Failure to discount for conflict of interest when evaluating medical literature: a randomised trial of physicians

The impact of mandatory conflict of interest disclosures on editors’ manuscript acceptance decisions: A cross‐sectional observational study

Objective

Although current ethical standards mandate conflict of interest (COI) disclosure by authors of peer‐reviewed publications, it is unknown whether disclosure affects a manuscript's fate. Our objective was to identify associations between author COI disclosure and editorial decision to publish.

Methods

We performed a cross‐sectional observational study of editorial decisions for original research and brief research report manuscripts submitted to Annals of Emergency Medicine between June 2014 and January 2018 using data from the journal's editorial decision software and data from a prior study that characterized author COI for the same manuscripts. Outcomes of interest included final editor decision to publish (primary), initial editor decision, and number of revisions. We compared outcomes for manuscripts with COI versus those without and by type of COI (commercial/government/other).

Results

Out of 1312 manuscripts in the sample, 65.1% had no COI declarations, and 34.9% had one or more. Overall likelihood of editorial decision to publish was 13.5% (115/854) for articles without COI and 26.9% (123/458) for those with COI. Overall likelihood of editorial decision to publish was 19.8% (19/96) for articles with commercial COI only versus 33.3% (35/105) for those with government COI only.

Conclusions

Articles with author‐reported COI were more likely to be published than those without such a declaration. Additionally, results suggest that reports of government COI are associated with improved chance of publication. Authorities should consider relaxing COI requirements temporarily to allow investigators to perform larger scale, randomized controlled studies of the impact of mandated COI disclosure.

Ethics and Industry Interactions: Impact on Specialty Training, Clinical Practice, and Research

Physicians in training and their mentors must be cognizant of ethical concerns related to industry interactions. Mentors perceived to have conflicts of interest or to be engaging in misconduct can unconsciously and profoundly affect the learning and academic environment by implying certain values and expectations. Despite increased awareness of ethical concerns related to industry interactions in clinical practice and research, there remains a need for interventions to prevent ethical transgressions. Ethics education is essential and a move in the right direction, but it alone is likely inadequate in preventing unethical behavior. Education should be supplemented with ethical environments at institutions.

Effect of revealing authors' conflicts of interests in peer review: randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of disclosing authors' conflict of interest declarations to peer reviewers at a medical journal.

DESIGN

Randomized controlled trial.

SETTING

Manuscript review process at the Annals of Emergency Medicine. PARTICIPANTS: Reviewers (n=838) who reviewed manuscripts submitted between 2 June 2014 and 23 January 2018 inclusive (n=1480 manuscripts).

INTERVENTION

Reviewers were randomized to either receive (treatment) or not receive (control) authors' full International Committee of Medical Journal Editors format conflict of interest disclosures before reviewing manuscripts. Reviewers rated the manuscripts as usual on eight quality ratings and were then surveyed to obtain "counterfactual scores"-that is, the scores they believed they would have given had they been assigned to the opposite arm-as well as attitudes toward conflicts of interest.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Overall quality score that reviewers assigned to the manuscript on submitting their review (1 to 5 scale). Secondary outcomes were scores the reviewers submitted for the seven more specific quality ratings and counterfactual scores elicited in the follow-up survey.

RESULTS

Providing authors' conflict of interest disclosures did not affect reviewers' mean ratings of manuscript quality (M_control=2.70 (SD 1.11) out of 5; M_treatment=2.74 (1.13) out of 5; mean difference 0.04, 95% confidence interval -0.05 to 0.14), even for manuscripts with disclosed conflicts (M_control= 2.85 (1.12) out of 5; M_treatment=2.96 (1.16) out of 5; mean difference 0.11, -0.05 to 0.26). Similarly, no effect of the treatment was seen on any of the other seven quality ratings that the reviewers assigned. Reviewers acknowledged conflicts of interest as an important matter and believed that they could correct for them when they were disclosed. However, their counterfactual scores did not differ from actual scores (M_actual=2.69; M_{counterfactual}=2.67; difference in means 0.02, 0.01 to 0.02). When conflicts were reported, a comparison of different source types (for example, government, for-profit corporation) found no difference in effect.

CONCLUSIONS

Current ethical standards require disclosure of conflicts of interest for all scientific reports. As currently implemented, this practice had no effect on any quality ratings of real manuscripts being evaluated for publication by real peer reviewers.

