METHODS: Based on the retrospective analysis of payment data made available by all 92 pharmaceutical companies in Japan, this study evaluated the magnitude and trend of financial relationships between all board-certified Japanese respiratory specialists and pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. Magnitude and prevalence of payments for specialists were analyzed descriptively. The payment trends were assessed using the generalized estimating equations for the payment per specialist and the number of specialists with payments.
RESULTS: Among all 7,114 respiratory specialists certified as of August 2021, 4,413 (62.0%) received a total of USD 53,547,391 and 74,195 counts from 72 (78.3%) pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. The median (interquartile range) 4-year combined payment values per specialist were USD 2,210 (USD 715-8,178). At maximum, one specialist received USD 495,332 personal payments over the 4 years. Both payments per specialist and number of specialists with payments significantly increased during the 4-year period, with 7.8% (95% CI: 5.5-9.8; p < 0.001) in payments and 1.5% (95% CI: 0.61-2.4; p = 0.001) in number of specialists with payments, respectively.
CONCLUSION: The majority of respiratory specialists had increasingly received more personal payments from pharmaceutical companies for the reimbursement of lecturing, consulting, and writing between 2016 and 2019. These increasing financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies might cause conflicts of interest among respiratory physicians.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the evidence available: 1) on government initiatives to mandate transparency in drug pricing worldwide, 2) on the reported effects of drug pricing transparency initiatives on drug price, and 3) on the limitations and barriers of the implementation of drug pricing transparency.
METHODS: Databases such as Medline-Ovid, Cochrane Central Register, PubMed, and Science Direct were used to search for relevant literature from inception to February 2018. A manual search of grey literature such as policy papers, governmental publications, and websites was also performed to obtain the information that was not available in the articles. Using narrative synthesis, the results were critically assessed and summarized according to its context of drug pricing approaches.
RESULTS: Of the 4382 relevant articles located, 12 studies met the inclusion criteria for drug price transparency initiatives. Only 3 studies reported the outcomes on the regulation of drug prices. Two studies in South Africa showed that price transparency initiatives did not necessarily reduce drug prices. Another study in the Philippines indicated a reduction in medicines' price based on the effects of government-mediated access prices. The limitations and barriers in price transparency initiatives include fragmentation of the healthcare system and nondisclosure of discounts and rebates by pharmaceutical companies.
CONCLUSION: Drug pricing transparency initiatives have been implemented in many countries and commonly coexist with a country's pricing policies. Nevertheless, due to sparse evidence, the effect of drug price transparency initiatives on price control is still inconclusive.
METHODS: By using the results from the fourth survey of Research on Asian Prescription Patterns on antipsychotics, the rates of polypharmacy and combined medication use in each country were analyzed. Daily medications prescribed for the treatment of inpatients or outpatients with schizophrenia, including antipsychotics, mood stabilizers, anxiolytics, hypnotics, and antiparkinson agents, were collected. Fifteen countries from Asia participated in this study.
RESULTS: A total of 3744 patients' prescription forms were examined. The prescription patterns differed across these Asian countries, with the highest rate of polypharmacy noted in Vietnam (59.1%) and the lowest in Myanmar (22.0%). Furthermore, the combined use of other medications, expressed as highest and lowest rate, respectively, was as follows: mood stabilizers, China (35.0%) and Bangladesh (1.0%); antidepressants, South Korea (36.6%) and Bangladesh (0%); anxiolytics, Pakistan (55.7%) and Myanmar (8.5%); hypnotics, Japan (61.1%) and, equally, Myanmar (0%) and Sri Lanka (0%); and antiparkinson agents, Bangladesh (87.9%) and Vietnam (10.9%). The average psychotropic drug loading of all patients was 2.01 ± 1.64, with the highest and lowest loadings noted in Japan (4.13 ± 3.13) and Indonesia (1.16 ± 0.68), respectively.
CONCLUSION: Differences in psychiatrist training as well as the civil culture and health insurance system of each country may have contributed to the differences in these rates. The concept of drug loading can be applied to other medical fields.