Discrepancies in Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures Among Physicians Receiving Compensation for Monoclonal Antibody Drugs

BACKGROUND

Monoclonal antibody drugs are widely used, highly marketed, expensive compounds. Relationships between these drug manufacturers and physicians may increase the potential for bias in relevant studies.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to determine the rate of disclosures among physicians receiving compensations for monoclonal antibody drugs (MAbDs).

DESIGN

This is a retrospective, population-based, cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

The 50 physicians who received the highest financial compensation for selected MAbDs from 2016 to 2020 were included.

MAIN MEASURES

Payment data were obtained from the Open Payments Database, bibliometric data were obtained from SCOPUS, and disclosure data were obtained from relevant publications found in PubMed. The primary outcome was rate of disclosure concordance between self-declared conflict-of-interest and industry-reported payments documented in the Open Payments Database.

KEY RESULTS

Of the 50 physicians examined, 74% (N = 37) had publications examined. A cumulative 6170 payments totaling $18,484,228 were analyzed. A total of 418 relevant papers were reviewed. The rate of full disclosure (all relevant financial relationships disclosed) was 39.5%, partial disclosure (some but not all financial relationships disclosed) was 28.0%, and no disclosure was 26.3%. 6.2% did not require disclosure. Publications authored by dermatologists had the highest rate of full disclosure at 49.3%. There was no association between h-index and disclosure rate. Practice guidelines had the highest rate of full disclosure at 69.2% while basic science papers had the lowest (0%). Lastly, substantial variations in specific journal disclosure policies were found.

CONCLUSIONS

Substantial inconsistencies were found between self-reported disclosures and the Open Payments Database among physicians receiving high compensation for MAbDs. A policy of full disclosure for all publications should be adopted.

Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest Among Speakers, Moderators, Presenters, and Discussants at National Trauma Meetings

BACKGROUND

Official conference participants (OCPs) consisting of speakers, moderators, discussants, and presenters) with conflicts of interest (COI) could negatively influence the audience's ability to fairly evaluate information if their COI is not properly disclosed. We aim to examine the patterns of COI disclosures by OCPs and the nature and extent of financial compensation at 3 annual trauma conferences.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort analysis of COI disclosures of OCPs, in the EAST, WTA, and AAST Annual Meetings from 2016 to 2019. The Open Payments Database (OPD) was used to describe the nature and extent of financial compensation. Descriptive statistics and independent sample t-tests were performed with significance defined as P < .05.

RESULTS

Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma: conflicts of interest ranged from 3.8 to 6.0% of OCPs. Moderators, discussants, and presenters comprised decreasing proportions disclosing COIs, whereas speakers comprised an increasing proportion. Western Trauma Association: conflicts of interest ranged from 1.3 to 6.8% of OCPs. Moderators comprised an increasing proportion whereas speakers comprised a decreasing proportion. American Association for the Surgery of Trauma: conflicts of interest ranged from 3.6 to 5.4% of OCPs. Speakers, moderators, and presenters comprised progressively decreasing proportions, whereas discussants comprised an increasing proportion. Participants who did not disclose a COI comprised the majority of payment recipients in the OPD.

CONCLUSION

Official conference participants who disclosed a COI varied between EAST, WTA, and AAST Annual Meetings from 2016 to 2019. Implementation of standardized COI disclosure policies with explicitly communicated definitions/categories can maximize the participants' understanding of the disclosure process, translate into improved COI reporting, and preserve an evidence-based environment that is free from commercial influence for physicians to teach and learn.

Association between author conflicts of interest and industry-sponsorship with the favorability of outcomes of systematic reviews focusing on treatments of erectile dysfunction

BACKGROUND

Authors' conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship have been shown to influence study outcomes.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to determine whether author conflicts of interest and industry sponsorship influenced the nature of results and conclusions of systematic reviews focusing on treatment interventions for erectile dysfunction.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched PubMed and Embase for systematic reviews and meta-analyses focusing on erectile dysfunction treatments published between September 1, 2016, and June 2, 2020. Authors' conflicts of interest were collected from the systematic reviews' disclosure statements. These disclosures were verified using the information provided by the Open Payments, Dollars for Profs, Google Patents, and US Patent and Trademark Office databases and from previously published disclosure statements.

