Evaluation of Industry Relationships Among Authors of Otolaryngology Clinical Practice Guidelines

Evaluating industry payments to editorial board members of otolaryngology journals

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the extent of payments from medical device and pharmaceutical companies to editorial board members of leading otolaryngology journals.

METHODS

Editorial board members of the top 10 otolaryngology journals from Google Scholar rankings were identified in this cross-sectional study. Payments between 2017 and 2022 were identified via the Open Payments Database from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. All payment data was adjusted for inflation in 2022 US dollars. Descriptive analyses were performed and journal websites were evaluated for individual editor disclosures.

RESULTS

Out of 581 board members, 306 (53 %) received industry payments between 2017 and 2022, median journal percentage 55 % (interquartile range: 26.5 %-73.5 %). A sum of $45.8 million was paid out between 2017 and 2022, comprising $32.0 million in associated research funding, $1.2 million in research payments, $1.4 million in ownership and investment interests, and $11.2 million in general payments. The largest general payments were made out for "services other than consulting and speaking" ($3.9 million), "consulting" ($3.8 million), "travel and lodging" ($0.99 million), "education" ($0.87 million), "royalty or license" ($0.56 million), and "food and beverage" ($0.55 million). Individual editor disclosures were only available for International Forum of Allergy and Rhinology (9 % of all included editors).

CONCLUSIONS

Industry payments to editors of otolaryngology journals are not uncommon. We highlight the need for improved reporting of individual editor disclosures for transparency to journal readers and for minimizing biased editorial decisions.

Conflicts of Interest Among Cardiology Clinical Practice Guideline Authors in Japan

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) offer disease management recommendations based on scientific evidence. However, financial conflicts of interest between CPG developers and the pharmaceutical industry could bias these recommendations, potentially affecting patient care. Proper management of these conflicts of interest is particularly crucial for maintaining the integrity of CPGs. The study aimed to evaluate the extent of financial relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and authors of CPGs for cardiovascular diseases in Japan.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study analyzed personal payments from the pharmaceutical industry to authors of cardiovascular disease CPGs published by the Japanese Circulation Society from January 2015 to December 2022. Payment data, including speaking, consultancy, and writing fees from 2016 to 2020, were extracted from a publicly available database containing personal payments disclosed by all major pharmaceutical companies. A total of 929 unique authors from 37 eligible Japanese Circulation Society CPGs were identified. Notably, 94.4% of these authors received personal payments from pharmaceutical companies, totaling >US $70.8 million. The mean±SD payment per author was US $76 314±138 663) and the median payment per author was US $20 792 (interquartile range: US $4262-US $76 998) over the 5-year period. Chairs of CPGs received significantly higher payments than other authors. More than 80% of authors in each CPG received personal payments.

CONCLUSIONS

The study elucidated that there were considerable financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and cardiology CPG authors in Japan. This finding deviates from international conflict of interest management policies, suggesting the need for more stringent conflict of interest management strategies by the Japanese Circulation Society to ensure the development of trustworthy and evidence-based CPGs.

Transparency in Infectious Disease Research: Meta-research Survey of Specialty Journals

BACKGROUND

Infectious diseases carry large global burdens and have implications for society at large. Therefore, reproducible, transparent research is extremely important.

METHODS

We evaluated transparency indicators (code and data sharing, registration, and conflict and funding disclosures) in the 5340 PubMed Central Open Access articles published in 2019 or 2021 in the 9 most cited specialty journals in infectious diseases using the text-mining R package, rtransparent.

RESULTS

A total of 5340 articles were evaluated (1860 published in 2019 and 3480 in 2021 [of which 1828 were on coronavirus disease 2019, or COVID-19]). Text mining identified code sharing in 98 (2%) articles, data sharing in 498 (9%), registration in 446 (8%), conflict of interest disclosures in 4209 (79%), and funding disclosures in 4866 (91%). There were substantial differences across the 9 journals: 1%-9% for code sharing, 5%-25% for data sharing, 1%-31% for registration, 7%-100% for conflicts of interest, and 65%-100% for funding disclosures. Validation-corrected imputed estimates were 3%, 11%, 8%, 79%, and 92%, respectively. There were no major differences between articles published in 2019 and non-COVID-19 articles in 2021. In 2021, non-COVID-19 articles had more data sharing (12%) than COVID-19 articles (4%).

CONCLUSIONS

Data sharing, code sharing, and registration are very uncommon in infectious disease specialty journals. Increased transparency is required.

Intellectual conflicts of interest among cardiology and pulmonology clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

Intellectual conflicts of interest (COI), like financial COI, may threaten the validity and trustworthiness of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). However, comparatively little is known about intellectual COI in CPGs. This study sought to estimate the prevalence of intellectual COI and corresponding management strategies among cardiology and pulmonology CPGs.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective document review of CPGs published by cardiology or pulmonology professional societies from the United States, Canada, or Europe from 2018 to 2019 available via the Emergency Care Research Institute, Guidelines International Network, or Medscape databases. We assessed the percentage of authors with an intellectual COI, defined as i) authorship on a study reviewed by the CPG, ii) authorship of a prior editorial related to a CPG recommendation, or iii) authorship of a prior related CPG. Management strategies assessed included use of GRADE methodology, inclusion of a methodologist, and recusals due to intellectual COI. Outcomes were assessed overall and compared between cardiology and pulmonology CPGs.

RESULTS

Among the 39 CPGs identified (14 cardiology, 25 pulmonology), there were a total of 737 authors, of whom 473 (64%) had at least one intellectual COI. Among all CPGs, a median of 67% (Interquartile Range 50%-76%) of authors had at least one intellectual COI, and COI was more prevalent among cardiology compared with pulmonology CPGs (84% vs 57%, p<0.001). There was variable use of management strategies among the CPGs, including use of GRADE methodology (64% of CPGs), inclusion of a methodologist (49%), and recusals due to intellectual COI (0%).

CONCLUSION

Intellectual conflicts of interest appear to be highly prevalent and under-reported among cardiology and pulmonology CPGs, which may threaten their validity. Greater attention to and improved management of intellectual COI by CPG-producing organizations is needed.

Financial Disclosures Reported by Industry Among Authors of the American Academy of Ophthalmology Clinical Practice Guidelines

Importance

Recommendations of clinical guidelines affect physicians' care delivery. Potential bias and undeclared conflicts of interests (COIs) among guideline authors can impact clinical practice decisions.

Objective

To assess financial disclosures reported by physician authors of the American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO) Practice Pattern Guidelines compared with those reported by industry to evaluate the disclosures' accuracy.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study, all clinical guidelines in the AAO Preferred Practice Patterns (PPP) since 2013 (first year with publicly available industry payment reports) were reviewed on May 1, 2022. Guideline physician authors' name and their reported COI disclosure were extracted from the guideline publication. Payments to physician authors reported by industry were retrieved from the US Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Open Payments database. Physician authors serving on the AAO guideline committee were included.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome measure was the accuracy of authors' COIs disclosure. Secondary outcome measures were payments to physician authors reported by industry, the types of payments, and authors' gender.

