613P - Differences in the interactions with pharmaceutical companies between medical oncologists and infectious diseases physicians

Background

Physicians have frequent interactions with the pharmaceutical industry (pharma), however, there is concern for possible corporate influence on physicians’ prescribing behaviours. We sought to understand perceptions and interactions between pharma and medical oncologists (MO), in comparison with infectious diseases (ID) physicians.

Methods

We conducted an anonymous online cross-sectional survey of Australian MO and ID physicians comparing self-reported interactions and attitudes with pharma. An additional survey was undertaken at Tan Tock Seng Hospital, Singapore.

Results

A total of 204 Australian and Singaporean physicians were surveyed including 102 oncologists and 102 ID physicians. Demographics including age, gender and years of practice between the two Australian specialties were similar, with an exception that most ID physicians had mainly public work (95% vs. 78% for oncologists, p<0.001). Oncologists had more frequent contact with pharma, the majority (69%) negotiating compassionate access for patients on a monthly/annual basis, compared with ID physicians who had never done so (45%), p<0.001. More ID physicians had never attended a sponsored meeting (15% ID vs. 27% MO respectively, p=0.01) or received travel/accommodation grants from pharma (42% ID vs. 85% MO respectively, p<0.001). However, most physicians (92%) had never received gifts from pharma, with no difference between groups (p=0.17). Most Australian oncologists believed that interacting with pharma was overall beneficial for patient care (78%) compared to ID physicians (34%, p<0.001). This statement was shared by 71% of Singaporean oncologists. Similar rates of Australian oncologists and ID physicians (83% vs. 88%, respectively) felt comfortable for patients to know the details of their interactions with pharma, however, only 57% of Singaporean oncologists agreed with this statement. Most Australian respondents (77%) agreed that there was strong public skepticism of these interactions (p=0.35).

Conclusions

Medical oncologists had more interactions with pharma than ID physicians and were more likely to believe that this was overall beneficial to patient care despite the negative public perception associated with this.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

P.L. Chia: Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: Merck, Roche, Pfizer, Amgen; Financial Interests, Institutional, Research Funding: Merck, Roche, Pfizer, Amgen. T. John: Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker, Speaker tour Vietnam: AstraZeneca; Financial Interests, Personal, Invited Speaker, CTIO: Merck Sharp Dohme; Financial Interests, Personal, Advisory Board: BMS, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Specialised Therapeutics; Financial Interests, Institutional, Advisory Board: Roche, Novartis, Pfizer, Amgen, Takeda, PharmaMar; Financial Interests, Personal, Other, Speaker/Chair: ACE Oncology. All other authors have declared no conflicts of interest.