RESULTS

Our study included 24 systematic reviews authored by 138 authors. Nineteen authors (13.8%) were found to have conflicts of interest (disclosed, undisclosed, or both). No authors completely disclosed all conflicts. Nine reviews (37.5%) contained at least one author with conflicts of interest; of which eight reported narrative results favoring the treatment group, and seven reported conclusions favoring the treatment group. Of the 15 (62.5%) reviews without a conflicted author, 11 reported results favoring the treatment group, and 12 reported conclusions favoring the treatment group.

DISCUSSION

The results and conclusions of systematic reviews for erectile dysfunction treatments did not appear to be influenced by authors who reported conflicts of interest. However, our search algorithm relied on the US-based Open Payments database and a large percentage of reviews in our study were produced by authors with international affiliations. Our study results underscore the difficulties in conducting such analyses.

CONCLUSION

Although we found that undisclosed conflicts of interest (COI) were problematic among systematic reviews of erectile dysfunction treatment, only 14% of authors in our sample possessed them and these COI did not appear to influence the favorability of systematic review outcomes.

Industry Payments to Orthopedic Spine Surgeons Reported by the Open Payments Database: 2014-2017

STUDY DESIGN

This was a retrospective study of publicly available data.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to characterize and assess trends in Open Payments Database (OPD) industry payments reported to orthopedic spine surgeons from 2014 to 2017.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA

There have been a lack of studies characterizing OPD industry payments to orthopedic spine surgeons over the 4 full years of data available.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

General industry payments made to orthopedic spine surgeons from 2014 to 2017 were characterized by year with analysis of: number of compensated surgeons, median payment per surgeon, top strata of compensated surgeons, and subtype (ie, food/beverage). Research and Ownership Payments were characterized by median payment per surgeon. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare payments.

RESULTS

For General Payments, the number of compensated orthopedic spine surgeons increased from 1539 in 2014 to 1673 in 2017. Later year median General Payments per surgeon were compared with the 2014 median ($1051): 2015 ($1070: P=0.375), 2016 ($1263: P=0.012), and 2017 ($978: P=0.561). In 2014, the top 10% of compensated orthopedic spine surgeons received 89% of the total General compensation to orthopedic spine surgeons, top 5% received 79%, and the top 1% received 55%. The median General Payment for these 3 top strata remained similar over the 4 years evaluated (P>0.05). For subtype analyses, the median aggregate General Payment for "education" increased (P=0.002) across the years. Finally, it was determined that the median payment per surgeon for Research and Ownership Payment categories remained stable across the time period (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Many expected industry payments to surgeons to decrease under public scrutiny of the OPD, but the present study showed no net change in median payment (General, Research, and Ownership) over the years studied. In the age of greater transparency, these findings shed insight into the orthopedic spine surgeon-industry relationship.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

A neuromuscular-based analysis of the open payments program

INTRODUCTION

In August 2013, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments Program (OPP) made eligible payment information publicly available. Data about industry payments to neuromuscular neurologists are lacking.

METHOD

Financial relationships were investigated between industry and US neuromuscular neurologists from January 2014 through December 2018 using the CMS OPP database.

RESULTS

The total annual payments increased more than 6-fold during the study period. The top 10% of physician-beneficiaries collected 80% to 90% of total industry payments except in 2014. In 2018, the most common drugs associated with payments to neuromuscular neurologists were nusinersen, vortioxetine, eteplirsen, alglucosidase alpha, edaravone, and intravenous immunoglobulin.

DISCUSSION

A substantial increase in the annual payments to neuromuscular physicians during the study period is likely due to the development of new treatments, including gene therapy.

Industry Funding and Self-Declared Conflict of Interest in Hand Surgery Publications

PURPOSE

Accurate financial disclosure is essential to prevent bias in scientific reporting. We aimed (1) to document the extent of industry financial payments to hand surgery literature authors and (2) to uncover discrepancies in author self-declared conflict of interest (COI).

METHODS

We screened all scientific and review articles published in 2017 from the American editions of 4 peer-reviewed journals (Journal of Hand Surgery [JHS], Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery [JBJS], Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery [PRS], and Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons [JAAOS]) to identify authors of hand, wrist, elbow, and peripheral nerve topics. We compared self-reported disclosures with industry-reported payments on the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Open Payments Database (OPD) for 3 years prior to publication or per journal policy. We individually examined each for relevance of the corporate payer to the article's subject matter.