Results

A total of 24 AAO guidelines released between 2016 and 2020 were included. Per guideline, there was a mean (SD) of 7.83 (2.24) physician authors. After removing 14 nonphysician authors, 188 physician author names remained, including 83 names assigned as women (44.1%) and 105 names assigned as men (55.9%). Authors could be counted multiple times in these 188 names. According to the Open Payments database, industry reported that 112 of 188 physician authors (59.6%) had at least received 1 payment while serving on the guideline committee, with a payment mean (SD) of $29 849.35 ($54 131.56). According to AAO guidelines, 149 authors (79.3%) had no financial disclosures while serving on the guideline committee. Among these 149 authors, most authors (81 [54.4%]) had payments reported by industry on the Open Payments database not disclosed within the guideline reports. Women physicians were paid significantly more than men for total payments (median [IQR] payments, $15 265 [$598.47-$41 104.67] vs $301.48 [$218.85-$14 615.09]; difference, $14 963.52; P = .003).

Conclusions and Relevance

Industry reported physician guideline authors to have received significant industry payments, some of which were not disclosed within information of the guidelines. To strengthen author transparency regarding these reported disclosures, the authors may want to review and resolve such potential discrepancies during the review and subsequent publication of guidelines.

A meta-epidemiological assessment of transparency indicators of infectious disease models

Mathematical models have become very influential, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. Data and code sharing are indispensable for reproducing them, protocol registration may be useful sometimes, and declarations of conflicts of interest (COIs) and of funding are quintessential for transparency. Here, we evaluated these features in publications of infectious disease-related models and assessed whether there were differences before and during the COVID-19 pandemic and for COVID-19 models versus models for other diseases. We analysed all PubMed Central open access publications of infectious disease models published in 2019 and 2021 using previously validated text mining algorithms of transparency indicators. We evaluated 1338 articles: 216 from 2019 and 1122 from 2021 (of which 818 were on COVID-19); almost a six-fold increase in publications within the field. 511 (39.2%) were compartmental models, 337 (25.2%) were time series, 279 (20.9%) were spatiotemporal, 186 (13.9%) were agent-based and 25 (1.9%) contained multiple model types. 288 (21.5%) articles shared code, 332 (24.8%) shared data, 6 (0.4%) were registered, and 1197 (89.5%) and 1109 (82.9%) contained COI and funding statements, respectively. There was no major changes in transparency indicators between 2019 and 2021. COVID-19 articles were less likely to have funding statements and more likely to share code. Further validation was performed by manual assessment of 10% of the articles identified by text mining as fulfilling transparency indicators and of 10% of the articles lacking them. Correcting estimates for validation performance, 26.0% of papers shared code and 41.1% shared data. On manual assessment, 5/6 articles identified as registered had indeed been registered. Of articles containing COI and funding statements, 95.8% disclosed no conflict and 11.7% reported no funding. Transparency in infectious disease modelling is relatively low, especially for data and code sharing. This is concerning, considering the nature of this research and the heightened influence it has acquired.

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

OBJECTIVE

To assess financial conflicts of interest (COI) and nonfinancial COI among psoriatic arthritis (PsA) clinical practice guideline (CPG) authors in Japan and the US, and to evaluate the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations of PsA CPGs.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis using payment data from major Japanese pharmaceutical companies and the US Open Payments Database from 2016 to 2018. All authors of PsA CPGs issued by the Japanese Dermatological Association (JDA) and American College of Rheumatology (ACR) were included.

RESULTS

Of 23 CPG authors in Japan, 21 (91.3%) received at least 1 payment, with a combined total of $3,335,413 between 2016 and 2018. Regarding 25 US authors, 21 (84.0%) received at least 1 payment, with a combined total of $4,081,629 during the same period. The 3-year combined mean ± SD payment per author was $145,018 ± $114,302 in Japan and $162,825 ± $259,670 in the US. A total of 18 authors (78.3%) of the JDA PsA CPG and 12 authors (48.0%) of the ACR PsA CPG had undisclosed financial COI worth $474,663 and $218,501, respectively. The percentage of citations with at least 1 CPG author relative to total citations was 3.4% in Japan and 33.6% in the US. In sum, 71.4% and 88.8% of recommendations for PsA in the JDA and ACR were supported by low or very low quality of evidence.

CONCLUSION

More rigorous cross-checking of information disclosed by pharmaceutical companies and self-reported by physicians and more stringent and transparent COI policies are necessary.

Industry Payments Among Editorial Board Members of Orthopaedic Journals: An Open Payments Analysis From 2014 to 2019

INTRODUCTION

Although industry payments to physicians and surgeons remain a subject of controversy, relationships between industry and orthopaedic surgeons continue to grow. Notably, recent analyses have demonstrated significant increases in the rate and magnitude of payments among orthopaedic surgeons, despite the passing of the Physician Payments Sunshine Act in 2010. Given the concerns regarding how these relationships may affect the peer-review process, our analysis aimed to evaluate how payments among editorial board members of orthopaedic journals have changed over a contemporary time frame.

METHODS

The Clarivate Analytics Impact Factor tool was used to identify all orthopaedic journals with a 2019 impact factor of ≥1.5. Editorial board members from these respective journals were identified from each journal's website. Subsequently, the Open Payments database by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services was queried to identify industry payments received by these board members between 2014 and 2019. The quantity and magnitude of payments were then evaluated and compared over this study period. All monetary values were adjusted for inflation.

RESULTS

A total of 18 orthopaedic journals were included in our analysis. Of the 1,519 editorial board members identified, 711 (46.81%) received some form of industry payment in 2019. The total, average, and median payments over this study period decreased for 6 (31.6%), 7 (36.8%), and 8 of the included journals (44.44%), respectively. Six hundred twenty board members had higher average payments in 2019 than in 2014.

CONCLUSION

Our analysis demonstrated high rates of industry payments among editorial board members of high-impact orthopaedic journals. In addition, we demonstrated marked growth in the total, average, and median magnitude of these payments since the inception of the Open Payments database. Our findings encourage a continued need for transparency in related payments to ensure a fair and unbiased peer-review process, one that is separated from undue industry influence.

A cross-sectional examination of conflict-of-interest disclosures of physician-authors publishing in high-impact US medical journals

OBJECTIVE

To assess the accuracy of self-reported financial conflict-of-interest (COI) disclosures in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) within the requisite disclosure period prior to article submission.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional investigation.

DATA SOURCES

Original clinical-trial research articles published in NEJM (n=206) or JAMA (n=188) from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017; self-reported COI disclosure forms submitted to NEJM or JAMA with the authors' published articles; Open Payments website (from database inception; latest search: August 2019).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Financial data reported to Open Payments from 2014 to 2016 (a time period that included all subjects' requisite disclosure windows) were compared with self-reported disclosure forms submitted to the journals. Payments selected for analysis were defined by Open Payments as 'general payments.' Payment types were categorised as 'disclosed,' 'undisclosed,' 'indeterminate' or 'unrelated'.

