Industry payments to physician journal editors

Drug Promotions Between Ethics, Regulations, and Financial Interests

BACKGROUND

The promotion of the latest medicines produced by the pharmaceutical industry is an important issue both from an ethical point of view (the level of accessibility, the way research is carried out) and from the point of view of marketing and especially from the lobbying issues raised.

AREAS OF UNCERTAINTY

The ethical dilemmas raised by the promotion of new drugs revolve between the need to discover new molecules important for treating a wide range of diseases and the need to establish a battery of ethical rules, absolutely necessary for regulations in the field to be compliant with all ethical principles.

DATA SOURCES

A literature search was conducted through PubMed, MEDLINE, Plus, Scopus, and Web of Science (2015-2023) using combinations of keywords, including drugs, medical publicity, and pharma marketing plus ethical dilemma.

ETHICS AND THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

The promotion of medicines is governed by advertising laws and regulations in many countries, including at EU level, based on the need for countries to ensure that the promotion and advertising of medicines is truthful, based on information understood by consumers. The ethical analysis of the issues raised is more necessary and complex as the channels used for promotion are more accessible to the population, and the information, easier to obtain, can be the cause of increased self-medication and overeating. Large amounts of money invested in the development of new molecules, but also the risk of scientific fraud through manipulation of data during clinical trials, selective or biased publication of information can have repercussions on the health of the population.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of new pharmaceutical molecules is necessary to intervene and treat as many conditions as possible, but marketing must not neglect the observance of ethical principles. The promotion of medicines should be the attribute especially of the medical staff, which should also be a mandatory part of the mechanism for approving the marketing methods and means used by the pharmaceutical companies.

Conflict of interest and funding in health communication on social media: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To synthesise the available evidence on the reporting of conflicts of interest (COI) by individuals posting health messages on social media, and on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE (OVID) (2005-March 2022), Embase (2005-March 2022) and Google Scholar (2005-August 2022), supplemented with a review of reference lists and forward citation tracking.

DESIGN

Reviewers selected eligible studies and abstracted data in duplicate and independently. We appraised the quality of the included studies using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. We summarised the results in both narrative and tabular formats. We followed the PRISMA 2020 checklist for reporting our study.

RESULTS

Of a total of 16 645 retrieved citations, we included 17 eligible studies. The frequency of reporting of conflicts of interest varied between 0% and 60%, but it was mostly low. In addition, a significant proportion, ranging between 15% and 80%, of healthcare professionals using social media have financial relationships with industry. However, three studies assessed the proportion of conflicts of interest of physicians identified through Open Payment Database but not reported by the authors. It was found that 98.7-100% of these relationships with industry are not reported when communicating health-related information. Also, two studies showed that there is evidence of a potential association between COI and the content of posting. No data was found on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media.

CONCLUSIONS

While a significant proportion of healthcare professionals using social media have financial relationships with industry, lack of reporting on COI and undisclosed COI are common. We did not find studies on the reporting of funding sources of studies cited in health messages on social media.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

dx.doi.org/10.17504/protocols.io.5jyl8jj4rg2w/v1.

Assessment of Financial Relationships Between Otorhinolaryngologists and Pharmaceutical Companies in Japan Between 2016 and 2019

INTRODUCTION

There are prevalent financial relationships between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry in medical specialties, including otorhinolaryngology. Although these relationships might cause conflicts of interest, no studies have assessed the size and contents of the financial relationships between otorhinolaryngologists and pharmaceutical companies in Japan. This study aims to evaluate the magnitude, prevalence, and trend of the financial relationship between Japanese otolaryngologists and pharmaceutical companies.

METHODS

 Using payment data publicly disclosed by 92 pharmaceutical companies, we examined the size, prevalence, and trend in personal payments made to the otorhinolaryngologist board certified by the Japanese Society of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (JSO-HNS) between 2016 and 2019 in Japan. Furthermore, differences in payments were evaluated by whether otolaryngologists were clinical practice guideline authors, society board members, and academic journal editors or not. Trends in payments were evaluated by generalized estimating equations.

RESULTS

 Of 8,190 otorhinolaryngologists, 3,667 (44.8%) were paid a total of $13,873,562, in payments for lecturing, consulting, and writing by 72 pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. The median four-year combined payment per physician was $1,022 (interquartile range: $473-$2,526). Top 1%, 5%, and 10% of otorhinolaryngologists received 42.3% (95% confidence interval (95% CI): 37.2%-47.4%), 69.3% (95% CI: 65.9%-72.8%), and 80.6% (95% CI: 78.3%-82.9%) of overall payments, respectively. The median payments per physician were significantly higher among otorhinolaryngologists authoring clinical practice guidelines ($11,522), society board members ($22,261), and journal editors ($35,143) than those without. The payments and number of otorhinolaryngologists receiving payments remained stable between 2016 and 2019.