The effects of industry funding and positive outcomes in the interpretation of clinical trial results: a randomized trial among Dutch psychiatrists

BACKGROUND

Most studies are inclined to report positive rather than negative or inconclusive results. It is currently unknown how clinicians appraise the results of a randomized clinical trial. For example, how does the study funding source influence the appraisal of an RCT, and do positive findings influence perceived credibility and clinical relevance? This study investigates whether psychiatrists' appraisal of a scientific abstract is influenced by industry funding disclosures and a positive outcome.

METHODS

Dutch psychiatrists were randomized to evaluate a scientific abstract describing a fictitious RCT for a novel antipsychotic drug. Four different abstracts were created reporting either absence or presence of industry funding disclosure as well as a positive or a negative outcome. Primary outcomes were the perceived credibility and clinical relevance of the study results (10-point Likert scale). Secondary outcomes were the assessment of methodological quality and interest in reading the full article.

RESULTS

Three hundred ninety-five psychiatrists completed the survey (completion rate 45%). Industry funding disclosure was found not to influence perceived credibility (Mean Difference MD 0.12; 95% CI - 0.28 to 0.47, p?) nor interpretation of its clinical relevance (MD 0.14; 95% CI - 0.54 to 0.27, p?). A negative outcome was perceived as more credible than a positive outcome (MD 0.81 points; 95% Confidence Interval (CI) 0.43 to 1.18, p?), but did not affect clinical relevance scores (MD -0.14; 95% CI - 0.54 to 0.27).

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, industry funding disclosure was not associated with the perceived credibility nor judgement of clinical relevance of a fictional RCT by psychiatrists. Positive study outcomes were found to be less credible compared to negative outcomes, but industry funding had no significant effects. Psychiatrists may underestimate the influence of funding sources on research results. The fact that physicians indicated negative outcomes to be more credible may point to more awareness of existing publication bias in the scientific literature.

Effect of different financial competing interest statements on readers' perceptions of clinical educational articles: a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

To investigate how different competing interest (COI) statements affect clinical readers' perceptions of education articles.

DESIGN

Randomised controlled trial.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Random sample of UK doctors.

INTERVENTIONS

We created four permutations of each of two clinical reviews (on gout or dyspepsia), which varied only in terms of the COI statement. Volunteers were blinded and randomised to receive one review and asked to complete a questionnaire after reading it. Blinded factorial analyses of variance and analyses of covariance were carried out to assess the influence of each review and type of COI on outcomes.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES

Confidence in the article's conclusions (primary outcome), its importance, their level of interest in the article and their likelihood to change practice after reading it.

RESULTS

Of 10 889 doctors invited to participate, 1065 (10%) volunteered. Of these, 749 (70%) completed the survey. Analysis of covariance (adjusting for age, sex, job type, years since qualification) showed no significant difference between the groups in participants' confidence in the article (gout: p=0.32, dyspepsia: p=0.78) or their rating of its importance (gout: p=0.09, dyspepsia: p=0.79). For the gout review, participants rated articles with advisory board and consultancies COI as significantly less interesting than those with no COI (p=0.028 with Bonferroni correction). Among participants indicating that they treat the condition and that the article's recommendations differed from their own practice, there was no significant difference in likelihood to change practice between groups (gout: p=0.59, n=59; dyspepsia: p=0.56, n=80).

CONCLUSIONS

Doctors' confidence in educational articles was not influenced by the COI statements. Further work is required to determine if doctors do not perceive these COIs as important in educational articles or if they do not pay attention to these statements. More meaningful COI disclosure practices may be needed, which highlight context-specific potential sources of bias to readers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02548312; Results.

Changes in the type and amount of spending disclosed by Australian pharmaceutical companies: an observational study

OBJECTIVES

To describe and quantify disclosed payments from the pharmaceutical industry to the healthcare sector, and to examine the impact of the 2015 changes to Australia's self-regulated system of transparency.

DESIGN

Observational database study.

SETTING

Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

Publicly available reports submitted by members of Australian pharmaceutical industry trade organisations, Medicines Australia and the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association (GBMA) (October 2011-December 2017).

EXPOSURE

Changes to transparency reporting requirements with the updates of pharmaceutical industry Codes of Conduct in 2015.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Elements of healthcare sector spending that members of industry organisations are required to publicly disclose; cumulative amount of disclosed spending (monthly average) in the year prior to and following the revision.