RESULTS

Thirty-one articles from NEJM and 31 articles from JAMA met inclusion criteria. The physician-authors (n=118) received a combined total of US$7.48 million. Of the 106 authors (89.8%) who received payments, 86 (81.1%) received undisclosed payments. The top 23 most highly compensated received US$6.32 million, of which US$3.00 million (47.6%) was undisclosed.

CONCLUSIONS

High payment amounts, as well as high proportions of undisclosed financial compensation, regardless of amount received, comprised potential COIs for two influential US medical journals. Further research is needed to explain why such high proportions of general payments were undisclosed and whether journals that rely on self-reported COI disclosure need to reconsider their policies.

Industry Payments Among Appropriate Use Criteria Voting Panels: An Open Payments Analysis

BACKGROUND

Although multiple studies have consistently demonstrated that orthopaedic surgeons receive greater transfers of value than other specialties, the industry payments of providers who are involved in the formation of practice guidelines have not been thoroughly explored. Therefore, the purpose of our analysis was to evaluate the industry payments of the authors of the Appropriate Use Criteria (AUC) from the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS).

METHODS

The publicly available AAOS web portal (OrthoGuidelines.org) was queried for all AUCs that had been released between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2019, regarding the management of musculoskeletal pathologies. A cross-sectional analysis of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments database was conducted to determine the number and total value of industry payments to AUC voting committee members during the year of voting for the AUC. Industry payments for each orthopaedic surgeon voting member were compared with payments received by orthopaedic surgeons nationwide who received any payment within the same year. The proportion of orthopaedic surgeon voting members who received any industry payment was compared with the proportion of orthopaedic surgeons nationwide who received payments.

RESULTS

Our analysis included a total of 18 different AUCs with 216 voting members, 157 of whom were orthopaedic surgeons. Of the orthopaedic surgeon voting members, 105 (67%) received industry payments, a rate roughly comparable with the national average among orthopaedic surgeons (74%). For 7 of 18 AUCs (39%), the median payment per orthopaedic surgeon voting member was above the median among orthopaedic surgeons receiving payments nationwide that year. Qualitatively, orthopaedic surgeon voting members were more likely to receive payments in the form of royalties, licenses, or speaking fees than orthopaedic surgeons nationwide.

CONCLUSIONS

AUC voting members receive payments at frequencies and magnitudes that are roughly comparable with orthopaedic surgeons nationwide. Whether voting panel members receiving payments at these rates is ideal or is in the best interest of patients is a policy decision for the AAOS and society at large. Our study confirms that payments are common and, thus, continued vigilance is justified.

Sunshine on KOLs: assessment of the nature, extent and evolution of financial ties between the leaders of professional medical associations and the pharmaceutical industry in France from 2014 to 2019: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the financial relationships between key opinion leader (KOL) or non-KOL physicians and pharmaceutical and device companies in France.

DESIGN

Retrospective and descriptive study.

SETTING

All doctors practising in France, with a focus on 548 KOLs (board members of the professional medical associations that published guidelines in 2018-2019, identified on the associations' websites between 2018 and 2020). Ties were collected from the 'Transparency in Healthcare' database.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The number and the value of gifts from 2014 to 2019, and of remunerations and contractual agreements from 2017 to 2019.

RESULTS

KOLs represented 0.24% of the total number of physicians in France. The total value of gifts declared in the French database for all physicians amounted to €818M (US$936M, £741M). At least one gift was declared for 83% of KOLs. KOLs' gifts represented 0.68% of the total number of gifts to physicians and 1.5% of the total value of gifts, with a mean of €3700 per capita per year.The total value of contractual agreements declared for all physicians amounted to €125M. Contractual agreements involving the KOLs represented 0.72% of the number of contractual agreements with physicians and 2.5% of the value of the agreements, with a mean of €1900 per capita per year.A total of €156M in remunerations were declared for all physicians. KOL remunerations represented 2.3% of the number of physician remunerations and 4.4% of the total value of the remunerations paid to physicians, with a mean of €4100 per capita per year.Almost all professional medical associations (99%) had at least one KOL in their board with a financial tie to the industry, but the amount varied widely among the associations.

CONCLUSION

Financial relationships between KOLs and the industry in France are extensive. KOLs have much more financial ties than non-KOL practitioners.

Evaluation of Industry Relationships Among Authors of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Regarding Ménières Disease

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the presence of conflicts of interest (COI) in SRs and MAs of Ménières disease treatment and identify any related secondary characteristics of these articles.

METHODS

A search was conducted on May 28, 2020 to search MEDLINE and Embase databases for SRs or MAs pertaining to Ménières disease published between September 1, 2016 and June 2, 2020. A risk of bias assessment was performed using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias assessment criteria.

RESULTS

A total of 13 systematic reviews conducted by 49 authors met the inclusion criteria. Of the 49 authors, 7 (14.3%) were found to have some form of COI. Of these 7 authors, 1 (14.3%) completely disclosed all COI within the SR, 1 (14.3%) disclosed one or more COI but were found to have an additional undisclosed COI, and 5 (71.4%) were found to have only undisclosed COI. One of 2 industry funded SRs (50%) had a high risk of bias, and 1 (50%) of the non-industry sponsored SRs were found to have a high risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall authors of SRs pertaining to Ménières disease appear to be properly disclosing COI at higher rates than other fields of medicine; however, further room for improvement has been noted.

Financial and Intellectual Conflicts of Interest Among Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines Authors for Allergic Rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To elucidate financial and intellectual conflicts of interest (COIs) among clinical practice guideline (CPG) authors of allergic rhinitis in Japan and to evaluate the extent of transparency and accuracy in COIs by CPG authors of allergic rhinitis.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional analysis of the payment data from all 79 pharmaceutical companies in Japan between 2016 and 2017.

SETTING

Japan.

METHODS

We considered all 27 CPG authors from 2 different versions of the most prominent CPGs for allergic rhinitis in Japan. Using payment data disclosed by 79 major pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2017, we assessed the magnitude and characteristics of financial COIs of CPG authors. We also evaluated the intellectual COIs of the CPG authors by counting self-citations of research articles related to CPG statements and recommendations.

RESULTS

Of 27 CPG authors, 26 authors (96.3%) received at least 1 payment from a combined total of $1,333,552 between 2016 and 2017. The 2-year combined average and median monetary values per author were $49,391 (SD, $67,438) and $18,400 (interquartile range: $6,216-$72,494), respectively. Pharmaceutical companies with novel drugs predominantly made these payments. The percentage of citations with at least 1 CPG author relative to total citations was 47.6% in 2016 and 27.9% in 2020. There were no formal COI disclosure statements in either version.

CONCLUSION

This study found that allergic rhinitis CPG authors had significant financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, particularly those marketing novel drugs. In addition, CPG authors had relatively high self-citation rates, a potential marker of intellectual COIs. More rigorous and comprehensive COI management strategies are needed.

