were described in Supplemental Material 3. MSD also had the largest number of drugs with new and additional indications (8 drugs), followed by Daiichi Sankyo Company (5 drugs) and GlaxoSmithKline (5 drugs). (Supplemental Material 4) There were moderately positive correlations between number of new or additional indications and (1) total payments (r(76)=0.46, p<0.001) and (2) number of specialists with payments (r(76)=0.43, p<0.001).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Supplemental Material 3.

Payment category by company

View this table:

• View inline
• View popup

Supplemental Material 4.

New and additional indications for infectious diseases in Japan between 2015 and 2019

Geographical payment distribution

There were geographical differences in distribution of infectious disease specialists. (Supplemental Material 5A and 5B) Number of infectious disease specialists per million populations ranged from 0.8 in Iwate Prefecture to 47.9 in Nagasaki Prefecture, while the average number of specialists per million was 12.7 in nationwide. There were geographic differences in total and per-specialist payment distribution as well. (Supplemental Material 5C and 5D) The average payment values per specialist were the highest in Okayama Prefecture ($21,750) and lowest in Ibaraki Prefecture ($1,574). In the analysis by region, the number of specialists per million populations ranged from 7.8 in the Hokkaido region (northernmost of Japan), and 8.7 in the Tohoku region (northernmost of main Japanese islands) to 20.6 in the Kyusyu region (southernmost of Japan). Meanwhile, the average payments per specialist were the highest in Tohoku region ($15,057), followed by Chugoku (the western part of main Japanese islands, $13,980) and Kyusyu regions ($13,394).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Supplemental Material 5.

Geographical characteristics of payment distribution

5A: The number of infectious disease specialists in 2021; 5B: The number of infectious disease specialists per million population in 2021; 5C: total personal payment values to the infectious disease specialists from 2016 to 2019; 5D: average personal payment values per infectious disease specialist from 2016 to 2019

Discussion

This study demonstrated that a total $17,717,264 personal payments, equal to 1.8% of all payments were distributed to the board-certified infectious disease specialists over the period of four years in Japan. Among all Japanese board-certified infectious disease specialists, 65.4% (1,055 out of 1,614) of the specialists received an average of $16,794 and a median of $3,183 personal payments from 78 pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. The payments per specialist and proportion of specialists with at least one payment remained stable between 2016 and 2019.

First, this study found that there were substantial financial relationships among the board-certified infectious disease specialists and pharmaceutical companies in Japan. Although the prevalence of specialists with payments were similar to the previous findings, ranging from 62.0% among hematologists to 70.6% among medical oncologists[3, 4, 15, 23], payment values per specialist among the infectious disease specialists ($3,183 in median four-year combined payments and $1,430‒$1,720 in median single-year payments) were higher than all of the available evidence among pediatric oncologists ($2,961 in average)[23], pulmonologists ($2,210 in median)[3], hematologists ($2,471 in median)[23], and medical oncologists ($1,103 in one-year median)[15] in Japan. Overall, compared to the previous studies, Japanese infectious disease specialists have higher financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.

Second, we found that the payment values and prevalence of specialists with payments did not significantly change between 2016 and 2019. Kusumi et al. found that the pharmaceutical companies increasingly prioritized the payments to hematologists in Japan, with a 11.2% annual increase in payments per specialist.[4] Also, similar trends were observed by Murayama et al. among Japanese pulmonologists, with 7.8% annual increase in payments.[3] Our finding was different from these studies, indicating that the financial relationships among infectious disease specialists and pharmaceutical companies did not decline nor increase, but remained stable for the last four years. Although we found that there were many drugs newly approved or gained additional indications for infectious diseases, the Japanese government now recommends physicians to refrain from using new antibiotics to prevent antimicrobial-resistant bacteria. This trend in payments might be due to the demand for fewer use of new antibiotics.

Furthermore, we found that vast majority of payments disproportionately concentrated only on a small portion of the infectious disease specialists in Japan. Surprisingly, a small portion of the specialists included authoritative specialists such as leaders of the Association and other medical societies. For example, the specialist with the largest payments ($711,965) was in various authoritative positions such as a full professor at a private medical university and a very influential television commentator for infectious disease.[11] Also, he was the current executive member of the Association and other medical societies.

The specialist with the second-largest payments ($421,678) was also in authoritative positions such as a full professor at a national university and an executive or council member at several medical societies, including the Association, and the Japanese Respiratory Society. He also served on public authorities as an author of the clinical guidelines for COVID-19 issued by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare[7] and as a member of government scientific advisory committee.