CONCLUSION

 This study demonstrates that a minority but a large number of otorhinolaryngologists received personal payments from pharmaceutical companies for the reimbursement of lecturing, consulting, and writing in Japan. Large amounts of these personal payments were significantly concentrated on a small number of leading otorhinolaryngologists.

Analysis of Industry-Related Payments Among Physician Editors of Pathology Journals

OBJECTIVES

Gender inequities in editorial board representation and physician compensation are well documented, but few studies have focused on how editors of journals are compensated.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, we examined industry-related compensation (from 2014 to 2020) among physician editors of 35 pathology journals using publicly available data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database.

RESULTS

Of the physician editors included, 135 (69.9%) were men and 58 (30.1%) were women. Similar percentages of men and women physicians who were eligible received payments (112/135 [83.0%] men and 51/58 [87.9%] women; P = .38, χ2 test). Of the total transfer of value ($211,192,532), 112 men received $192,727,555 (91.3%), and 51 women received $18,464,978 (8.7%). Mean total payment per person was $1,720,782 for men and $362,058 for women (P = .05). The payment range for men was $18-$47,568,400 and the range of payments for women was $31-$2,375,637.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings highlight significant gender inequities in industry-related payments to physician editors of pathology journals. The financial relationships of journal editors and industry deserve further study, particularly as they relate to advancing science and closing both workforce and patient care inequities.

Industry Relationships With Medical Oncologists: Who Are the High-Payment Physicians?

PURPOSE:

Many oncologists have relationships with industry. Previous work has shown that these payments are usually modest; however, there exist a subset of medical oncologists who receive more than $100,000 US dollars (USD) annually. Here, we describe the characteristics of these physicians.

METHODS:

This retrospective cohort study used the Open Payments data set to identify all US-based medical oncologists/hematologists who received $100,000+ USD in general payments linked to cancer medications in 2018. Open Payments and a web-based search were used to identify physician characteristics, demographics, research profile, and leadership positions.

RESULTS:

One hundred thirty-nine medical oncologists received > $100,000 USD in general payments. The median payment was $154,613 USD, and the total payment was $24.2 million USD. These high-payment physicians represent 1% of all US medical oncologists (N = 10,620) yet account for 37% of all industry payments in 2018. Sixty percent (84 of 139) and 21% (29 of 139) of these high-payment physicians hold hospital and specialty association leadership roles, respectively. One quarter (24%, 33 of 139) serve on journal editorial boards, and 10% (14 of 139) have authored clinical practice guidelines; 72% (100 of 139) hold faculty appointments.

CONCLUSION:

A small number of medical oncologists receive very high payments from the pharmaceutical industry. These physicians hold major leadership roles within oncology. Further work is needed to understand the extent to which these conflicts of interest may shape clinical practice and policy.

Ten years later: a review of the US 2009 institute of medicine report on conflicts of interest and solutions for further reform

Conflicts of interest (COIs) in healthcare are increasingly discussed in the literature, yet these relationships continue to influence healthcare. Research has consistently shown that financial COIs shape prescribing practices, medical education and guideline recommendations. In 2009, the Institute of Medicine (IOM, now the National Academy of Medicine) published Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research, Practice, and Education-one of the most comprehensive reviews of empirical research on COIs in medicine. Ten years after publication of theIOM's report, we review the current state of COIs within medicine. We also provide specific recommendations for enhancing scientific integrity in medical research, practice, education and editorial practices.

What are the rates and validity of French authors' conflicts of interest disclosures in Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research? Analysis of the year 2017 with comparison versus the Transparence.sante.gouv.fr database

INTRODUCTION

Authors are responsible for their own Disclosure of Interests in submitting to Orthopaedics & Traumatology: Surgery & Research (OTSR). Disclosure may be incomplete or false, by deliberate or unintended omission. Omission may impact the analysis of results or at least the reader's perception of it. The rate of validity of disclosure in OTSR is not known, and we therefore conducted a bibliometric study on articles published in 2017, in order to: 1) determine the proportion of articles in which authors disclose interests; and 2), when interests are disclosed, to assess their validity by comparison against the Transparence.gov.fr database.

HYPOTHESIS

Disclosure rates exceed 75%.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

We analyzed all articles published in OTSR in 2017, and extracted those with at least one French author. We also analyzed data from the Transparence.gouv.fr corporate declaration database, for comparison with the authors' own disclosures in each article. Significant interest was defined by a €1000 threshold, although higher thresholds (>€5000, >€10,000 and >€100,000) were also investigated.