Association between author conflicts of interest and industry-sponsorship with the favorability of outcomes of systematic reviews focusing on treatments of erectile dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Authors' conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship have been shown to influence study outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine whether author conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship influenced the nature of results and conclusions of systematic reviews focusing on treatment interventions for erectile dysfunction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on erectile dysfunction treatments published between September 1, 2016, and June 2, 2020. Authors' conflicts of interest were collected from the systematic reviews' disclosure statements. These disclosures were verified using the information provided by the Open Payments, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, and US Patent and Trademark Office databases and from previously published disclosure statements.

RESULTS

Our study included 24 systematic reviews authored by 138 authors. Nineteen authors (13.8%) were found to have conflicts of interest (disclosed, undisclosed, or both). No authors completely disclosed all conflicts. Nine reviews (37.5%) contained at least one author with conflicts of interest; of which eight reported narrative results favoring the treatment group, and seven reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 15 (62.5%) reviews without a conflicted author, 11 reported results favoring the treatment group, and 12 reported conclusions favoring the treatment group.

DISCUSSION

The results and conclusions of systematic reviews for erectile dysfunction treatments did not appear to be influenced by authors who reported conflicts of interest. However, our search algorithm relied on the US-based Open Payments database and a large percentage of reviews in our study were produced by authors with international affiliations. Our study results underscore the difficulties in conducting such analyses.

CONCLUSION

Although we found that undisclosed conflicts of interest (COI) were problematic among systematic reviews of erectile dysfunction treatment, only 14% of authors in our sample possessed them and these COI did not appear to influence the favorability of systematic review outcomes.

Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses Investigating Interventions for Melanoma: Cross-sectional Literature Study

BACKGROUND

Previous studies have highlighted the potential influence that industry relationships may have on the outcomes of medical research.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine the prevalence of author conflicts of interest (COIs) in systematic reviews focusing on melanoma interventions, as well as to determine whether the presence of these COIs were associated with an increased likelihood of reporting favorable results and conclusions.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study included systematic reviews with or without meta-analyses focusing on interventions for melanoma. We searched MEDLINE and Embase for eligible systematic reviews published between September 1, 2016, and June 2, 2020. COI disclosures were cross-referenced with information from the CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) Open Payments database, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and previously published COI disclosure statements. Results were quantified using descriptive statistics, and relationships were evaluated by Fisher exact tests.

RESULTS

Of the 23 systematic reviews included in our sample, 12 (52%) had at least one author with a COI. Of these 12 reviews, 7 (58%) reported narrative results favoring the treatment group and 9 (75%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 11 systematic reviews without a conflicted author, 4 (36%) reported results favoring the treatment group and 5 (45%) reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. We found no significant association between the presence of author COIs and the favorability of results (P=.53) or conclusions (P=.15).

CONCLUSIONS

Author COIs did not appear to influence the outcomes of systematic reviews regarding melanoma interventions. Clinicians and other readers of dermatology literature should be cognizant of the influence that industry may have on the nature of reported outcomes, including those from systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Health and Medicine: Current Evidence and Implications for Patient Decision Aid Development

BACKGROUND

More stringent policies for addressing conflicts of interest have been implemented around the world in recent years. Considering the value of revisiting conflict of interest quality standards set by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration, we sought to review evidence relevant to 2 questions: 1) What are the effects of different strategies for managing conflicts of interest? and 2) What are patients' perspectives on conflicts of interest?

METHODS

We conducted a narrative review of English-language articles and abstracts from 2010 to 2019 that reported relevant quantitative or qualitative research.

RESULTS

Of 1743 articles and 118 abstracts identified, 41 articles and 2 abstracts were included. Most evidence on the effects of conflict of interest management strategies pertained only to subsequent compliance with the management strategy. This evidence highlighted substantial noncompliance with prevailing requirements. Evidence on patient perspectives on conflicts of interest offered several insights, including the existence of diverse views on the acceptability of conflicts of interest, the salience of conflict of interest type and monetary value to patients, and the possibility that conflict of interest disclosure could have unintended effects. We identified no published research on the effects of IPDAS Collaboration conflict of interest quality standards on patient decision making or outcomes.

LIMITATIONS

Because we did not conduct a systematic review, we may have missed some evidence relevant to our review questions. In addition, our team did not include patient partners.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this review have implications for the management of conflicts of interest not only in patient decision aid development but also in clinical practice guideline development, health and medical research reporting, and health care delivery.

Analysis of conflict of interest policies among organizations producing clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

Conflicts of interest (COI) jeopardize the validity of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs). When the Institute of Medicine promulgated COI policies in 2011, few organizations met these requirements, but it is unknown if organizations have improved their policies since that time. We sought to evaluate current adherence to IOM standards of COI policies.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a retrospective document review of COI policies and CPGs from organizations that published five or more CPGs between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. Organizations were identified via CPG databases. COI policies were obtained from an internet search. We collected data on i) the number of organizations that have COI policies specific to CPG development, ii) the number of policies meeting each IOM standard and iii) the number of IOM standards met by each policy. COI disclosures from five CPGs of each organization were assessed for adherence to IOM standards. Among the 46 organizations that published 5 or more CPGs, 36 (78%) had a COI policy. Standard 2.2b (requiring divestment of financial COI) was met least frequently, by 2 of 36 (6%) organizations. Standard 2.1 (requiring disclosure of COI) was met most frequently, by 33 of 36 (92%) organizations. A total of 31 of 36 (86%) organizations met 4 or fewer of the 7 IOM standards. Among the 16 organizations limiting COI to a minority of the CPG panel (standard 2.4c) and the 15 organizations prohibiting COI among chairs or co-chairs (standard 2.4d), 12 (75%) and 10 (67%) organizations violated the respective standard in at least one CPG. The main limitations of our study are the exclusion of organizations producing fewer CPGs and ability to assess only publicly available policies.

CONCLUSION

Among organizations producing CPGs, COI policies frequently do not meet IOM standards, and organizations often violate their own policies. These shortcomings may undermine the public trust in and thus the utility of CPGs. CPG-producing organizations should improve their COI policies and their strategies to manage COI to increase the trustworthiness of CPGs.

Discrepancies in self-reported financial conflicts of interest disclosures by physicians: a systematic review

Background

There is a high prevalence of financial conflicts of interest (COI) between physicians and industry.

Objectives

To conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis examining the completeness of self-reported financial COI disclosures by physicians, and identify factors associated with non-disclosure.

Data sources

MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO were searched for eligible studies up to April 2020 and supplemented with material identified in the references and citing articles.

Data extraction and synthesis

Data were independently abstracted by two authors. Data synthesis was performed via systematic review of eligible studies and random-effects meta-analysis.

Main outcomes and measures

The proportion of discrepancies between physician self-reported disclosures and objective payment data was the main outcome. The proportion of discrepant funds and factors associated with non-disclosure were also examined.

Results

40 studies were included. The pooled proportion of COI discrepancies at the article level was 81% (range: 54%–98%; 95% CI 72% to 89%), 79% at the payment level (range: 71%–89%; 95% CI 67% to 89%), 93% at the authorship level (range: 71%–100%; 95% CI 79% to 100%) and 66% at the author level (range: 8%–99%; 95% CI 48% to 78%). The proportion of funds discrepant was 33% (range: 2%–77%; 95% CI 12% to 58%). There was high heterogeneity between studies across all five analyses (I²=94%–99%). Most undisclosed COI were related to food and beverage, or travel and lodging. While the most common explanation for failure to disclose was perceived irrelevance, a median of 45% of non-disclosed payments were directly or indirectly related to the work. A smaller monetary amount was the most common factor associated with nondisclosure.