RESULTS

We found 630 eligible authors from 395 articles. The total amount of industry-reported payments over 3 years prior to publication was $24,396,607.80. The median total payments per author per year was $118.40, with interquartile range from $0 to $1,364; 68% of authors received some industry payment; the most common being food and beverage (66% of authors). Senior authors received significantly more industry payments (median, $2,985.67/y) than first and middle authors ($70.27 and $113.17, respectively). Of all authors examined, 58% had undisclosed payments, but only 14% were relevant to the article subject matter. Authors in JAAOS & JBJS, senior authors, and those receiving more than $500,000 from industry were less likely to accurately report all payments.

CONCLUSIONS

Industry payments to hand surgery authors were lower than those reported to other orthopedic specialties and tended to be concentrated in a few authors receiving large amounts. Relevant COI disclosure inaccuracies are infrequent within hand surgery literature. Uniform policies of complete disclosure across journals may remove author judgment regarding payment relevance to published material and help eliminate remaining COI errors. Authors may reference the OPD prior to submitting disclosures to prevent potential discrepancies and identify errors within the database.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Relationships with industry offer opportunities for innovation, education, and research, but overlooking COI self-reporting may erode confidence in the academic integrity of the hand surgery literature.

Industry Payments to Pediatric Orthopaedic Surgeons Reported by the Open Payments Database: 2014 to 2017

BACKGROUND

The Open Payments Database (OPD), mandated by the Sunshine Act, is a national registry of physician-industry transactions. Payments are reported as either General, Research, or Ownership payments. The current study aims to investigate trends in OPD General payments reported to pediatric orthopaedic surgeons from 2014 to 2017.

METHODS

General industry payments made to pediatric orthopaedic surgeons (as identified by OPD) were characterized by median payment, payment subtype, and census region. As fewer Research and Ownership payments were made, only payment totals for these categories were determined. General payment data were analyzed for trends using the nonparametric Mann-Whitney U test.

RESULTS

For General payments, there was an increase in the number of compensated pediatric orthopaedists from 2014 to 2017 (324 vs. 429). Of those compensated, there was no significant change in median payment per compensated surgeon ($201 vs. $197; P=0.82). However, a large percentage of total General payment dollars in pediatric orthopaedics were made to the top 5% of compensated pediatric orthopaedists each year (average 71% of total General industry compensation). For this top 5% group, median General payment per compensated surgeon increased from 2014 ($14,624) to 2017 ($32,752) (P=0.006). A significant increase in median subtype aggregate payment per surgeon was observed in the education (P<0.001) and royalty/license (P=0.031) subtypes; a significant decrease was observed for travel/lodging payments (P=0.01). Midwest pediatric orthopaedists received the highest median payment across all years studied. Few payments for research and ownership were made to pediatric orthopaedists. Four-year aggregate payment totals were $18,151 and $3,223,554 for Research and Ownership payments, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Many expected payments to surgeons to decrease when put under the public scrutiny of the OPD. Not only was this decrease not observed for General payments to pediatric orthopaedic surgeons during the 2014 to 2017 period, but also the median General payment to the top 5% increased. These findings are important to note in the current era of increased transparency.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III.

Association of Compensation From the Surgical and Medical Device Industry to Physicians and Self-declared Conflict of Interest

Importance

Surgical and medical device manufacturers have a cooperative relationship with clinicians. When evaluating published works, one should assess the integrity and academic credentials of the authors, who serve as putative experts. A relationship with a relevant manufacturer may increase the potential risk for bias in relevant studies.

Objective

To characterize the association of industrial payments by device manufacturers, self-declared conflict of interest (COI), and relevance of publications among physicians receiving the highest compensation.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This population-based bibliometric analysis identified 10 surgical and medical device manufacturing companies and the 10 physicians receiving the highest compensation from each company using the 2015 Open Payments Database (OPD) general payments data. For each of the 100 physicians, the total amount of general payments, number of payments, institution type, and academic rank were recorded. Royalty or license payments were excluded. A search of PubMed identified articles published by each physician from January 1 through December 31, 2016, and their associated COI declaration. Scopus was used to identify bibliometric data reported as the h index (number of papers by a researcher with at least h citations each).