RESULTS

In 2017, 337 articles were published in OTSR, 210 of which had at least 1 French author. Of these, 201 (95.7%) had at least 1 author with significant interest (>€1000) according to the Transparence data. In 189 of these 201 articles (94%), authors had failed to disclose at least 1 direct or indirect conflict of interest. This omission rate fell to 22/45 (48.9%) for more substantial interests, which were more faithfully disclosed. At the €1000 threshold, in only 8/201 articles (4%) did authors disclose all their interests with perfect validity, but this rate increased up to 25/45 (55.5%) at higher thresholds. At the €1000 threshold, 66 of the 201 articles cited the trade-name of interest, resulting in 54/66 (82%) correct disclosure of direct interest; this rate increased up to 25/26 (96%) at higher thresholds.

DISCUSSION

At a threshold of €1000, the rate of complete and valid disclosure was 4% and the rate of omission 94%. At higher thresholds, rates were better, with just 48.9% omission and, above all, 55.5% validity, even if these rates were lower than hypothesized (75%). Authors and editors need to take greater care. Disclosures were often made, but incompletely, and authors need reminding that they must disclose not only interests related to the article in question but also all interests that might directly or indirectly influence their interpretation of the results reported, allowing readers to make up their own minds.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

IV; systematic retrospective study.

A Ray of Sunshine: Transparency in Physician-Industry Relationships Is Not Enough

Gifts from pharmaceutical and medical device companies to physicians in the United States have been reported since 2014, through the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. Although researchers have utilized these data to publish many studies on conflicts of interest (COIs) and prescribing behavior, there is no evidence that physician behavior regarding COI has changed, or that employers, meeting organizers, or medical journals are excluding physicians based on conflicts of interest. Disclosure is necessary but not sufficient to address the damage that industry relationships causes to medical knowledge and public health.

Industry Payments to Nephrologists in the United States

Background

Industry payments to physicians raise concerns about conflicts of interest that have the potential to impact patient care. In this study, we explored nonresearch and nonownership payments from industry to nephrologists to identify trends in compensation.

Methodology

Using data from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), we explored financial relationships between industry and US nephrologists from 2014 to 2018. We analyzed payment characteristics including payment categories, payment distribution among physicians, regional trends, and biomedical manufacturers.

Results

In this retrospective study, a total of $75,174,999 was paid to nephrologists in the United States during the study period (i.e., 2014-2018). The number of board-certified nephrologists receiving payment from the industry increased from 11,642 in 2014 to 13,297 in 2018. Among board-certified nephrologists, 56% to 63% received industry payments during the study period. The total payments to nephrologists increased from $13,113,512 in 2014 to $16,467,945 in 2017, with consulting fees (24%) and compensation for services other than consulting (35%) being the highest-paid categories. The top 10% of physician beneficiaries collected 90% of the total industry payments.

Conclusions

A small proportion of US nephrologists consistently received the majority of industry payments, the value of which grew over the study period.

Assessment of Self-Reported Financial Conflicts of Interest in Vascular Surgery Studies

INTRODUCTION

With increased collaboration between surgeons and industry, there has been a push towards improving transparency of conflicts of interest (COI). This study aims to determine the accuracy of reporting of COIs among studies in major vascular surgery journals.

METHODS

A literature search identified all comparative studies published from January 2018 - December 2018 from three major United States vascular surgery journals (Journal of Vascular Surgery, Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, and Annals of Vascular Surgery). Industry payments were collected using the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments database. COI discrepancies were identified by comparing author declaration statements with payments found for the year of publication and year prior.

RESULTS

A total of 239 studies (1642 authors) were identified. Two hundred twenty-one studies (92%) and 669 authors (63%) received undisclosed payments when utilizing a cut-off payment amount of $250. In 2018, 10,778 payments (totaling $22,174,578) were made by 145 companies. Food and beverage payments were the most commonly reported transaction (42%), but accounted for only 3% of total reported monetary values. Authors who accurately disclosed payments received significantly higher median general payments compared to authors who did not accurately disclose payments ($56,581 [IQR: $2441 - $100,551] vs $2,361 [IQR: $525 - $9,699], p < .001). When stratifying by dollar-amount discrepancy, the proportions of authors receiving undisclosed payments decreased with increasing payment thresholds. Multivariate analysis demonstrated that first and senior authors were both significantly more likely to have undisclosed payments (OR 2.0, 95% CI 1.1-3.6 and OR 2.9, 95% CI 1.6-5.2, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a significant discordance between self-reported COI in vascular surgery studies compared to payments received in the CMS Open Payments database. This study highlights the need for increased efforts to both improve definitions of what constitutes a relevant COI and encourage a standardized reporting process for vascular surgery studies.

