Conflicts of interest in medicine: taking diversity seriously

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.

Financial conflicts of interest among National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guideline panelists in 2019

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are evidence-based guidelines that serve as a standard of care in oncology practice, reimbursements, and quality improvement initiatives. To our knowledge, the extent of financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines have not been systemically evaluated. The current study evaluated the extent of FCOIs in the NCCN CPGs for the most common malignancies in the United States.

METHODS

The authors examined the latest 2019 versions of the NCCN CPGs for the 10 most common cancers by incidence in the United States. Using disclosure lists, they catalogued the FCOIs for the panelists under various categories outlined in the CPG. The authors also tabulated the companies and institutions involved in each panel disclosure. An "episode" describes 1 instance of participation of a panelist in 1 company in 1 category of each guideline. "Affiliation" describes an industrial, commercial, or institutional affiliation reported by a panelist in each episode.

RESULTS

Of the 491 panelists on the CPG panel, 483 (98.3%) completed FCOI disclosures. A total of 224 (46.4%) reported at least 1 FCOI episode. A total of 1103 episodes were disclosed with an average of 4.9 episodes reported per panelist with FCOIs. Acting as part of scientific advisory boards, as a consultant, or as an expert witness was the most common FCOI category (19.9%). A total of 191 companies were associated with 1103 episodes of FCOI. The top companies were Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Genentech, and AstraZeneca. Among cancers, the prevalence of FCOIs was highest for lung cancer (56%), bladder cancer (52%), pancreatic cancer (52%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (50%), kidney cancer (49%), colorectal cancer (43%), breast cancer (42%), melanoma (40%), prostate cancer (38%), and uterine cancer (32%). Among the panelists with FCOIs, 26%, 17%, and 57%, respectively, reported 1, 2, and >3 episodes. There were 127 episodes noted among the CPG chairs and/or vice chairs who reported FCOIs (mean, 6.4 episodes). The chairs and/or vice chairs of CPGs for uterine cancer, pancreatic cancer, melanoma, and prostate cancer were not found to have any FCOIs.

CONCLUSIONS

FCOIs are very prevalent among NCCN CPG panelists. In nearly one-half of the CPGs, the majority of the panelists had at least 1 FCOI. Greater than one-half of the CPG chairs and/or vice chairs reported multiple FCOIs. Further research studies are necessary to determine the impact of these FCOIs.

After Conflicts of Interest: From Procedural Short-Cut to Ethico-Political Debate

This paper critically examines the proliferation of conflicts of interest (COI) discourse and how the most common conceptions of COI presuppose a hierarchy of primary and secondary interests. I show that a form of professional virtue or duty is commonly employed to give the primary interest normative force. However, I argue that in the context of increasingly commercialized healthcare neither virtue nor duty can do the normative work expected of them. Furthermore, I suggest that COI discourse is symptom of rather than solution to the problems of market forces in contemporary medicine. I contend that COI, as it is commonly conceived, is an inadequate concept through which to attend to these problems. It is used as a procedural short-cut to address ethico-political problems. That is, it is an economic and policy concept expected to do significant moral and political work. Like most short-cuts, this one also leads to entanglements and winding roads that fail to reach the destination. As such, I suggest that we need a different set of ethico-political tools to address normative fluidity of medical practice in the absence on a primary interest.

Should disclosure of conflicts of interest in medicine be made public? Medical students' views

CONTEXT

Conflicts of interest (CoIs) are considered to be ubiquitous in health care and biomedicine. The disclosure of relevant interests is a first step in managing conflicts, although its usefulness is contested. Although several countries have mandated the public disclosure of doctors' financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry, little is known about medical students' understanding of mandatory public disclosure.

METHODS

Six 90-minute focus groups were conducted with medical students in New South Wales, Australia. Participants ranged from first- to final-year students. Students were asked about their understanding and experiences of CoIs and, more specifically, for their views on and experiences of disclosure in medical education, mandatory disclosure and public registers. Qualitative data analysis was based on a framework approach.

RESULTS

Participants were generally not supportive of mandatory public disclosure of financial relationships with industry, principally because of concerns about privacy, control over disclosure, and others' (mis)interpretations of disclosures. Further, they did not know how to assess the disclosures presented to them as part of their medical education and described a wide range of reactions to disclosed information.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that students are currently not well prepared for mandatory public disclosure of CoIs. The subsequent discussion draws on Bourdieu's doxa to highlight assumptions of altruism in medicine, assumptions that are potentially in tension with recent events that have exposed doctors to moral scrutiny by the public. Medical students could be better prepared for future obligations by encouraging disclosures, and contextualising and helping students to interpret them. Disclosure as a box-ticking exercise is unlikely to achieve goals implied by transparency, but a more reflective approach may assist both scrutinisers and the scrutinised.