RESULTS

There was a 34.1% reduction in disclosed spending from Medicines Australia member companies in the year after the 2015 changes to the Code of Conduct were introduced ($A89 658 566 in the preceding year, October 2014-September 2015; $A59 052 551 in the following year). The new Code allowed for reduced reporting of spending on food and beverages at events and for sponsored healthcare professionals. However, there was enhanced transparency around identification of individual health professionals receiving payments. GBMA member reporting totalled $A2 580 402 in the year prior to the revision, then ceased.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows the limitations of a self-regulatory system around industry disclosure of spending. We advocate for robust regulatory systems, such as legislation, to promote mandatory long-lasting public transparency.

The Shadows of Sunlight: Why Disclosure Should Not Be a Priority in Addressing Conflicts of Interest

This article argues that positioning disclosure as a primary remedy in addressing the ethical problems posed by conflicts of interest (‘COIs’) in medicine and health is an error. Instead, bioethical resources should be devoted to the problems associated with sequestration, defined as the elimination of relationships between commercial industries and health professionals in all cases where it is remotely feasible. The argument begins by arguing that adopting Andrew Stark’s conceptual framework for COIs leads to advantages in understanding COIs and in ordering priorities for intervention. The article then draws on prior work establishing that COIs are, under ordinary epidemiologic standards, properly regarded as population health hazards. This justifies attention to possible remedies, of which disclosure generates by far the most analysis. Such primacy is unwarranted given the extensive evidence suggesting that disclosure as a remedy for COIs is at best ineffective. ‘At best’ is justified because the evidence also shows that disclosure may have a perverse effect, intensifying biased behaviors. Expending significant attention on an ineffective or even deleterious intervention is unjustified and also crowds out devotion of resources to the real problems that attend sequestration. Therefore, disclosure ought to be regarded as a lower priority among possible COI interventions.

Potential Financial Conflict of Interest Among Physician Editorial Board Members of Orthopaedic Surgery Journals

BACKGROUND

The practice of medicine is based on evidence from peer-reviewed literature. As can occur with author-related funding, the integrity of the process by which manuscripts are reviewed, edited, and approved for publication may be at risk due to financial conflict of interest. The purpose of our study was to assess potential financial conflict of interest among physician editorial board members of orthopaedic surgery journals.

METHODS

We identified the physician editorial board members of 15 orthopaedic surgery journals and searched the 2014 payments that were archived in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments system (mandated by the Physician Payments Sunshine Act). Total dollar values were calculated and tabulated in a multilevel fashion: nothing reported, >$0 and ≤$10,000, >$10,000, >$250,000, and >$950,000.

RESULTS

We identified 908 physician editors of 15 orthopaedic surgery journals. Something of financial value was received by 78% (712 of 908) of these individuals. Rates of editorial board potential financial conflict of interest for individual journals ranged from 4% to 73% in the >$10,000 category. At the >$250,000 mark, rates ranged from 0% (2 journals) to 31%. When applying the >$950,000 criterion, physician potential conflict of interest ranged from 0% (5 journals) to 13%.

CONCLUSIONS

Editor-related potential financial conflicts of interest exist in the orthopaedic surgery journals that we analyzed. These potential financial conflicts could possibly impact reviews.

Impact of industry collaboration on randomised controlled trials in oncology

BACKGROUND

Industry funders can simply provide money or collaborate in trial design, analysis or reporting of clinical trials. Our aim was to assess the impact of industry collaboration on trial methodology and results of randomised controlled trials (RCT).

METHODS

We searched PubMed for oncology RCTs published May 2013 to December 2015 in peer-reviewed journals with impact factor > 5 requiring reporting of funder role. Two authors extracted methodologic (primary end-point; blinding of the patient, clinician and outcomes assessor; and analysis) and outcome data. We used descriptive statistics and two-sided Fisher exact tests to compare characteristics of trials with collaboration, with industry funding only, and without industry funding.

RESULTS

We included 224 trials. Compared to those without industry funding, trials with collaboration used more placebo control (RR 3·59, 95% CI [1·88-6·83], p < 0001), intention-to-treat analysis (RR 1·32, 95% CI [1·04-1·67], p = 02), and blinding of patients (RR 3·05, 95% CI [1·71-5·44], p < 0001), clinicians (RR 3·36, 95% CI [1·83-6·16], p≤·001) and outcomes assessors (RR 3·03, 95% CI [1·57-5·83], p = 0002). They did not differ in use of overall survival as a primary end-point (RR 1·27 95% CI [0·72-2·24]) and were similarly likely to report positive results (RR 1·11 95% CI [0·85-1·46], p = 0.45). Studies with funding only did not differ from those without funding.

