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

Reporting Conflicts of Interest and Funding in Health Care Guidelines: The RIGHT-COI&F Checklist

BACKGROUND

Conflicts of interest (COIs) of contributors to a guideline project and the funding of that project can influence the development of the guideline. Comprehensive reporting of information on COIs and funding is essential for the transparency and credibility of guidelines.

OBJECTIVE

To develop an extension of the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement for the reporting of COIs and funding in policy documents of guideline organizations and in guidelines: the RIGHT-COI&F checklist.

DESIGN

The recommendations of the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network were followed. The process consisted of registration of the project and setting up working groups, generation of the initial list of items, achieving consensus on the items, and formulating and testing the final checklist.

SETTING

International collaboration.

PARTICIPANTS

44 experts.

MEASUREMENTS

Consensus on checklist items.

RESULTS

The checklist contains 27 items: 18 about the COIs of contributors and 9 about the funding of the guideline project. Of the 27 items, 16 are labeled as policy related because they address the reporting of COI and funding policies that apply across an organization's guideline projects. These items should be described ideally in the organization's policy documents, otherwise in the specific guideline. The remaining 11 items are labeled as implementation related and they address the reporting of COIs and funding of the specific guideline.

LIMITATION

The RIGHT-COI&F checklist requires testing in real-life use.

CONCLUSION

The RIGHT-COI&F checklist can be used to guide the reporting of COIs and funding in guideline development and to assess the completeness of reporting in published guidelines and policy documents.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

The Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of China.

Perspectives on non-financial conflicts of interest in health-related journals: A scoping review

The objective of this scoping review was to systematically review the literature on how non-financial conflicts of interest (nfCOI) are defined and evaluated, and the strategies suggested for their management in health-related and biomedical journals. PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for peer reviewed studies published in English between 1970 and December 2023 that addressed at least one of the following: the definition, evaluation, or management of non-financial conflicts of interest. From 658 studies, 190 studies were included in the review. nfCOI were discussed most commonly in empirical (22%; 42/190), theoretical (15%; 29/190) and "other" studies (18%; 34/190) - including commentary, perspective, and opinion articles. nfCOI were addressed frequently in the research domain (36%; 68/190), publication domain (29%; 55/190) and clinical practice domain (17%; 32/190). Attitudes toward nfCOI and their management were divided into two distinct groups. The first larger group claimed that nfCOI were problematic and required some form of management, whereas the second group argued that nfCOI were not problematic, and therefore, did not require management. Despite ongoing debates about the nature, definition, and management of nfCOI, many articles included in this review agreed that serious consideration needs to be given to the prevalence, impact and optimal mitigation of non-financial COI.

[Are the assessments of individual out-of-pocket health services of the IGeL-Monitor in line with clinical guidelines?]

OBJECTIVES

The IGeL-Monitor of the Federal Medical Advisory Service in Germany evaluates the benefits and harms of individual out-of-pocket health services (in German: Individuelle Gesundheitsleistungen / IGeL). The aim of the analysis was to systematically compare IGeL-assessements with the recommendations from evidence-based guidelines.

METHOD

To identify guidelines, we conducted searches in guidelines databases (AWMF, Guidelines International Network and Trip database) and the websites of guideline organisations (February/March 2022). We included guidelines that were not older than 5 years. The methodological quality of the guidelines was assessed using the AGREE II instrument. We compared the recommendations with the IGeL-assessments in terms of content and grade of recommendation.

RESULTS

We identified 41 guidelines covering 24 IGeL-assessements. 19 (79%) assessments (nearly) were in agreement with the guideline recommendations. No comparison was possible for 5 IGeL-assessements, because, for example, the recommendations were more specific. Ten of the 13 IGeL that were rated (tendentially) negatively were also not recommended in the guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the IGeL-assessments were consistent with the recommendations of current guidelines. Accordingly, guideline groups seem to assess the evidence similarly to the IGeL-Monitor team. Insured persons should be informed honestly about the evidence, particularly for the (tendentially) negatively evaluated IGeL that are not recommended even in guidelines.

Sponsorship bias in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations of national reimbursement negotiation drugs in China: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

China's National Reimbursement Drug List (NRDL) has become the primary route for drug reimbursement in China. More recently, the authority has made pharmacoeconomic evaluation an integral part of the application for NRDL inclusion. The underlying financial conflict of interests (FCOI) of pharmacoeconomic evaluations, however, has the potential to influence evidence generated and thus subsequent decision-making yet remains poorly understood.

METHODS

We searched for studies published between January 2012 and January 2022 on the 174 drugs added to the 2017-2020 NRDLs after successful negotiation. We categorised the study's FCOI status into no funding, industry funding, non-profit funding and multiple fundings based on authors' disclosure and assessed the reporting quality of included studies using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 checklist. We compiled descriptive statistics of funding types and study outcomes using t-tests and χ2 tests and conducted multivariate regression analysis.