Conclusions

Physician self-reports of financial COI are highly discrepant with objective data sources reporting payments from industry. Stronger policies are required to reduce reliance on physician self-reporting of financial COI and address non-compliance.

Financial Conflicts of Interest of United States-Based Authors in Neurology Journals: Cross-Sectional Study Using the Open Payments Database

OBJECTIVE

To detail the scope, nature, and disclosure of financial conflicts of interest (COI) between the pharmaceutical and medical device industries (Industry) and authors in high-impact clinical neurology journals.

METHODS

Using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments Database (OPD), we retrieved information on payments from Industry to 2,000 authors from randomly selected 2016 articles in 5 journals. We categorized payments by type (research, general, and associated research/institutional), sponsoring entity, and year (from 2013 to 2016). Each author's self-disclosures were compared to OPD-listed Industry relationships to measure discordance. Payments were manually reviewed to identify those from manufacturers of products that were directly tested or discussed in the article. We also quantified the prevalence and value of these nondisclosed, relevant COI.

RESULTS

Two hundred authors from 158 articles had at least 1 OPD payment. Median/mean annual payments per author were $4,229/$19,586 (general); $1,702/$5,966 (research); and $67,512/$362,102 (associated research). Most neurologists received <$1,000/y (74.6%, 93.0%, and 79.5% for general, research, and associated research, respectively), but a sizeable minority (>10% of authors) received more than $10,000 per year, and several received over $1 million. Of 3,013 payments deemed directly relevant to the article, 50.9% were not self-disclosed by the authors, totaling $5,782,197 ($1,665,603 general; $25,532 research; $4,091,062 associated research).

CONCLUSION

Industry-related financial relationships are prevalent among United States-based physicians publishing in major neurology journals, and incomplete self-disclosure is common. As a profession, academic and other neurologists must work to establish firm rules to ensure and manage disclosure of financial COI.

Analysis of payments to GI physicians in the United States: Open payments data study

Background and Aim

The purpose of this study was to review and analyze the nature of industry payments to gastroenterology and hepatology (GI) physicians.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective study of open payments (OP) data for the year 2017. Payments to individual physicians were aggregated using a unique physician profile identification number. General payments to Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services regions were also analyzed. The nature of financial transactions in general payments was reported overall and per physician payment. Research, ownership, and general payments were aggregated and analyzed by drug/device companies.

Results

During the study period, more GI physicians received contributions in the form of general payments compared to ownership or research payments. A small percentage of physicians received contributions greater than $100 000. The most frequent contributions were for food and beverages. Only 10 manufacturers made about 71% ($43 271 938) of general payments.

Conclusions

We found that only a small number of GI physicians received a significant portion of industry payments. A large portion of those payments came from drug or device companies. The impact of these payments on gastroenterologists needs to be examined further.

Conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: associations with recommendations

BACKGROUND

Treatment and diagnostic recommendations are often made in clinical guidelines, reports from advisory committee meetings, opinion pieces such as editorials, and narrative reviews. Quite often, the authors or members of advisory committees have industry ties or particular specialty interests which may impact on which interventions are recommended. Similarly, clinical guidelines and narrative reviews may be funded by industry sources resulting in conflicts of interest.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate to what degree financial and non-financial conflicts of interest are associated with favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register for studies published up to February 2020. We also searched reference lists of included studies, Web of Science for studies citing the included studies, and grey literature sources.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included studies comparing the association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations of drugs or devices (e.g. recommending a particular drug) in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, or narrative reviews.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently included studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. When a meta-analysis was considered meaningful to synthesise our findings, we used random-effects models to estimate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with RR > 1 indicating that documents (e.g. clinical guidelines) with conflicts of interest more often had favourable recommendations. We analysed associations for financial and non-financial conflicts of interest separately, and analysed the four types of documents both separately (pre-planned analyses) and combined (post hoc analysis).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 21 studies analysing 106 clinical guidelines, 1809 advisory committee reports, 340 opinion pieces, and 497 narrative reviews. We received unpublished data from 11 studies; eight full data sets and three summary data sets. Fifteen studies had a risk of confounding, as they compared documents that may differ in other aspects than conflicts of interest (e.g. documents on different drugs used for different populations). The associations between financial conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations were: clinical guidelines, RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.69 (four studies of 86 clinical guidelines); advisory committee reports, RR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.45 (four studies of 629 advisory committee reports); opinion pieces, RR: 2.62, 95% CI: 0.91 to 7.55 (four studies of 284 opinion pieces); and narrative reviews, RR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.49 (four studies of 457 narrative reviews). An analysis combining all four document types supported these findings (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.44). One study investigating specialty interests found that the association between including radiologist guideline authors and recommending routine breast cancer screening was RR: 2.10, 95% CI: 0.92 to 4.77 (12 clinical guidelines).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We interpret our findings to indicate that financial conflicts of interest are associated with favourable recommendations of drugs and devices in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews. However, we also stress risk of confounding in the included studies and the statistical imprecision of individual analyses of each document type. It is not certain whether non-financial conflicts of interest impact on recommendations.

Disclosing conflict of interest does not mitigate healthcare bias and harm: It is time to sever industry ties

Disclosing conflict of interest is widely believed to mitigate bias and harm from industry entanglement in healthcare research, education and practice. However, evidence is lacking of disclosure-related mitigation. Radical and extensive severing of industry ties to health care is necessary to curtail industry-related bias and harm.

Financial conflicts of interest between pharmaceutical companies and the authors of urology clinical practice guidelines in Japan

INTRODUCTION AND HYPOTHESIS

In Japan, the authors of urology clinical practice guidelines (UCPG) used in patient-centered care are often targeted by pharmaceutical companies with financial payments. However, the financial relationship between UCPG authors and pharmaceutical companies remains unclear. This study aimed to determine the characteristics of industry payments to physicians that may influence recommendations in UCPG and to assess the transparency of payment disclosure.

METHODS

We considered 193 UCPG authors receiving payments from 79 companies between 2016 and 2017 and the 13 UCPG published by the Japanese Urological Association between 2015 and 2018. We determined 2-year combined mean and median payments to authors, total company payments, and associations between author attributes and payment values using multivariate negative binomial regression. Also, we assessed the extent of the financial disclosure policies among the 13 UCPG.

RESULTS

Overall, 171 (88.6%) authors received payments with a combined value of $6,169,333. Median and mean payments were $7147 (interquartile range, $1512-$44,807) and $31,965 (standard deviation, $51,684), respectively. University professors working on multiple UCPG with new drug approvals were associated with higher payments. Twelve (92.3%) UCPG failed to disclose financial conflicts.