CONCLUSIONS

Oncology RCTs with industry collaboration were more likely to use some high-quality methods than those without industry funding, with similar rates of positive results. Our findings suggest that collaboration is not associated with trial outcomes and that mandatory disclosure of funder roles may mitigate bias.

Are Disease Awareness Links on Prescription Drug Websites Misleading? A Randomized Study

We sought to determine whether links from branded prescription drug websites to websites containing disease information mislead participants about drug benefits and whether nonsponsorship disclosures diminish this potential effect. We randomly assigned online panelists with depression (N = 1,071) to view a fictitious prescription drug website that had (a) no link to a disease information website (control), (b) a link with no disclosure, (c) a link with a simple nonsponsorship disclosure, or (d) a link with a detailed nonsponsorship disclosure. If participants in the link conditions did not click the link, they were returned to the drug website and encouraged to click it. All participants then completed an online questionnaire assessing recall, perceptions, and intentions. Few participants (12%) clicked the link without prompting; 67% did so when prompted. Compared with control participants, participants in link conditions were more likely to confuse disease information with drug benefits and to recall fewer true drug benefits. Disclosures did not diminish these effects, and exposure to disease information did not affect other perceptions or intentions. Consumers seem to confuse information on disease websites with information on branded prescription drug websites. Disclosures may not adequately help consumers to distinguish between the 2 types of information.

The Impact of Financial Disclosure on Attendee Assessment of Objectivity in Continuing Medical Education Programs in Psychiatry: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of financial conflict of interest disclosures by speakers at continuing medical education (CME) programs is to assist attendees in their assessment of the objectivity of the information presented. This empirical study was undertaken to determine what level of disclosure is optimal to achieve this goal.

METHODS

Attendees at five CME programs were randomly assigned to receive either a standard financial disclosure, an intermediate level that included whether speakers received more or less than 5% of their income from each company they disclosed, or a high level of disclosure that included the percent of their income derived from each company. A total of 169 attendees (85.4% response rate) completed a questionnaire regarding the objectivity of the CME presentation they attended.

RESULTS

Attendees receiving the highest level of disclosure came significantly closer to the ratings of speaker bias made by peer reviewers than did attendees receiving medium or low levels of disclosure (p = 0.03; effect size 0.31). Among the minority of attendees who received the highest level of disclosure but whose assessment of bias differed from that of peer reviewers, however, there was a tendency to underestimate bias (5.9 vs 31.4%; p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

The major limitation of this study was an overall low level of bias in the presentations, making it difficult to generalize these findings to less objective programs. The study did not address whether the process of disclosure had an impact on speakers' behavior. This study provides mixed support for higher levels of financial disclosure than are currently required for CME programs.

Financial Conflicts of Interest, Disclosure, and Academic Discipline

Peer assessments of researchers' financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) are crucial to effective FCOI management. We sought to determine how academics perceive FCOI disclosure and whether their perceptions vary depending on discipline and educational backgrounds. Participants (faculty and staff members from a multi-disciplinary academic medical center) responded to a questionnaire involving 10 hypothetical scenarios in which researchers either disclosed or failed to disclose a financial conflict (between-participants manipulation). Participants viewed disclosure as important and believed that researchers' objectivity would be affected by undisclosed FCOIs. In contrast to non-physicians, physicians showed greater recognition that the existence of an FCOI does not depend on its disclosure. This suggests that physicians are relatively well informed about FCOIs, which is likely attributable to more education about them.

Potential Conflict of Interest and Bias in the RACGP's Smoking Cessation Guidelines: Are GPs Provided with the Best Advice on Smoking Cessation for their Patients?

Patient visits are an important opportunity for general practitioners (GPs) to discuss the risks of smoking and cessation strategies. In Australia, the guidelines on cessation published by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners (the Guidelines) represent a key resource for GPs in this regard. The predominant message of the Guidelines is that pharmacotherapy should be recommended as first-line therapy for smokers expressing an interest in quitting. This, however, ignores established evidence about the success of unassisted quitting. Our analysis of the Guidelines identifies a number of potential conflicts of interest which may have affected the advice provided. These include extensive funding by the pharmaceutical industry of sources cited to support the recommendations, and relations between members of the Guidelines Content Advisory Group and the pharmaceutical industry. Recommendations issued by professional bodies have enormous potential impact upon public health and there is a need for the highest levels of scrutiny and transparency in their development. Information about research cited in guidelines should include funding sources, and developers should be free of obvious conflicts of interest. Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of global mortality. Concerns related to pharmaceutical industry funding of research, scientific integrity and recommendations on smoking cessation by medical advisory groups clearly have implications beyond Australia.

