Analysis of American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline Author Self-Disclosure Compared With Open Payments Industry Disclosure

Conflicts of Interest Among Cardiology Clinical Practice Guideline Authors in Japan

BACKGROUND

Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) offer disease management recommendations based on scientific evidence. However, financial conflicts of interest between CPG developers and the pharmaceutical industry could bias these recommendations, potentially affecting patient care. Proper management of these conflicts of interest is particularly crucial for maintaining the integrity of CPGs. The study aimed to evaluate the extent of financial relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and authors of CPGs for cardiovascular diseases in Japan.

METHODS AND RESULTS

The study analyzed personal payments from the pharmaceutical industry to authors of cardiovascular disease CPGs published by the Japanese Circulation Society from January 2015 to December 2022. Payment data, including speaking, consultancy, and writing fees from 2016 to 2020, were extracted from a publicly available database containing personal payments disclosed by all major pharmaceutical companies. A total of 929 unique authors from 37 eligible Japanese Circulation Society CPGs were identified. Notably, 94.4% of these authors received personal payments from pharmaceutical companies, totaling >US $70.8 million. The mean±SD payment per author was US $76 314±138 663) and the median payment per author was US $20 792 (interquartile range: US $4262-US $76 998) over the 5-year period. Chairs of CPGs received significantly higher payments than other authors. More than 80% of authors in each CPG received personal payments.

CONCLUSIONS

The study elucidated that there were considerable financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and cardiology CPG authors in Japan. This finding deviates from international conflict of interest management policies, suggesting the need for more stringent conflict of interest management strategies by the Japanese Circulation Society to ensure the development of trustworthy and evidence-based CPGs.

Accuracy of Financial Disclosures in US-Based Rheumatology Journals

OBJECTIVE

Transparency of disclosure in publication is necessary for readers to be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (PCOIs). Past studies of accuracy of disclosure in rheumatology journals have focused exclusively on clinical practice guidelines and not research works. We assessed discrepancy in reporting PCOIs in clinically oriented manuscripts published in the three top-ranked (by impact factor) US-based general rheumatology journals.

METHODS

We reviewed disclosures provided by first, second, and last authors of 50 published clinically oriented articles in each of the three top-ranked general US rheumatology journals. For each author, we extracted payment reports from the Open Payments Database (OPD) related to consulting fees, honoraria, and speaker or faculty compensation. We defined a PCOI as a payment received from a company with an ongoing clinical trial or a medication on the market related to the manuscript's subject matter within the 36 months before the online publication date. We additionally analyzed each author individually to determine whether their reported disclosures matched PCOIs from the OPD.

RESULTS

Of 150 articles analyzed, 101 included authors with PCOIs. Ninety-two of these 101 publications (92%) contained inaccurate (non- or under-) disclosures. Among 135 authors with PCOIs, 118 reported inaccurately (87%). All 14 articles that published clinical trial results (and all 23 of their qualifying authors) had disclosure inaccuracies.

CONCLUSION

Inaccurate financial disclosure by authors remains an issue in clinically oriented research studies reported in top rheumatology journals. Improved community education and firmer expectations would permit readers to better assess any possible impact of PCOIs on publications.

Association between Conflicts of Interest Disclosure and Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Japan: A Meta-Epidemiological Study

Accurate disclosure of financial conflicts of interest (COI) among clinical practice guideline (CPG) developers is critical to ensure the quality of CPGs. However, there is limited evidence on the impact of underreporting COIs on the quality of CPGs. This study aimed to examine the proportion of underreported COI disclosures in the development of Japanese CPGs and to estimate the association between underreported COIs and CPG quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II. Twenty-three Japanese CPGs published in 2019 and their 1114 developers were included in the study. The results show that underreporting of COIs occurred in 52% of the included CPGs and 8% of all CPG developers. Underreporting COI disclosures was negatively associated with low-quality CPG (Odds ratio [OR], 0.57; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.11, 3.04). On the other hand, CPGs that had more than 13% of CPG developers with voting rights on recommendation decisions and underreporting of COI disclosures were positively associated with low quality (OR, 1.78; 95% CI: 0.25, 12.45). For individual CPG developers with voting rights for recommendation decisions, the presence of a COI was positively associated with low quality (OR, 1.11; 95% CI: 0.71, 1.75). This study demonstrates that the involvement and underreporting of COIs did not seriously distort the CPG development process. However, the COI-related factors of CPG developers with voting rights for recommendation decisions may be associated with low CPG quality.

Cross-sectional analysis of pharmaceutical payments to Japanese board-certified gastroenterologists between 2016 and 2019

OBJECTIVES

Limited evidence is available regarding the financial relationships between gastroenterologists and pharmaceutical companies in Japan. This study analysed the magnitude, prevalence and trends of personal payments made by major pharmaceutical companies to board-certified gastroenterologists in Japan in recent years.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Using payment data publicly disclosed by 92 major pharmaceutical companies, this study examined the non-research payments made to all board-certified gastroenterologists by the Japanese Society of Gastroenterology.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were payment amounts, the prevalence of gastroenterologists receiving payments, yearly trends in per-gastroenterologist payment values and the number of gastroenterologists with payments. Additionally, we evaluated the differences in payments among influential gastroenterologists, including clinical practice guideline authors, society board member gastroenterologists and other general gastroenterologists.

RESULTS

Approximately 52.8% of all board-certified gastroenterologists received a total of US$89 151 253, entailing 134 249 payment contracts as the reimbursement for lecturing, consulting and writing, from 84 pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. The average and median payments per gastroenterologist were US$7670 (SD: US$26 842) and US$1533 (IQR: US$582-US$4781), respectively. The payment value per gastroenterologist did not significantly change during the study period, while the number of gastroenterologists with payments decreased by -1.01% (95% CI: -1.61% to -0.40%, p<0.001) annually. Board member gastroenterologists (median: US$132 777) and the guideline authoring gastroenterologists (median: US$106 069) received 29.9 times and 17.3 times higher payments, respectively, than general gastroenterologists (median: US$284).

CONCLUSION

Most gastroenterologists received personal payments from pharmaceutical companies, but only very few influential gastroenterologists with authority accepted substantial amounts in Japan. There should be transparent and rigorous management strategies for financial conflicts of interest among gastroenterologists working in influential positions.

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.