CONCLUSIONS

While it remains unclear whether financial entanglements improperly influence the contents of UCPG, most Japanese authors received substantial payments from pharmaceutical companies with little or no disclosure. Because insufficient transparency in disclosure of these financial entanglements may compromise the integrity of UCPG, more rigorous regulation and greater disclosure of financial conflicts of interest are needed.

Evaluation of Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Physician-Authors of American College of Rheumatology Clinical Practice Guidelines

OBJECTIVE

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) underpin patient care, and ideally authors of these guidelines would be free from outside influence. However, it has been shown many times that authors of professional society CPGs receive large sums of money from industry drug companies, creating financial conflicts of interest. This study investigated industry payments catalogued in the Open Payments Database (OPD) that have been received by authors of the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) CPGs.

METHODS

Guidelines on the ACR web site that were published during or after August 2014 were used to retrieve the list of authors. All general, research, associated research, and ownership payments reported on the OPD between the date of publication of the CPG and 12 months prior were extracted in a parallel and blinded manner by 2 investigators.

RESULTS

Of the 89 US-based physician-authors from the 5 ACR CPGs identified within the study timeframe, 56 (62.9%) had received at least 1 payment according to OPD records. These 56 authors had received a median of $522 (interquartile range $119-2,500), which, combined, was a total of $9,728,751. Nineteen authors had received at least 1 industry payment relevant to the CPG recommendations, for a median amount of $748 and a total of $1,961,362 in relevant payments. Of the total relevant payments received, a significant proportion was undisclosed (for ACR CPGs during or after August 2014, undisclosed payments were $699,561, or 35.7% of the total).

CONCLUSION

Fewer than one-half of the US-based physician-authors of ACR CPGs during or after August 2014 had received guideline-relevant industry payments. Nonetheless, a substantial proportion of the money received was not disclosed. Conflict of interest disclosure is a bare minimum requirement, and more permanent solutions may include divestiture or inclusion of more nonconflicted authors.

Assessing concordance of financial conflicts of interest disclosures with payments' databases: a systematic survey of the health literature

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study is to review the literature for studies that assessed the concordance of financial conflicts of interest disclosures with payments' databases and evaluate their methods.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a systematic survey of the health literature to identify eligible studies. We searched both Medline and EMBASE up to February 2017. We conducted study selection, data abstraction, and methodological quality assessment in duplicate and independently using standardized forms. We subcategorized 'nonconcordant disclosures' as either 'partially nonconcordant' or 'completely nonconcordant'. The main outcome was the percentage of authors with 'nonconcordant' disclosures. We summarized results by three levels of analysis: authors, companies, and studies.

RESULTS

We identified 27 eligible journal articles. The top two types of documents assessed were published articles (n = 13) and published guidelines (n = 9). The most commonly used payment database was the Open Payments Database (n = 16). The median percentage of authors with 'nonconcordant' disclosures was 81%; the median percentage was 43% for 'completely nonconcordant' disclosures. The percentage of 'nonconcordant' conflict of interest (COI) reporting by companies varied between 23% and 85%. The methods of concordance assessment, as well as the labeling and definitions of assessed outcomes varied widely across the included studies. We judged three of the included studies as high-quality studies.

CONCLUSION

Underreporting of health science researchers' financial COIs is pervasive. Studies assessing COI underreporting suffer from a number of limitations that could have overestimated their findings.

Undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of endoscopy guidelines in the United States

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Payments from pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to authors of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) may influence practice recommendations. It is therefore important to evaluate the completeness of financial conflict of interest (FCOI) declarations among CPG authors.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of industry payments to authors of endoscopy guidelines published by 5 GI societies between 2014 and 2017. For each author we identified payments using the disclosure section of CPGs and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments (CMS-OP) database. We calculated the prevalence, monetary value, and type of declared and undeclared payments among authors. Payments were assessed for the calendar year of and before publication.

RESULTS

Thirty-seven CPGs were included in the analysis comprising 569 author entries (91 unique individuals; 66.43% men, 92.6% physicians, 66.4% academically affiliated). Four hundred fifty-one episodes (79%) involved FCOIs, 451 (79%) had undisclosed FCOIs in the CMS-OP, and 445 (77%) had FCOIs relevant to a CPG recommendation. The median undisclosed payment value was $4807.26 (interquartile range, $334.84-$20,579.75). Male authors (odds ratio, 2.23; 95% confidence interval, 1.47-3.39) and academically affiliated authors (odds ratio, 8.87; 95% confidence interval, 5.57-14.13) were significantly more likely to have undeclared payments (P < .001). No CPGs met all National Academy of Medicine criteria.

CONCLUSIONS

Recognizing concerns about the accuracy of the CMS-OP, there are substantial discrepancies between industry-reported payments and author self-disclosure. Additionally, there is a high prevalence of undisclosed payments by pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturers to these authors. Given the potential impact of these discrepancies and undisclosed payments on CPGs, more accurate reporting and alternative strategies for managing FCOI are needed.

Drivers of the opioid crisis: An appraisal of financial conflicts of interest in clinical practice guideline panels at the peak of opioid prescribing

Background

Starting in the late 1990s, the pharmaceutical industry sought to increase prescribing of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Influencing the content of clinical practice guidelines may have been one strategy industry employed. In this study we assessed potential risk of bias from financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry in guidelines for opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain published between 2007 and 2013, the peak of opioid prescribing.

Methods

We used the Guideline Panel Review (GPR) to appraise the guidelines included in the 2014 systematic review and critical appraisal by Nuckols et al. These were English language opioid prescribing guidelines for adults with chronic non-cancer pain published between July 2007 and July 2013, the peak of opioid prescribing. The GPR assigns red flags to items known to introduce potential bias from financial conflicts of interest. We operationalized the GPR by creating specific definitions for each red flag. Two reviewers independently evaluated each guideline. Disagreements were resolved with discussion. We also compared our score to the critical appraisal scores for overall quality from the study by Nuckols et al.

Results

We appraised 13 guidelines, which received 43 red flags in total. Guidelines had 3.3 red flags on average (out of a possible seven) with range from one to six. Four guidelines had missing information, so red flags may be higher than reported. The guidelines with the highest and second highest scores for overall quality in the 2014 critical appraisal by Nuckols et al. had five and three red flags, respectively.

Conclusion

Our findings reveal that the guidelines for opioid prescribing chronic non-cancer pain from 2007 to 2013 were at risk of bias because of pervasive conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry and a paucity of mechanisms to address bias. Even highly-rated guidelines examined in a 2014 systematic review and critical appraisal had many red flags.

Industry Payments to Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgeons Reported by the Open Payments Database: 2014 to 2017

BACKGROUND

The Open Payments Database (OPD), mandated by the Sunshine Act, is a national registry of physician-industry transactions. Payments are reported as either General, Research, or Ownership payments. The current study aims to investigate trends in OPD General payments reported to pediatric orthopaedic surgeons from 2014 to 2017.