The Influence of Disclosure and Ethics Education on Perceptions of Financial Conflicts of Interest

This study explored how disclosure of financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) influences naïve or "lay" individuals' perceptions of the ethicality of researcher conduct. On a between-subjects basis, participants read ten scenarios in which researchers disclosed or failed to disclose relevant financial conflicts of interest. Participants evaluated the extent to which each vignette represented a FCOI, its possible influence on researcher objectivity, and the ethics of the financial relationship. Participants were then asked if they had completed a college-level ethics course. Results indicated that FCOI disclosure significantly influenced participants' perceptions of the ethicality of the situation, but only marginally affected perceptions of researcher objectivity and had no significant influence on perceptions of the existence of FCOIs. Participants who had previously completed a college-level ethics course appeared more sensitive to the importance of FCOI disclosure than those who lacked such background. This result suggests that formal ethical training may help individuals become more critical consumers of scientific research.

Reporting funding source or conflict of interest in abstracts of randomized controlled trials, no evidence of a large impact on general practitioners' confidence in conclusions, a three-arm randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Systematic reporting of funding sources is recommended in the CONSORT Statement for abstracts. However, no specific recommendation is related to the reporting of conflicts of interest (CoI). The objective was to compare physicians' confidence in the conclusions of abstracts of randomized controlled trials of pharmaceutical treatment indexed in PubMed.

METHODS

We planned a three-arm parallel-group randomized trial. French general practitioners (GPs) were invited to participate and were blinded to the study's aim. We used a representative sample of 75 abstracts of pharmaceutical industry-funded randomized controlled trials published in 2010 and indexed in PubMed. Each abstract was standardized and reported in three formats: 1) no mention of the funding source or CoI; 2) reporting the funding source only; and 3) reporting the funding source and CoI. GPs were randomized according to a computerized randomization on a secure Internet system at a 1:1:1 ratio to assess one abstract among the three formats. The primary outcome was GPs' confidence in the abstract conclusions (0, not at all, to 10, completely confident). The study was planned to detect a large difference with an effect size of 0.5.

RESULTS

Between October 2012 and June 2013, among 605 GPs contacted, 354 were randomized, 118 for each type of abstract. The mean difference (95% confidence interval) in GPs' confidence in abstract findings was 0.2 (-0.6; 1.0) (P = 0.84) for abstracts reporting the funding source only versus no funding source or CoI; -0.4 (-1.3; 0.4) (P = 0.39) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus no funding source and CoI; and -0.6 (-1.5; 0.2) (P = 0.15) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus the funding source only.

CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of a large impact of trial report abstracts mentioning funding sources or CoI on GPs' confidence in the conclusions of the abstracts.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01679873.

Disclosing conflicts of interest in patient decision aids

Background

In 2005, the International Patient Decisions Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration developed quality criteria for patient decisions aids; one of the quality dimensions dealt with disclosure of conflicts of interest (COIs). The purposes of this paper are to review newer evidence on dealing with COI in the development of patient decision aids and to readdress the theoretical justification and definition for this quality dimension.

Methods

The committee conducted a primary systematic literature review to seek published research addressing the question, "What is the evidence that disclosure of COIs in patient decision aids reduces biased decision making?" A secondary literature review included a systematic search for recent meta-analyses addressing COIs in other spheres of health care, including research and publication, medical education, and clinical care.

Results

No direct evidence was found addressing this quality dimension in the primary literature review. The secondary review yielded a comprehensive Institute of Medicine report, as well as four relevant meta-analyses addressing disclosure of COIs in health care. They revealed a broad consensus that disclosure of COIs is desirable in such areas as research publication, guideline development, medical education, and clinical care.

Conclusions

The committee recommends the criteria that are currently used to operationally define the quality dimension “disclosing conflicts of interest” be changed as follows (changes in italics):

Does the patient decision aid:

• report prominently and in plain language the source of funding to develop or exclusively distribute the patient decision aid?

• report prominently and in plain language whether funders, authors, or their affiliations, stand to gain or lose by choices patients make after using the patient decision aid?