Industry Payment to Vascular Neurologists

Background and Purpose—

Industry payments to physicians raise concerns regarding conflicts of interest that could impact patient care. We explored nonresearch and nonownership payments from industry to vascular neurologists to identify trends in compensation.

Methods—

Using Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology data, we explored financial relationships between industry and US vascular neurologists from 2013 to 2018. We analyzed payment characteristics, including payment categories, payment distribution among physicians, regional trends, and biomedical manufacturers. Furthermore, we analyzed the top 1% (by compensation) of vascular neurologists with detailed payment categories, their position, and their contribution to stroke guidelines.

Results—

The number of board certified vascular neurologist increased from 1169 in 2013 to 1746 in 2018. The total payments to vascular neurologist increased from $99 749 in 2013 to $1 032 302 in 2018. During the study period, 16% to 17% of vascular neurologists received industry payments. Total payments from industry and mean physician payments increased yearly over this period, with consulting fee (31.1%) and compensation for services other than consulting (30.7%) being the highest paid categories. The top 10 manufacturers made the majority of the payments, and the top 10 products changed from drug or biological products to devices. Physicians from south region of the United States received the highest total payment (38.72%), which steadily increased. Payments to top 1% vascular neurologists increased from 64% to 79% over the period as payments became less evenly distributed. Among the top 1%, 42% specialized in neuro intervention, 11% contributed to American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, and around 75% were key leaders in the field.

Conclusions—

A small proportion of US vascular neurologists consistently received the majority of industry payments, the value of which grew over the study period. Only 11% of the top 1% receiving industry payments have authored American Heart Association/American Stroke Association guidelines, but ≈75% seem to be key leaders in the field. Whether this influences clinical practice and behavior requires further investigation.

Editors' and authors' individual conflicts of interest disclosure and journal transparency. A cross-sectional study of high-impact medical specialty journals

OBJECTIVE

To assess the fulfilment of authors' and editors' individual disclosure of potential conflicts of interest in a group of highly influential medicine journals across a variety of specialties.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Top-ranked five journals as per 2017 Journal Citation Report impact factor of 26 medical, surgery and imaging specialties.

INTERVENTIONS

Observational analysis.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Percentage of journals requiring disclosure of authors' and editors' individual potential conflicts of interest (CoI). Journals that were listed as followers of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) Recommendations, members of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and linked to a third party (ie, college, professional association/society, public institution).

RESULTS

Although 99% (129/130) of journals required author's CoI disclosure, only 12% (16/130) reported individual editors' potential CoIs. Forty-five per cent (58/130) of journals were followers of the ICMJE Recommendations, and 73% (95/130) were COPE members. Most (69%; 90/130) were linked to a college, professional society/association or public institution. Only one journal did not have policies on individual authors' and editors' CoI disclosure.

CONCLUSION

Very few high-impact medical journals disclosed their editorial teams' individual potential CoIs-conversely, almost all required disclosure of authors' individual CoIs. Journal followers of the ICMJE Recommendations should regularly disclose the editors' individual CoIs, as this is the only legitimate way to ask the same transparency of authors.

Editors Should Declare Conflicts of Interest

Editors have increasing pressure as scholarly publishing tries to shore up trust and reassure academics and the public that traditional peer review is robust, fail-safe, and corrective. Hidden conflicts of interest (COIs) may skew the fairness of the publishing process because they could allow the status of personal or professional relationships to positively influence the outcome of peer review or reduce the processing period of this process. Not all authors have such privileged relationships. In academic journals, editors usually have very specialized skills and are selected as agents of trust, entrusted with the responsibility of serving as quality control gate-keepers during peer review. In many cases, editors form extensive networks, either with other professionals, industry, academic bodies, journals, or publishers. Such networks and relationships may influence their decisions or even their subjectivity towards a set of submitting authors, paper, or institute, ultimately influencing the peer review process. These positions and relationships are not simply aspects of a curriculum, they are potential COIs. Thus, on the editorial board of all academic journals, editors should carry a COI statement that reflects their past history, as well as actual relationships and positions that they have, as these may influence their editorial functions.

Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing

The changing world of scholarly communication and the emerging new wave of ‘Open Science’ or ‘Open Research’ has brought to light a number of controversial and hotly debated topics. Evidence-based rational debate is regularly drowned out by misinformed or exaggerated rhetoric, which does not benefit the evolving system of scholarly communication. This article aims to provide a baseline evidence framework for ten of the most contested topics, in order to help frame and move forward discussions, practices, and policies. We address issues around preprints and scooping, the practice of copyright transfer, the function of peer review, predatory publishers, and the legitimacy of ‘global’ databases. These arguments and data will be a powerful tool against misinformation across wider academic research, policy and practice, and will inform changes within the rapidly evolving scholarly publishing system.