METHODS

General industry payments made to pediatric orthopaedic surgeons (as identified by OPD) were characterized by median payment, payment subtype, and census region. As fewer Research and Ownership payments were made, only payment totals for these categories were determined. General payment data were analyzed for trends using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

For General payments, there was an increase in the number of compensated pediatric orthopaedists from 2014 to 2017 (324 vs. 429). Of those compensated, there was no significant change in median payment per compensated surgeon ($201 vs. $197; P=0.82). However, a large percentage of total General payment dollars in pediatric orthopaedics were made to the top 5% of compensated pediatric orthopaedists each year (average 71% of total General industry compensation). For this top 5% group, median General payment per compensated surgeon increased from 2014 ($14,624) to 2017 ($32,752) (P=0.006). A significant increase in median subtype aggregate payment per surgeon was observed in the education (P<0.001) and royalty/license (P=0.031) subtypes; a significant decrease was observed for travel/lodging payments (P=0.01). Midwest pediatric orthopaedists received the highest median payment across all years studied. Few payments for research and ownership were made to pediatric orthopaedists. Four-year aggregate payment totals were $18,151 and $3,223,554 for Research and Ownership payments, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Many expected payments to surgeons to decrease when put under the public scrutiny of the OPD. Not only was this decrease not observed for General payments to pediatric orthopaedic surgeons during the 2014 to 2017 period, but also the median General payment to the top 5% increased. These findings are important to note in the current era of increased transparency.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Ethics and Industry Interactions: Impact on Specialty Training, Clinical Practice, and Research

Physicians in training and their mentors must be cognizant of ethical concerns related to industry interactions. Mentors perceived to have conflicts of interest or to be engaging in misconduct can unconsciously and profoundly affect the learning and academic environment by implying certain values and expectations. Despite increased awareness of ethical concerns related to industry interactions in clinical practice and research, there remains a need for interventions to prevent ethical transgressions. Ethics education is essential and a move in the right direction, but it alone is likely inadequate in preventing unethical behavior. Education should be supplemented with ethical environments at institutions.

The Association between Industry Payments and Brand-Name Prescriptions in Otolaryngologists

OBJECTIVE

To associate pharmaceutical industry payments to brand-name prescriptions by otolaryngologists.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

SETTING

Open Payments Database and the Medicare Part D Participant User File 2013-2016.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We identified otolaryngologists receiving nonresearch industry payments and prescribing to Medicare Part D recipients. Records were linked by physician name and state. The value of industry payments and the percentage of brand-name drugs prescribed per hospital referral region (HRR) were characterized as medians. Industry payments were correlated to the rate of brand-name prescription by Kendall's τ correlation. This was repeated at the individual physician level and stratified by payment type.

RESULTS

In total, 8167 otolaryngologists received a median of $434 (interquartile range, $138-$1278) in industry compensation over 11 (3-26) payments. Brand-name drugs made up a median of 12.9% (8.6%-18-4%) of each physician's drug claims. The number (τ = 0.05, P < .001) and dollar amount (τ = 0.04, P < .001) of industry payments were correlated with the rate of brand-name drug prescription at the individual physician level. The number of industry payments was also associated with the rate of brand-name prescription by HRR (τ = 0.14, P < .001), but the dollar amount was not. By HRR, food and beverage payments received by physicians were associated with the rate of brand-name drug prescription (τ = 0.04, P < .001), but travel and lodging payments were not.

CONCLUSIONS

Industry financial transactions are associated with brand-name drug prescriptions in otolaryngologists, and these associations are stronger at the regional level than at the individual physician level. These correlations are of modest strength and should be interpreted cautiously by readers.

Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Routine Screening Mammography

PURPOSE

Financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) may influence or undermine the credibility of clinical practice guidelines or society recommendations. Given the wide regard of such publications, understanding the prevalence and extent of FCOIs among their authors is essential.

METHODS

The most current guidelines containing recommendations for breast cancer screening from the US Preventive Services Task Force, American Cancer Society, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, International Agency for Research on Cancer, ACR, and American College of Physicians were retrieved from their respective organizational websites. Industry payments received by authors were then extracted using CMS Open Payments database (OPD), and the values and types of these payments were evaluated. Finally, financial disclosures were compared with open payments.

RESULTS

Among a total of 43 authors and 7 guideline documents, 14 authors (33%) received at least one industry payment according to OPD payment records, whereas a majority of 29 authors (67%) had none. The median total payment from all sources across all breast imaging guidelines was $0 (interquartile range, $0-$84). Four authors (9%) declared at least one significant FCOI, five (12%) received more than $5,000 from a single company in a single year, and one author had a significant FCOI (2%) identified from OPD records but not disclosed within the guideline document.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings suggest that FCOIs likely have little to no influence on the adoption of consensus recommendations regarding routine screening mammography for all cohorts of women.

Industry Involvement in Otolaryngology: Updates from the 2017 Open Payments Database

Objective

To characterize drug and device industry payments to otolaryngologists in 2017 and compare them with payments from 2014 to 2016.

Study Design

Retrospective cross-sectional analysis.

Setting

2017 Open Payments Database.

Subjects and Methods

We identified otolaryngologists in the Open Payments Database receiving nonresearch industry payments in 2017. We determined the total number and value of payments and the mean and median payments per compensated otolaryngologist. We characterized payments by census region, nature of payment, and sponsor subspecialty.

Results

A total of 8131 otolaryngologists received 66,414 payments totaling to $11.2 million in industry compensation in 2017. This is decreased from $14.5 million in 2016. The mean and median payment per compensated otolaryngologist was $1383 ($10,459) and $159 ($64-$420), respectively. Of the total compensation, 85% was received by the top 10th percentile of otolaryngologists. Speaking fees accounted for $3.1 million (28% of total payments), and food and beverage was the most common payment type (57,691 payments; 87%). Consulting fees decreased by $1 million from 2016 to 2017, and ownership interests decreased by $1.2 million from 2016 to 2017. The south had the highest total compensation value ($4.2 million), while the west had the highest mean payment value ($1561). Rhinology accounted for the highest proportion of payments of all otolaryngology subspecialties at $3.9 million (34%).

Conclusion

Industry payments to otolaryngologists decreased to $11.2 million in 2017 from $14.5 million in 2016. Much of the decrease can be attributed to decreases in consulting fees and ownership payments. It is important that otolaryngologists remain aware of changes in industry funding with each release of the Open Payments Database.

Author Disclosures in Plastic Surgery Journals Compared With Information Reported in the Open Payments Database: How Open Are We?

BACKGROUND

Relationships between companies in the biomedical industry and authors submitting scientific articles for publication has been an issue of some concern for many years. It has been frequently demonstrated that these financial relationships can influence the manner in which research findings are presented. The National Physician Payment Transparency Program, also known as the Open Payment Program or the Sunshine Act, was legislated to expose potential conflicts of interest (COIs). Likewise, most peer-reviewed journals require disclosure of any potential COIs.

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this paper was to compare the information published in the Open Payment Database to authors' self-disclosed COIs in their published articles.

METHODS

An analysis was performed by one of the authors (P.S.B.) of all articles published in Aesthetic Surgery Journal (ASJ) and Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS) from August 2013 through December 2016. Financial disclosures reported in these articles were compared with the physician payment information provided by the biomedical industry and published in the Open Payments Database in 2013 and 2018.