Furthermore, based on a consensus that simple disclosure is insufficient to protect users from potentially biased information, the committee recommends that the IPDAS Collaboration consider adding the following criterion when the IPDAS consensus process is next conducted: “Does the patient decision aid:

• report that no funding to develop or exclusively distribute the patient decision aid has been received from commercial, for-profit entities that sell tests or treatments included as options in the patient decision aid?”

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act and the unaddressed role of nurses: an interest group analysis

Clinician-industry relationships have risen on the policy agenda due to their associated economic and ethical costs. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act (PPSA) is the first federal legislation that aims to mitigate these costs through mandating disclosure of these relationships. Interest group lobbying theory is used to show how stakeholders have responded to scrutiny, first through self-regulation and then, progressively, through contributing to legislation development. Limitations of the PPSA include the notable omission of nurses and allied health professionals, making it unlikely the PPSA will be effective in mitigating these costs. However, it is symbolic as it marks a departure from the traditional reliance on self-regulation on part of industry and the medical profession.

Perceptions of conflict of interest: surgeons, internists, and learners compared

BACKGROUND

Making a conflict of interest declaration is now mandatory at continuing medical education CME accredited events. However, these declarations tend to be largely perfunctory. This study sought to better understand physician perceptions surrounding conflict of interest.

METHODS

The same PowerPoint (Microsoft, Canada) presentation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQSOvch7Yg0&feature=g-upl) was delivered at multiple University of Alberta and Royal College CME-accredited events to surgeons, internists, and learners. After each talk, the audience was invited to complete an anonymous, pretested, and standardized 5-point Likert scale (strongly disagree to strongly agree) questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 136 surveys were analyzed from 31 surgeons, 49 internists, and 56 learners. In response to the question regarding whether by simply making a declaration, the speaker had provided adequate proof of any conflicts of interest, 71% of surgeons thought so, whereas only 35% of internists and 39% of learners agreed or strongly agreed (P = .004). Further probing this theme, the audience was asked whether a speaker must declare fees or monies received from industry for consulting, speaking, and research support. Once again there was a variance of opinion, with only 43% of surgeons agreeing or strongly agreeing with this statement; yet, 80% of internists and 71% of learners felt that such a declaration was necessary (P = .013). On the topic of believability (a speaker declaration makes him or her and the presentation more credible), the 3 groups were less polarized: 50% of surgeons, 41% of internists, and 52% of learners (P = .2) felt that this was the case. Although two thirds of surgeons (68%) and learners (66%) and nearly all internists (84%) felt that industry-sponsored research was biased, these differences were not significant (P = .2).

CONCLUSIONS

Even when they are completely open and honest, conflict of interest declarations do not negate the biases inherent in a speaker's talk or research when it is industry sponsored. The larger issue is how best to manage these conflicts.

Undue industry influences that distort healthcare research, strategy, expenditure and practice: a review

BACKGROUND

Expenditure on industry products (mostly drugs and devices) has spiraled over the last 15 years and accounts for substantial part of healthcare expenditure. The enormous financial interests involved in the development and marketing of drugs and devices may have given excessive power to these industries to influence medical research, policy, and practice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Review of the literature and analysis of the multiple pathways through which the industry has directly or indirectly infiltrated the broader healthcare systems. We present the analysis of the industry influences at the following levels: (i) evidence base production, (ii) evidence synthesis, (iii) understanding of safety and harms issues, (iv) cost-effectiveness evaluation, (v) clinical practice guidelines formation, (vi) healthcare professional education, (vii) healthcare practice, (viii) healthcare consumer's decisions.

RESULTS

We located abundance of consistent evidence demonstrating that the industry has created means to intervene in all steps of the processes that determine healthcare research, strategy, expenditure, practice and education. As a result of these interferences, the benefits of drugs and other products are often exaggerated and their potential harms are downplayed, and clinical guidelines, medical practice, and healthcare expenditure decisions are biased.

CONCLUSION

To serve its interests, the industry masterfully influences evidence base production, evidence synthesis, understanding of harms issues, cost-effectiveness evaluations, clinical practice guidelines and healthcare professional education and also exerts direct influences on professional decisions and health consumers. There is an urgent need for regulation and other action towards redefining the mission of medicine towards a more objective and patient-, population- and society-benefit direction that is free from conflict of interests.

