Approval processes in evidence-based clinical practice guidelines sponsored by medical specialty societies

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.

Clinical practice guidelines for cancer pain: problems and solutions

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) should allow practitioners to follow the best evidence-based management for patients. The increasing specialisation of medicine and pain medicine has increased the number of CPGs, but practitioners are still facing contradictory advice that can be difficult to implement and follow.

RECENT FINDINGS

A recent comprehensive metareview of 25 reviews have highlighted that the same issues of quality, barriers to implementation and difficulties in applicability are as prevalent as they were years ago when assessment tools (e.g. AGREE II) and recommendations for CPG development were introduced. There remains a lack of consistency of recommendations and quality of evidence for CPGs in cancer pain that impedes the ability to provide the 'best' management for patients.

SUMMARY

Even the most renowned and apparently high-quality CPGs in many specialities, including cancer pain, still are potentially deficient especially in terms of applicability, implementation, and transparency of conflicts of interest. Despite the increased scrutiny, in part related to the opioid crisis, the situation has not changed. The development of CPGs should engender collaboration with multiple stakeholder groups and focus on transparency and facilitating implementation.

A user guide to the American Society of Hematology clinical practice guidelines

Since November 2018, Blood Advances has published American Society of Hematology (ASH) clinical practice guidelines on venous thromboembolism, immune thrombocytopenia, and sickle cell disease. More ASH guidelines on these and other topics are forthcoming. These guidelines have been developed using consistent processes, methods, terminology, and presentation formats. In this article, we describe how patients, clinicians, policymakers, researchers, and others may use ASH guidelines and the many related derivates by describing how to interpret information and how to apply it to clinical decision-making. Also, by exploring how these documents are developed, we aim to clarify their limitations and possible inappropriate usage.

UEG framework for the development of high-quality clinical guidelines

The 48 national member societies and 17 specialist member societies which operate under the umbrella of United European Gastroenterology (UEG) increasingly develop clinical practice guidelines for both national and international implementation. The methodologies and strategies used in these guidelines vary considerably. The UEG Quality of Care Taskforce aimed to provide a framework for quality guidelines in order to assist member societies in the process of developing guidelines, and to provide a tool for readers of guidelines to critically appraise their quality. We outline the steps necessary to begin the guideline development process, how to build working groups, how to search for evidence, how to grade the quality of the evidence, how to reach consensus on statements and how to write the guideline document. We believe that using this framework will increase the potential to produce a high-quality guideline which is transparent, independent, reproducible and implementable.