RESULTS

We identified 378 records and our final sample included 92 pharmacoeconomic evaluations, among which 69.6% were conducted with at least one funding source. More than half (57.6%) of the evaluations reached favourable conclusions towards the intervention drug and 12.6% reached a dominant result of the intervention drug over the comparison from model simulation. The reporting quality of included studies ranged from 19 to 25 (on a scale of 28), with an average of 22.3. The statistical tests indicated that industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to conclude that the intervention therapy was economical (p<0.01) and had a significantly higher proportion of resulting target drug economically dominated the comparison drug (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

The study revealed that FCOI bias is common in published pharmacoeconomic evaluations conducted in Chinese settings and could significantly influence the study's economical results and conclusions through various mechanisms. Multifaceted efforts are needed to improve transparency, comparability and reporting standardisation.

A guide to evaluating systematic reviews for the busy clinicians or reluctant readers

Systematic reviews (SRs) provide a solution to handle information overload for busy clinicians by summarising and synthesizing studies on a specific issue. However, because SRs are complicated and often boring to read, the busy or reluctant reader may make do with the abstract. When, as it has been shown, many authors overstate efficacy or understate harm in their abstracts, not consulting the underlying article could be misleading. This means that the prudent reader must have the ability to identify the 'tender points' of SRs to avoid falling for 'spin'. To this end we briefly review the method of SRs and ways to relatively quickly determine trustworthiness.

Financial Conflicts of Interest in Public Comments on Medicare National Coverage Determinations of Medical Devices

This study reviewed public comments for all Medicare National Coverage Determinations between June 2019 and 2022 on select pulmonary and cardiac devices to determine whether financial conflicts of interest were disclosed.

Financial conflicts of interest among US physician authors of 2020 clinical practice guidelines: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the prevalence and accuracy of industry-related financial conflict of interest (COI) disclosures among US physician guideline authors.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

Clinical practice guidelines published by the Council of Medical Specialty Societies in 2020.

PARTICIPANTS

US physician guideline authors.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Financial COI disclosures, both self-reported and determined using Open Payments data.

RESULTS

Among 270 US physician authors of 20 clinical practice guidelines, 101 (37.4%) disclosed industry-related financial COIs, whereas 199 (73.7%) were found to have received payments from industry when accounting for payments disclosed through Open Payments. The median payments received by authors during the 3-year period was US$27 451 (IQR, US$1385-US$254 677). Comparing authors' self-disclosures with Open Payments, 72 (26.7%) of the authors accurately disclosed their financial COIs, including 68 (25.2%) accurately disclosing no financial COIs and 4 (1.5%) accurately disclosing a financial COI. In contrast, 101 (37.4%) disclosed no financial COIs and were found to have received payments from industry, 23 (8.5%) disclosed a financial COI but had under-reported payments received from industry, 14 (5.2%) disclosed a financial COI but had over-reported payments received from industry and 60 (22.2%) disclosed a financial COI but were found to have both under-reported and over-reported payments received from industry. We found that inaccurate COI disclosure was more frequent among professors compared with non-professors (81.9% vs 63.5%; p<0.001) and among males compared with females (77.7% vs 64.8%; p=0.02). The accuracy of disclosures also varied among medical professional societies (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Financial relationships with industry are common among US physician authors of clinical practice guidelines and are often not accurately disclosed. To ensure high-quality guidelines and unbiased recommendations, more effort is needed to minimise existing COIs and improve disclosure accuracy among panel members.

Tip of the Iceberg? Country- and Company-Level Analysis of Drug Company Payments for Research and Development in Europe

BACKGROUND

Creating new therapies often involves drug companies paying healthcare professionals and institutions for research and development (R&D) activities, including clinical trials. However, industry sponsorship can create conflicts of interest (COIs). We analysed approaches to drug company R&D payment disclosure in European countries and the distribution of R&D payments at the country and company level.

METHODS

Using documentary sources and a stakeholder survey we identified country- regulatory approaches to R&D payment disclosure. We reviewed company-level descriptions of disclosure practices in the United Kingdom, a country with a major role in Europe's R&D. We obtained country-level R&D payment data from industry trade groups and public authorities and company-level data from eurosfordocs.eu, a publicly available payments database. We conducted content analysis and descriptive statistical analysis.

RESULTS

In 32 of 37 studied countries, all R&D payments were reported without named recipients, following a self-regulatory approach developed by the industry. The methodological descriptions from 125 companies operating in the United Kingdom suggest that within the self-regulatory approach companies had much leeway in deciding what activities and payments were considered as R&D. In five countries, legislation mandated the disclosure of R&D payment recipients, but only in two were payments practically identifiable and analysable. In 17 countries with available data, R&D constituted 19%-82% of all payments reported, with self-regulation associated with higher shares. Available company-level data from three countries with self-regulation suggests that R&D payments were concentrated by big funders, and some companies reported all, or nearly all, payments as R&D.

CONCLUSION

The lack of full disclosure of R&D payments in countries with industry self-regulation leaves considerable sums of money unaccounted for and potentially many COIs undetected. Disclosure mandated by legislation exists in few countries and rarely enhances transparency practically. We recommend a unified European approach to R&D payment disclosure, including clear definitions and a centralised database.