Management of conflicts of interest in cardiovascular medicine

Conflicts of interest (COIs) are common and important in cardiovascular medicine. Although COIs do not automatically lead to bias, conflicts between financial considerations, fame, promotion, etc., threaten valued interests such as objectivity, integrity, patient protection and cost-savings. Strategies for managing COIs include disclosure, limitations and eliminations, each of which is employed in varying degrees by universities, funding and regulatory agencies, journal editors, providers of continuing medical education and professional societies. This paper describes benefits and pitfalls inherent in each of these strategies. There is no "gold standard" for the dealing with COIs in cardiovascular medicine, but finding ways to manage unavoidable COIs without compromising the benefits of productive relationships between investigators and industry will be essential to preserving valued interests and public trust in the cardiovascular profession.

Taking financial relationships into account when assessing research

Many scientific journals, government agencies, and universities require disclosure of sources of funding and financial interests related to research, such as stock ownership, consulting arrangements with companies, and patents. Although disclosure has become one of the central approaches for responding to financial conflicts of interest (COIs) in research, critics contend that information about financial COIs does not serve as a reliable indicator of research credibility, and therefore, studies should be evaluated solely based on their scientific merits. We argue that, while it is indeed important to evaluate studies on their scientific merits, it is often difficult to detect significant influences of financial relationships that affect research credibility. Moreover, at least five factors can be examined to determine whether financial relationships are likely to enhance, undermine, or have no impact on the credibility of research. These include as follows: whether sponsors, institutions, or researchers have a significant financial stake in the outcome of a study; whether the financial interests of the sponsors, institutions, or researchers coincide with the goal of conducting research that is objective and reliable; whether the sponsor, institution, or researchers have a history of biasing research in order to promote their financial goals; how easy it is to manipulate the research in order to achieve financial goals; and whether oversight mechanisms are in place which are designed to minimize bias. Since these factors vary from case to case, evaluating the impact of financial relationships depends on the circumstances. In some situations, one may decide that the financial relationships significantly undermine the study's credibility; in others, one may decide that they have no impact on credibility or even enhance it.

Researcher views about funding sources and conflicts of interest in nanotechnology

Dependence in nanotechnology on external funding and academic-industry relationships has led to questions concerning its influence on research directions, as well as the potential for conflicts of interest to arise and impact scientific integrity and public trust. This study uses a survey of 193 nanotechnology industry and academic researchers to explore whether they share similar concerns. Although these concerns are not unique to nanotechnology, its emerging nature and the prominence of industry funding lend credence to understanding its researchers' views, as these researchers are shaping the norms and direction of the field. The results of the survey show general agreement that funding sources are influencing research directions in nanotechnology; many respondents saw this influence in their own work as well as other researchers' work. Respondents also agreed that funding considerations were likely to influence whether researchers shared their results. Irrespective of their institutional affiliation or funding status, twice as many researchers as not considered financial conflicts of interest a cause for concern, and three times as many respondents as not disagreed financial conflicts of interest in nanotechnology were uncommon. Only a third was satisfied with the way that conflicts of interest are currently managed and believed current procedures would protect the integrity of nanotechnology research. The results also found differences in views depending on researchers' institutional affiliation and funding status.

Characteristics of physicians receiving large payments from pharmaceutical companies and the accuracy of their disclosures in publications: an observational study

Background

Financial relationships between physicians and industry are extensive and public reporting of industry payments to physicians is now occurring. Our objectives were to describe physician recipients of large total payments from these seven companies, and to examine discrepancies between these payments and conflict of interest (COI) disclosures in authors’ concurrent publications.

Methods

The investigative journalism organization, ProPublica, compiled the Dollars for Docs database of payments to individuals from publically available data from seven US pharmaceutical companies during the period 2009 to 2010. We examined the cohort of 373 physicians in this database who each received USD $100,000 or more in the reporting period 2009 to 2010.

Results

These physicians received a total of $52,600,624 during this period (mean payment per physician $141,020). The predominant specialties were internal medicine and psychiatry. 147 of these physicians authored a total of 134 publications in the first quarter of 2011 and 77% (103) of these publications provided a COI disclosure. 69% of the 103 publications did not contain disclosures of the payment listed in the Dollars for Docs database.

Conclusions

With increased public reporting of industry payments to physicians, it is apparent that large sums are being paid for services such as consulting and peer education. In over two-thirds of publications where COI disclosures were provided, the disclosures by physician authors did not include industry payments that were documented in the Dollars for Docs database.

