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

Pharmaceutical Industry Payments to Medical Oncologists in the Netherlands: Trends and Patterns Provided by an Open-Access Transparency Data Set

PURPOSE

Health care expenditure related to oncologic treatments is skyrocketing although many treatments offer marginal, if any, clinical benefit. Financial conflicts of interest (fCOI) resulting from pharmaceutical industry (pharma) payments to physicians is increasingly recognized as a predictive factor for regulatory board approval and guideline incorporation of low-value treatments. We sought to study the extent to which pharma payments to medical oncologists occur in the Netherlands, the amount of money involved, and whether these occur more frequently and are higher for key opinion leaders (KOLs).

METHODS

In our cross-sectional retrospective database study, we used several Dutch open-access databases and extracted data registered between 2019 and 2021.

RESULTS

A cumulative amount of €899,863 was paid to 48.8% of the 408 registered medical oncologists. Over time, there was a marked decline in both the proportion of medical oncologists receiving payments (from 40.4% in 2019 to 19.1% in 2021) and the mean annual value of payments (from €2,962 in 2019 to €2,188 in 2021) with the latter mainly resulting from a decline in hospitality-related transactions. KOLs were more likely to receive industry payments and received a higher median payment value.

DISCUSSION

Our findings should contribute to the increasing awareness in the Netherlands of the potential effects of fCOI.

Trends in Industry Payments to Physicians in the First 6 Years After Graduate Medical Training

IMPORTANCE

Financial incentives and conflicts of interest may influence physician decision-making. It is important to understand financial interactions between the pharmaceutical and medical device industries and newly independent physicians who have recently completed their graduate medical education using a national transparency program.

OBJECTIVE

To identify trends in industry payments to recent graduates of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited residency or fellowship programs in orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, and internal medicine.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This retrospective cohort study analyzed Open Payments reports of industry payments made between July 1, 2015, and June 30, 2021, to newly independent physicians from residency or fellowship programs in neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery, and internal medicine who graduated between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2019.

EXPOSURES

Specialties (neurosurgery and orthopedic surgery, with internal medicine as a comparison group).

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Industry payments to newly independent physicians, including any general payments (noninvestment or nonresearch) and at least $5000 of general payments in aggregate value per year, which are considered significant financial conflicts of interest. The percentage of newly independent physicians accepting general payments during the first 6 years after graduation was analyzed by specialty and sex using cumulative incidence curves and hazard ratios (HRs) in univariable and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

There were 45 745 recent graduates (28 137 men [62%]; median age at graduation, 33.0 [IQR, 31.0-35.0 years]) in neurosurgery (n = 595), orthopedic surgery (n = 3481), and internal medicine (n = 41 669). In the first 2 years of independent practice, 95% (n = 3297), 92% (n = 546), and 59% (n = 24 522) of newly independent physicians in orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, and internal medicine, respectively, accepted any general payments. A higher percentage of the newly independent physicians in orthopedic surgery and neurosurgery accepted any general payments (orthopedic surgery vs internal medicine: HR, 5.36 [95% CI, 4.42-6.51] for women and 7.01 [95% CI, 6.35-7.73] for men; neurosurgery vs internal medicine: HR, 3.25 [95% CI, 2.24-4.72] for women and 4.08 [95% CI, 3.37-4.94] for men; P = .03). A higher percentage of male physicians compared with female physicians accepted any general payments (orthopedic surgery, 2884 of 3026 [95%] vs 413 of 455 [91%]; P < .001; neurosurgery, 466 of 502 [93%] vs 80 of 93 [86%]; P = .01; and internal medicine, 15 462 of 24 609 [63%] vs 9043 of 17 034 [53%]; P < .001) and at least $5000 of general payments (orthopedic surgery, 763 of 3026 [25%] vs 71 of 455 [16%]; P < .001; neurosurgery, 87 of 502 [17%] vs 5 of 93 [5%%]; P < .001; and internal medicine, 882 of 24 609 [4%] vs 210 of 17 034 [1%]; P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cohort study of newly independent physicians in orthopedic surgery, neurosurgery, and internal medicine, the financial relationship with potential conflicts of interest between newly independent physicians and industry began to develop soon after training programs and continued to expand in the early years of newly independent physician practice. Newly independent physicians in surgical specialties and male physicians accepted significantly higher industry payments. Further studies are needed to evaluate whether modifiable factors are associated with the future outcome of newly independent physicians accepting general payments.

Evaluation of Conflicts of Interest among Participants of the Japanese Nephrology Clinical Practice Guideline

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Rigorous and transparent management strategies for conflicts of interest and clinical practice guidelines with the best available evidence are necessary for the development of nephrology guidelines. However, there was no study assessing financial and nonfinancial conflicts of interest, quality of evidence underlying the Japanese guidelines for CKD, and conflict of interest policies for guideline development.

DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS

This cross-sectional study examined financial and nonfinancial conflicts of interest among all 142 authors of CKD guidelines issued by the Japanese Society of Nephrology using a personal payment database from all 92 major Japanese pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019 and self-citations by guideline authors. Also, the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations underlying the guidelines and conflicts of interest policies of Japanese, US, and European nephrology societies were evaluated.

RESULTS

Among 142 authors, 125 authors (88%) received $6,742,889 in personal payments from 56 pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. Four-year combined median payment per author was $8258 (interquartile range, $2230‒$51,617). The amounts of payments and proportion of guideline authors with payments remained stable during and after guideline development. The chairperson, vice chairperson, and group leaders received higher personal payments than other guideline authors. Of 861 references in the guidelines, 69 (8%) references were self-cited by the guideline authors, and 76% of the recommendations were on the basis of low or very low quality of evidence. There were no fully rigorous and transparent conflicts of interest policies for nephrology guideline authors in the United States, Europe, and Japan.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the Japanese CKD guideline recommendations were on the basis of low quality of evidence by the guideline authors tied with pharmaceutical companies, suggesting the need for better financial conflicts of interest management.

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.

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.

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.