The specialist with the fourth largest payments ($318,565) was the former president of the Association who served from 2017 to 2020. He was also a current executive member of the Association and the deputy chairperson of the Japanese government COVID-19 scientific advisory board, but his COI was not publicly disclosed by neither the Association nor the Japanese government.[10]

The receipt of substantial personal payments by executive members of medical societies was widely prevalent in Japan and other countries such as the US. Saito et al. found that 86.9% of Japanese executive members received a median of $7,486 personal payments in 2016, and especially members specialized in internal medicine had higher financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies.[24] Moynihan et al. elucidated that 72% of the US influential medical society leaders had financial ties with pharmaceutical companies,[25] and that 93% of the leaders of Infectious Diseases Society of America received $31,805 in median total payments for six years, where the payments were the most prevalent of ten influential medical societies in the US.[25] Although we did not evaluate financial relationships during the tenure of the board membership, our findings indicated that the current board members of Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases had much larger financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies over the past several years, with 3.2 times higher median annual payments than those among board members of other Japanese medical societies or at least 4.5 times higher median annual payment values than that of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

A number of studies have shown that financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies influence physicians’ behavior in prescribing drugs,[26–30] recommending clinical guidelines,[5, 8, 31–33] and commenting on drugs in pharmaceutical advisory committees.[34–37] Pharmaceutical companies sometimes spend more payments for marketing less effective and less advantageous drugs[38, 39] but with more harms to patients.[40, 41] Despite these influences, the trends of the physicians’ acceptance of personal payments from industries are still common[17, 42, 43] and are even increasing in several specialties.[3, 4, 23, 44] More transparency is required to reduce the undue influences of financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies on physician behaviors and potentially patients care,[28, 45] to increase trust in healthcare, and to provide patients with more information about their treatment.[46–49] However, there is no consensus on how to manage the financial relationships, and how to increase independency of healthcare professionals toward their primary interest of treating patients based on their best knowledge and conscience.[50] Restriction of these personal payments to the specialists to a certain degree would be a simple and reasonable solution, but it is equally hard to implement by the professional medical societies when many of the society board members and societies themselves are financially tied to pharmaceutical companies. In the case of the Association, financial COIs self-declared by the board members were not publicly disclosed, and there was no restriction of the financial relationships among pharmaceutical companies and the board-certified specialists as of now.

This analysis has few limitations. As we previously noted, our manual collection of payment data from 92 pharmaceutical companies’ webpages might have included unavoidable human errors, despite our careful cross-checks to exclude duplicate physicians from the data. Second, currently, pharmaceutical companies do not disclose their payments concerning meals, beverages, accommodations, travel and stock ownerships, according to the JPMA guidance. This could have underestimated the extent and prevalence of overall financial relationships among the specialists and industries. Third, the data disclosed by the Association and pharmaceutical companies did not provide us many of detailed demographics of the specialists such as the specialists’ gender, affiliation characteristics, positions within their affiliations, and their academic and clinical performances. Therefore, there would have been influence of many unavoidable confounders on the personal payments at individual specialist level. However, our robust statistical analysis with GEE modeling has helped nullify effects of such confounders to some extent. Still, further studies should have elucidated the relations among the specialists’ characteristics and the personal payments. Finally, this study was based on the open-access payment data and Japanese board-certified infectious disease specialists. Thus, the payment magnitude and trend may not be exactly replicable to other countries’ specialists. However, this might serve as a pathway for prospective researchers to explore the same in other countries as well.

Conclusion

The majority of the certified infectious disease specialists received substantial personal payments for the reimbursements of lecturing, consulting and writing from the pharmaceutical companies in Japan. These financial relationships with those companies remained stable for the past four years in Japan. Furthermore, high ranked specialists such as those in the executive board had stronger financial ties with the companies. Such personal payments must be restricted to a certain level to avoid potential conflict of interest.

Conflicts of interest

Dr. Saito received personal fees from TAIHO Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd outside the scope of the submitted work. Dr. Kusumi received personal fees from Otsuka Pharmaceutical outside the scope of the submitted work. Drs. Ozaki and Tanimoto received personal fees from Medical Network Systems outside the scope of the submitted work. Dr. Tanimoto also received personal fees from Bionics Co. Ltd, outside the scope of the submitted work. Regarding non-financial conflicts of interest among the study authors, all are engaged in ongoing research examining financial and non-financial conflicts of interest among healthcare professionals and pharmaceutical companies in Japan. Individually, Anju Murayama, Hiroaki Saito, Toyoaki Sawano, Tetsuya Tanimoto, and Akihiko Ozaki have contributed to several published studies addressing conflicts of interest and quality of evidence among clinical practice guideline authors in Japan and the United States. The other authors have no example of conflicts of interest to disclose.

Funding sources

This study was funded in part by the Medical Governance Research Institute. This non-profit enterprise receives donations from Ain Pharmacies, Inc., a dispensing pharmacy, other organizations, and private individuals. This study also received support from the Tansa (formerly known as the Waseda Chronicle), an independent non-profit news organization dedicated to investigative journalism. None of the entities providing financial support for this study contributed to the design, execution, data analyses, or interpretation of study findings and the drafting of this manuscript.