[Indications for the surgical management of pancreatic neoplasms]

Due to its rising incidence, pancreatic neoplasia, which mainly include adenocarcinomas, neuroendocrine and cystic neoplasia of the pancreas, is becoming increasingly relevant in everyday clinical practice.Based on a systematic literature search, a working group of pancreatic experts developed evidence-based recommendations for surgical indications in pancreatic neoplasia to improve the quality.There is a clear surgical indication for primary or secondary resectable pancreatic carcinomas without metastasis, for functionally active, symptomatic and functionally inactive neuroendocrine neoplasia of more than 2 cm in size and for cystic neoplasm with symptoms or signs of malignancy including all intraductal papillary-mucinous neoplasia (IPMN) of the main duct and mixed type, all mucinous-cystic neoplasia (MCN) > 4 cm and all solid pseudopapillary neoplasia (SPN). Surgery can be indicated for pancreatic carcinomas with isolated arterial vascular infiltration or for long periods of stable oligometastasis, regarding neuroendocrine neoplasias for metastasis or debulking surgery as well as for branch-duct IPMN with risk criteria and MCN <4 cm. There is no primary indication for surgery in locally advanced and metastatic pancreatic cancer or asymptomatic serous-cystic neoplasia (SCN).The indication for surgery should always be individualized taking into account age, comorbidities and patient wishes.

Addressing Conflicts of Interest and Conflicts of Commitment in Public Advocacy and Policy Making on CRISPR/Cas-Based Human Genome Editing

Leading experts on CRISPR/Cas-based genome editing—such as 2020 Nobel laureates Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier—are not only renowned specialists in their fields, but also public advocates for upcoming regulatory frameworks on CRISPR/Cas. These frameworks will affect large portions of biomedical research on human genome editing. In advocating for particular ways of handling the risks and prospects of this technology, high-profile scientists not only serve as scientific experts, but also as moral advisers. The majority of them currently intend to bring about a “responsible pathway” toward human genome interventions in clinical therapy. Engaging in advocacy for such a pathway, they issue moral judgments on the risks and benefits of this new technology. They declare that there actually is a responsible pathway, they draft resolutions on temporary moratoria, they make judgments on which groups and individuals are credible and should participate in public and semi-public debates, so they also set the standards for deciding who counts as well-informed, as well as the standards of evidence for adopting or rejecting research policies. This degree of influence on public debates and policy making is, at the very least, noteworthy. This contribution sounds a note of caution with regard to the endeavor of a responsible pathway to human genome editing and in particular scrutinizes the legitimacy of expert-driven research policies given commercial conflicts of interest and conflicts of commitment among first-rank scholars.

Rates and predictors of data and code sharing in the medical and health sciences: Protocol for a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis

Numerous studies have demonstrated low but increasing rates of data and code sharing within medical and health research disciplines. However, it remains unclear how commonly data and code are shared across all fields of medical and health research, as well as whether sharing rates are positively associated with implementation of progressive policies by publishers and funders, or growing expectations from the medical and health research community at large. Therefore this systematic review aims to synthesise the findings of medical and health science studies that have empirically investigated the prevalence of data or code sharing, or both. Objectives include the investigation of: (i) the prevalence of public sharing of research data and code alongside published articles (including preprints), (ii) the prevalence of private sharing of research data and code in response to reasonable requests, and (iii) factors associated with the sharing of either research output (e.g., the year published, the publisher's policy on sharing, the presence of a data or code availability statement). It is hoped that the results will provide some insight into how often research data and code are shared publicly and privately, how this has changed over time, and how effective some measures such as the institution of data sharing policies and data availability statements have been in motivating researchers to share their underlying data and code.

Association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Studies that compared the association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations of drugs or devices (eg, recommending a drug) in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces (eg, editorials), or narrative reviews.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Methodology Register (from inception to February 2020), reference lists, Web of Science, and grey literature.

DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the studies. Pooled relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using random effects models (relative risk >1 indicates that documents with conflicts of interest more often had favourable recommendations than documents with no conflicts of interest). Financial and non-financial conflicts of interest were analysed separately, and the four types of documents were analysed separately (preplanned) and combined (post hoc).

RESULTS

21 studies that analysed 106 clinical guidelines, 1809 advisory committee reports, 340 opinion pieces, and 497 narrative reviews were included. Unpublished data were received for 11 studies (eight full datasets and three summary datasets). 15 studies showed risk of confounding because the compared documents could differ in factors other than conflicts of interest (eg, different drugs used for different populations). The relative risk for associations between financial conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations for clinical guidelines was 1.26 (95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.69; four studies of 86 clinical guidelines), for advisory committee reports was 1.20 (0.99 to 1.45; four studies of 629 advisory committee reports), for opinion pieces was 2.62 (0.91 to 7.55; four studies of 284 opinion pieces), and for narrative reviews was 1.20 (0.97 to 1.49; four studies of 457 narrative reviews). An analysis of all four types of documents combined supported these findings (1.26, 1.09 to 1.44). In one study that investigated specialty interests, the association between including radiologists as authors of guidelines and recommending routine breast cancer was: relative risk 2.10, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 4.77; 12 clinical guidelines).

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. Limitations of this review were 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 influence recommendations.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Cochrane Methodology Review Protocol MR000040.

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.