Transparency of industry payments needed in clinical practice guidelines

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.

Evaluating the reproducibility of research in obstetrics and gynecology

OBJECTIVE

Reproducibility is a core tenet of scientific research. A reproducible study is one where the results can be recreated by using the same methodology and materials as the original researchers. Unfortunately, reproducibility is not a standard to which the majority of research is currently adherent.

METHODS

Our cross-sectional survey evaluated 300 trials in the field of Obstetrics and Gynecology. Our primary objective was to identify nine indicators of reproducibility and transparency. These indicators include availability of data, analysis scripts, pre-registration information, study protocols, funding source, conflict of interest statements and whether or not the study was available via Open Access.

RESULTS

Of the 300 trials in our sample, 208 contained empirical data that could be assessed for reproducibility. None of the trials in our sample provided a link to their protocols or provided a statement on availability of materials. None were replication studies. Just 10.58% provided a statement regarding their data availability, while only 5.82% provided a statement on preregistration. 25.85% failed to report the presence or absence of conflicts of interest and 54.08% did not state the origin of their funding.

CONCLUSION

In the studies we examined, research in the field of Obstetrics and Gynecology is not consistently reproducible and frequently lacks conflict of interest disclosure. Consequences of this could be far-reaching and include increased research waste, widespread acceptance of misleading results and erroneous conclusions guiding clinical decision-making.

Analysis of conflict of interest policies among organizations producing clinical practice guidelines

BACKGROUND

Conflicts of interest (COI) jeopardize the validity of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs). When the Institute of Medicine promulgated COI policies in 2011, few organizations met these requirements, but it is unknown if organizations have improved their policies since that time. We sought to evaluate current adherence to IOM standards of COI policies.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We conducted a retrospective document review of COI policies and CPGs from organizations that published five or more CPGs between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. Organizations were identified via CPG databases. COI policies were obtained from an internet search. We collected data on i) the number of organizations that have COI policies specific to CPG development, ii) the number of policies meeting each IOM standard and iii) the number of IOM standards met by each policy. COI disclosures from five CPGs of each organization were assessed for adherence to IOM standards. Among the 46 organizations that published 5 or more CPGs, 36 (78%) had a COI policy. Standard 2.2b (requiring divestment of financial COI) was met least frequently, by 2 of 36 (6%) organizations. Standard 2.1 (requiring disclosure of COI) was met most frequently, by 33 of 36 (92%) organizations. A total of 31 of 36 (86%) organizations met 4 or fewer of the 7 IOM standards. Among the 16 organizations limiting COI to a minority of the CPG panel (standard 2.4c) and the 15 organizations prohibiting COI among chairs or co-chairs (standard 2.4d), 12 (75%) and 10 (67%) organizations violated the respective standard in at least one CPG. The main limitations of our study are the exclusion of organizations producing fewer CPGs and ability to assess only publicly available policies.

CONCLUSION

Among organizations producing CPGs, COI policies frequently do not meet IOM standards, and organizations often violate their own policies. These shortcomings may undermine the public trust in and thus the utility of CPGs. CPG-producing organizations should improve their COI policies and their strategies to manage COI to increase the trustworthiness of CPGs.

Adherence to the RIGHT statement in Society of Interventional Radiology guidelines

Context

The Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Health Care (RIGHT) Statement was developed by a multidisciplinary team of experts to improve reporting quality and transparency in clinical practice guideline development.

Objective

To assess the quality of reporting in clinical practice guidelines put forth by the Society of Interventional Radiology (SIR) and their adherence to the RIGHT statement checklist.

Methods

In March 2018, using the 22 criteria listed in the RIGHT statement, two researchers independently documented adherence to each item for all eligible guidelines listed by the SIR by reading through each guideline and using the RIGHT statement elaboration and explanation document as a guide to determine if each item was appropriately addressed as listed in the checklist. To qualify for inclusion in this study, each guideline must have met the strict definition for a clinical practice guideline as set forth by the National Institute of Health and the Institute of Medicine, meaning they were informed by a systematic review of evidence and intended to direct patient care and physician decisions. Guidelines were excluded if they were identified as consensus statements, position statements, reporting standards, and training standards or guidelines. After exclusion criteria were applied, the two researchers scored each of the remaining clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using a prespecified abstraction Google form that reflected the RIGHT statement checklist (22 criteria; 35 items inclusive of subset questions). Each item on the abstraction form consisted of a “yes/no” option; each item on the RIGHT checklist was recorded as “yes” if it was included in the guideline and “no” if it was not. Each checklist item was weighed equally. Partial adherence to checklist items was recorded as “no.” Data were extracted into Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation) for statistical analysis.

Results

The initial search results yielded 129 CPGs in the following areas: 13 of the guidelines were in the field of interventional oncology; 16 in neurovascular disorders; five in nonvascular interventions; four in pediatrics; 25 in peripheral, arterial, and aortic disease; one in cardiac; one in portal and mesenteric vascular disease; 37 in practice development and safety; three in spine and musculoskeletal disorders; 14 in venous disease; five in renal failure/hemodialysis; and five in women’s health. Of the 46 guidelines deemed eligible for evaluation by the RIGHT checklist, 12 of the checklist items showed less than 25% adherence and 13 showed more than 75% adherence. Of 35 individual RIGHT statement checklist items, adherence was found for a mean (SD) of 22.9 items (16.3). The median number of items with adherence was 21 (interquartile range, 7.5–38).

Conclusion

The quality of reporting in interventional radiology guidelines is lacking in several key areas, including whether patient preferences were considered, whether costs and resources were considered, the strength of the recommendations, and the certainty of the body of evidence. Poor adherence to the RIGHT statement checklist in these guidelines reveals many areas for improvement in guideline reporting.

Disclosure of payments by pharmaceutical companies to healthcare professionals in the UK: analysis of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry's Disclosure UK database, 2015 and 2016 cohorts

OBJECTIVES

To analyse the section of Disclosure UK that pertains to healthcare professionals (HCPs) in order to provide insight into the database's structure and content and suggest ways to improve its transparency.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPANTS

Cohort study of drug companies and HCPs in the 2015 and 2016 versions of Disclosure UK.

RESULTS

Companies report transfers of value (ToVs) to named HCPs or, where an HCP declines to consent, in aggregate. Only a limited number of variables describe the recipient HCP and the ToV, precluding refined analyses. In 2015, 107 companies reported 54 910 ToVs worth ₤50 967 728. In 2016, 109 companies reported ToVs but spending decreased by 7.3%. The spending was concentrated: the top 10 spenders reported about 50% of the total value, with consultancy-related payments comprising over 70%, and the rest being costs for events. In 2015, 55.5% (30 478) of ToVs worth ₤24 428 619 (47.9%) were disclosed at the individual HCP level, increasing to 64.5% (32 407) and ₤28 145 091 (59.2%) in 2016. Despite increased individual-level disclosure in 2016, the median number of ToVs reported by each company at the individual level was only 57.7%, with 25% of companies reporting less than 38.6%. We found little agreement (62%-48% in 2015 and 46%-30% in 2016) between HCP consent rates that we calculated based on information in the database and those provided by companies.

CONCLUSIONS

Key deficiencies in Disclosure UK include: insufficient information on payments and recipients, a relatively low HCP consent rate for individual-level disclosure, differences in consent rates across companies and payment types, and reporting ambiguities or inconsistencies. We employ these findings to develop recommendations for improving transparency, including an easily interpretable consent rate statistic that allows for comparison across years, firms and countries. If deficiencies remain unresolved, the UK should consider introducing legislation requiring mandatory disclosure to allow for adequate tracking of industry payments.