RESULTS

A total of 1346 articles were included in the study, from which 320 authors and 899 total authorships were eligible for analysis. Out of 782 authorships with noted discrepancies, 96% were related to potential COIs found in the Open Payments database but not disclosed in the journal publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Our data suggest major discordance between authors' self-reported COIs in the plastic surgery literature and industry payments published in the Open Payments database.

Undisclosed financial ties between guideline writers and pharmaceutical companies: a cross-sectional study across 10 disease categories

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the proportion of potentially relevant undisclosed financial ties between clinical practice guideline writers and pharmaceutical companies.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study of a stratified random sample of Australian guidelines and writers.

SETTING

Guidelines available from Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council guideline database, 2012-2014, stratified across 10 health priority areas.

POPULATION

402 authors of 33 guidelines, including up to four from each area, dependent on availability: arthritis/musculoskeletal (3); asthma (4); cancer (4); cardiovascular (4); diabetes (4); injury (3); kidney/urogenital (4); mental health (4); neurological (1); obesity (1). For guideline writers with no disclosures, or who disclosed no ties, a search of disclosures in the medical literature in the 5 years prior to guideline publication identified potentially relevant ties, undisclosed in guidelines. Guidelines were included if they contained recommendations of medicines, and writers included if developing or writing guidelines.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportions of guideline writers with potentially relevant undisclosed financial ties to pharmaceutical companies active in the therapeutic area; proportion of guidelines including at least one writer with a potentially relevant undisclosed tie.

RESULTS

344 of 402 writers (86%; 95% CI 82% to 89%) either had no published disclosures (228) or disclosed they had no ties (116). Of the 344 with no disclosed ties, 83 (24%; 95% CI 20% to 29%) had potentially relevant undisclosed ties. Of 33 guidelines, 23 (70%; 95% CI 51% to 84%) included at least one writer with a potentially relevant undisclosed tie. Writers of guidelines developed and funded by governments were less likely to have undisclosed financial ties (8.1%vs30.6%; risk ratio 0.26; 95% CI 0.13 to 0.53; p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Almost one in four guideline writers with no disclosed ties may have potentially relevant undisclosed ties to pharmaceutical companies. These data confirm the need for strategies to ensure greater transparency and more independence in relationships between guidelines and industry.

Assessment of Pharmaceutical Company and Device Manufacturer Payments to Gastroenterologists and Their Participation in Clinical Practice Guideline Panels

IMPORTANCE

Payments from pharmaceutical and device manufacturers to physicians may influence the advice physicians give patients and peers.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the nature and amounts of monetary and other benefits that gastroenterologists received and to determine the participation of those receiving benefits in the formulation of clinical practice guidelines.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study analyzed information from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments database, including all reports about payments that pharmaceutical and device manufacturers gave to adult or pediatric gastroenterologists in 2016. PubMed was used to examine the professional affiliations and publication records of top payment recipients. Panelists of clinical guidelines who also received personal financial rewards listed in the Open Payments database were identified.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Payments made to gastroenterologists by pharmaceutical company and device manufacturers.

RESULTS

Of 15 497 gastroenterologists, 13 467 (86.9%) received a total of 432 463 payments accounting for a total expenditure of $67 144 862. Direct financial payments for consultations, talks, or other services were made to 2055 physicians and were responsible for 4.2% of payments (18 179 of 432 463), but for 62.7% of total expenditures ($42 086 207 of $67 144 862). Although a significant number of submissions were for food and beverages, they constituted only a small amount of total expenditure. For gastroenterologists treating adult patients, 10 products were linked to 63.8% of payments (11 221 of 17 588) related to direct financial rewards and 37.1% of the total expenditures ($24 892 643 of $67 144 862). Twenty-nine of 36 clinical practice guidelines included panelists who had received honoraria or consultation fees from industry sources, with amounts exceeding $10 000 in 8 of them (22%).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Most gastroenterologists accept meals or gifts from industry, with 2055 of 15 497 gastroenterologists receiving direct payments and 8 of 36 clinical practice guidelines panelists having received more than $10 000. Considering the known impact of such benefits on prescribing patterns and other professional behaviors, policy makers should consider revising regulations governing interactions with industry and disclosure formats alerting others to their potential biasing impact.

Evaluation of Industry Relationships Among Authors of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Gastroenterology

This study examines the prevalence of conflicts of interest among authors of clinical practice guidelines and failure to accurately report financial relationships among authors and industry.

Increasing Industry Involvement in Otolaryngology: Insights from 3 Years of the Open Payments Database

Objectives

To characterize industry payments to otolaryngologists in 2016 versus 2014 and 2015.

Study Design

Cross-sectional retrospective analysis.

Setting

Open Payments Database.

Subjects and Methods

Using the Open Payments Database, we identified otolaryngologists receiving payments from industry sponsors from 2014 to 2016. We characterized the number and value of payments per physician overall and by census region, as well as by sponsor subspecialty and payment type. Study years were compared via analysis of variance and Kruskal-Wallis tests. Trends in payments to otolaryngologists were compared with trends in 21 other specialties.

Results

Payment to otolaryngologists increased 67% from 2014 to 2016—from $8.7 million in 2014 to $9.9 and $14.5 million in 2015 and 2016, respectively ( P < .001). While mean payment per compensated otolaryngologist increased ($1095, $1243, and $1834 in 2014, 2015, and 2016, respectively, P < .001), median payments stayed relatively constant ($169, $165, and $172), suggesting an increasingly unequal distribution. Much of the increase is accounted for by an increased number of payments for consulting fees and physician ownership. Most payments were made by companies specializing in rhinology. Otolaryngology received the lowest industry compensation per physician among the surgical specialties examined and lower compensation than most nonsurgical specialties. The increase in payments to otolaryngologists was proportionally greater than all but 1 of the other 21 specialties examined.

Conclusions

Industry compensation to otolaryngologists is increasing and increasingly unequal, although it is still less than that in most other specialties. In otolaryngology, the Open Payments Database has not decreased physician-industry relationships as intended.

Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Guidelines: Lack of Authors and Disclosures in the AAOMS White Papers

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate current state of authorship, financial disclosures, and conflicts of interest in position papers published by the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is a cross-sectional review of the position papers published by the AAOMS from 2013 to 2017. Primary outcome variables include position papers published by the AAOMS. Secondary outcome variables include declaration of authorship, financial disclosures, and financial payments. The Open Payments Database for financial disclosures was reviewed for the year the position paper was published and the immediate preceding year.

RESULTS

Ten position papers were published by the AAOMS from 2013 to 2017. Of the 10 papers, authorship was listed in 3, and none explicitly addressed the presence or absence of financial disclosures or conflicts of interest. Contributors to 3 of the 3 authored papers were found at review of the Open Payments Database to have received industry funding in the year the position paper was published and the immediate preceding year. The remuneration ranged from less than $1,000 to $554,006.02.

CONCLUSION

Position papers published by the AAOMS lack standardization for authorship and statements on potential financial disclosure. The authors suggest full disclosures of authorship and authors' conflicts of interest should be stated on all position papers to provide transparency to the process.