A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures

BACKGROUND

The effects of clinical-trial funding on the interpretation of trial results are poorly understood. We examined how such support affects physicians' reactions to trials with a high, medium, or low level of methodologic rigor.

METHODS

We presented 503 board-certified internists with abstracts that we designed describing clinical trials of three hypothetical drugs. The trials had high, medium, or low methodologic rigor, and each report included one of three support disclosures: funding from a pharmaceutical company, NIH funding, or none. For both factors studied (rigor and funding), one of the three possible variations was randomly selected for inclusion in the abstracts. Follow-up questions assessed the physicians' impressions of the trials' rigor, their confidence in the results, and their willingness to prescribe the drugs.

RESULTS

The 269 respondents (53.5% response rate) perceived the level of study rigor accurately. Physicians reported that they would be less willing to prescribe drugs tested in low-rigor trials than those tested in medium-rigor trials (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.89; P=0.008) and would be more willing to prescribe drugs tested in high-rigor trials than those tested in medium-rigor trials (odds ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.18 to 4.32; P<0.001). Disclosure of industry funding, as compared with no disclosure of funding, led physicians to downgrade the rigor of a trial (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87; P=0.006), their confidence in the results (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98; P=0.04), and their willingness to prescribe the hypothetical drugs (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.94; P=0.02). Physicians were half as willing to prescribe drugs studied in industry-funded trials as they were to prescribe drugs studied in NIH-funded trials (odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.71; P<0.001). These effects were consistent across all levels of methodologic rigor.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians discriminate among trials of varying degrees of rigor, but industry sponsorship negatively influences their perception of methodologic quality and reduces their willingness to believe and act on trial findings, independently of the trial's quality. These effects may influence the translation of clinical research into practice.

Conflict of interest in clinical practice guideline development: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

There is an emerging literature on the existence and effect of industry relationships on physician and researcher behavior. Much less is known, however, about the effects of these relationships and other conflicts of interest (COI) on clinical practice guideline (CPG) development and recommendations. We performed a systematic review of the prevalence of COI and its effect on CPG recommendations.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We searched Medline (1980 to March, 2011) for studies that examined the effect of COI on CPG development and/or recommendations. Data synthesis was qualitative. Twelve studies fulfilled inclusion criteria; 9 were conducted in the US. All studies reported on financial relationships of CPG authors with the pharmaceutical industry; 1 study also examined relationships with diagnostic testing and insurance companies. The majority of guidelines had authors with industry affiliations, including consultancies (authors with relationship, range 6-80%); research support (4-78%); equity/stock ownership (2-17%); or any COI (56-87%). Four studies reported multiple types of financial interactions for individual authors (number of types per author: range 2 to 10 or more). Data on the effect of COI on CPG recommendations were confined to case studies wherein authors with specific financial ties appeared to benefit from the related CPG recommendations. In a single study, few authors believed that their relationships influenced their recommendations. No studies reported on intellectual COI in CPGs.

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

There are limited data describing the high prevalence of COI among CPG authors, and only case studies of the effect of COI on CPG recommendations. Further research is needed to explore this potential source of bias.

Ethics and technology transfer: patients, patents, and public trust

Universities and academic medical centers have been increasing their focus on technology transfer and research commercialization. With this shift in focus, academic-industry ties have become prevalent. These relationships can benefit academic researchers and help then to transform their research into tangible societal benefits. However, there also are concerns that these ties and the greater academic focus on commercialization might lead to conflicts of interest, especially financial conflicts of interest. This paper briefly explores some of these conflicts of interest, particularly relating to research and training. This paper also discusses some of the policies that have been, and are being, developed to try to mitigate and manage these conflicts so that academic involvement in technology transfer and commercialization can continue without jeopardizing academic work or the public's trust in them.

The money blind: how to stop industry bias in biomedical science, without violating the First Amendment

The pharmaceutical and medical device industries use billions of dollars to support the biomedical science that physicians, regulators, and patients use to make healthcare decisions--the decisions that drive an increasingly large portion of the American economy. Compelling evidence suggests that this industry money buys favorable results, biasing the outcomes of scientific research. Current efforts to manage the problem, including disclosure mandates and peer reviews, are ineffective. A blinding mechanism, operating through an intermediary such as the National Institutes of Health, could instead be developed to allow industry support of science without allowing undue influence. If the editors of biomedical journals fail to mandate that industry funders utilize such a solution, the federal government has several regulatory levers available, including conditioning federal funding and direct regulation, both of which could be done without violating the First Amendment.