Main Outcomes and Measures

Discrepancy between self-declared COI and industry payments.

Results

The 100 physicians included in the sample population (88% men) were paid a total of $12 446 969, with a median payment of $95 993. Fifty physicians (50.0%) were faculty at academic institutions. The mean (SD) h index was 18 (18; range, 0-75) for the authors. In 2016, 412 articles were published by these physicians, with a mean (SD) of 4 (6) publications (range, 0-25) and median of 1 (36 physicians had no publications). Of these articles, 225 (54.6%) were relevant to the general payments received by the authors. Only in 84 of the 225 relevant publications (37.3%) was the potential COI declared by the authors.

Conclusions and Relevance

A high level of inconsistency was found between self-declared COI and the OPD among the physicians receiving the highest industry payments. Therefore, a policy of full disclosure for all publications, regardless of relevance, is proposed. No statistically significant association was demonstrated between academic rank or productivity and industrial payments.

Disclosures Undisclosed

BACKGROUND

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments public database, resulting from the Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2010, was designed to increase transparency of physicians' financial relationships with pharmaceutical manufacturers. We compared physician-reported conflict-of-interest (COI) disclosures in journal articles with this database to determine any discrepancies in physician-reported disclosures.

METHODS

COIs reported by authors from 2014 through 2016 were analyzed in 3 journals: Foot & Ankle International (FAI), The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS), and The Journal of Arthroplasty (JOA). Payment information in the CMS Open Payments database was cross-referenced with each author's disclosure statement to determine if a disclosure discrepancy was present.

RESULTS

We reviewed 3,465 authorship positions (1,932 unique authors) in 1,770 articles. Within this sample, 7.1% of authorships had a recorded undisclosed COI (disclosure discrepancy), and 13.2% of articles had first and/or last authors with a disclosure discrepancy. Additionally, we saw a great variation in the percentage of authorships with disclosure discrepancies among the journals (JBJS, 2.3%; JOA, 3.6%; and FAI, 23.7%).

CONCLUSIONS

Discrepancies exist between payment disclosures made by authors and those published in the CMS Open Payments database. Although the percentage of articles with these discrepancies varies widely among the journals that were analyzed in this study, no trend was found when analyzing the number of discrepancies over the 3-year period.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

COI disclosures are important for the interpretation of study results and need to be accurately reported. However, COI disclosure criteria vary among orthopaedic journals, causing uncertainty regarding which conflicts should be disclosed.

Shining Sunlight on Industry Payments in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery: The Sunshine Act

PURPOSE

To characterize industry payments to oral and maxillofacial surgeons (OMSs) and to determine the accuracy of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments Databases.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This was a cross-sectional study of the CMS General and Research Payments Databases in 2016 for clinicians categorized as OMSs. General payments include consulting fees, honoraria, gifts, entertainment, food and beverage, travel and education, and others. Research payments include payments associated with research. Variables collected included number of OMSs who received payments, type of and number of payments, total amount paid, geographic distribution, and proportion of funding allotted to research. The accuracy of payee categorization was determined by verifying a random selection of 5% of those categorized as "OMS" in the database with publicly available data. To assess impact on research productivity, the h-index of research payment recipients was calculated.

RESULTS

A total of 6,720 OMSs received industry compensation in 2016. Accuracy was 88% in the General Payments Database and 50% in the Research Payments Database. OMSs received 28,456 general payments totaling $5,971,800.79. The average number of payments and the average amount per payment were 4.27 and $1,597.60, respectively. The CMS reported total research payments of $23,592.17. The 4 verified OMSs received a total of $18,500 in research payments and had an average h-index of 3.25 (range, 0 to 8). The most common payments made were for food and beverage (80.2%), travel and lodging (5.83%), education (3.91%), compensation for services other than consulting (3.1%), and gifts (3.03%). Research accounted for 0.07% of all payments.

CONCLUSION

Although industry payments to OMSs were common, research funding was negligible. Most industry value transfers were related to food and beverage or travel and lodging. Clinicians were accurately classified in the CMS General Payments Database but not in the Research Payments Database.