Dataset Information

Personal Payments from Pharmaceutical Companies to Authors of Oncology Clinical Practice Guidelines.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. It is unknown whether participation on clinical practice guideline committees is associated with differences in the amounts of industry money received.

Materials and methods

We conducted a nested case-control study from August 2013 to December 2018. We manually abstracted membership records of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines committees for the 20 most common cancers and linked to Open Payments. The study sample included medical oncologists selected to join an NCCN Guidelines committee ("joiners") during the study period. Joiners were matched 1:2 to medical oncologists who had no participation on NCCN committees (controls) by gender, NCCN institution, and medical school graduation year. We performed difference-in-differences (DiD) estimation to assess whether selection to an NCCN committee was associated with the dollar value of payments received from industry, using generalized estimating equations to address correlation between matched pairs and between repeated observations of the same pair.

Results

During the study period, 54 physicians joined an NCCN Guidelines committee. These physicians received more payments than matched controls in the year prior to joining ($11,259 vs. $3,427; p = .02); this difference did not increase in the year after joining (DiD = $731; p = .45).

Conclusion

Medical oncologists selected to NCCN Guidelines committees had greater financial ties to industry than their peers. The potential influence of industry in oncology clinical practice guidelines may be reduced through the selection of committee members with fewer ties to industry.

Implications for practice

Oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. This creates concern about the potential for industry influence on guidelines. However, it is unknown whether oncologists who author guidelines have greater industry relationships than their peers. This study compared medical oncologists who were newly selected to join a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines panel with medical oncologists at the same institutions and at similar career stages. At the time they joined, oncologists joining NCCN Guidelines panels had received more than three times the dollar value of industry payments than their peers. The potential for industry influence may be reduced by the selection of less-conflicted panel members.

SUBMITTER: Mitchell AP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8417859 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:It is well documented that financial conflicts of interest influence medical research and clinical practice. Prior to the Open Payments provisions of the Affordable Care Act, financial ties became apparent only through self-disclosure. The nature of financial interests has not been studied among physicians who develop dermatology clinical practice guidelines. Objective:To evaluate payments received by physicians who author dermatology clinical practice guidelines, compare disclosure statements for accuracy, determine whether pharmaceutical companies from which the authors received payments manufactured products related to the guidelines, and examine the extent to which the American Academy of Dermatology enforced their Administrative Regulations for guideline development. Design, Setting, and Participants:Three American Academy of Dermatology guidelines published from 2013 to 2016 were retrieved. Double data extraction was used to record financial payments received by 49 guideline authors using the Open Payments database. Payments received by the authors from the date of the initial literature search to the date of publication were used to evaluate disclosure statement accuracy, detail the companies providing payments, and evaluate Administrative Regulations enforcement. This study is applicable to clinical practice guideline panels drafting recommendations, physicians using clinical practice guidelines to inform patient care, and those establishing policies for guideline development. Main Outcomes and Measures:Our main outcomes are the monetary values and types of payments received by physicians who author dermatology guidelines and the accuracy of disclosure statements. Data were collected from the Open Payments database and analyzed descriptively. Results:Of the 49 authors evaluated, 40 received at least 1 reported industry payment, 31 accepted more than $1000, 25 accepted more than $10?000, and 18 accepted more than $50?000. Financial payments amounted to a mean of $157?177 per author. The total reimbursement among the 49 authors from 2013 to 2015 was $7?701?681. Of the 40 authors receiving payments, 22 did not accurately disclose industry relationships. Authors received payments from companies with products directly related to the guideline topic. Violations to the Administrative Regulations were found. Conclusions and Relevance:Dermatology clinical practice guideline authors received sizable industry payments and did not completely disclose these payments. The American Academy of Dermatology policies may benefit from stricter enforcement or the adoption of new standards.

Project description:ImportanceClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are important in advancing the quality of medical care. Financial relationships between physicians and pharmaceutical companies may influence clinical practice. In accordance with the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association guidelines for transparency, pharmaceutical company payments to physicians have been disclosed since 2013. The distribution of pharmaceutical company payments among CPG authors in Japan has not been studied.ObjectivesTo determine the characteristics and distribution of payments made by pharmaceutical companies to authors of oncologic CPGs in Japan and to assess the transparency of policies associated with conflict of interest (COI) disclosures in CPGs.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cross-sectional study of 326 authors from 6 prominent oncologic CPGs from Japan included annual payment data for 2016 from 78 pharmaceutical companies during varying times from January 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017.Main outcomes and measuresAmount and proportion of payments made by pharmaceutical companies to the authors; amount and proportion of payments made to the authors of each guideline; and information on policies for disclosing COIs in CPGs (Japanese yen were converted to US dollars based on the February 20, 2019 exchange rate of 110 yen per 1 US dollar).ResultsOf 326 eligible authors, 255 (78.2%) received payments from pharmaceutical companies in 2016. The total number of payments was 3947, and the total amount was $3 444 193 (¥378 861 220), including $2 696 777 for speaking, $181 944 for writing, $554 381 for consulting, and $11 091 for unclear fees. The median payment amount was $3233 (interquartile range [IQR], $506-$10 873), and the mean (SD) payment amount was $10 565 ($20 059); 84 authors (25.8%) received more than $10 000. The largest proportions of CPG authors receiving at least 1 payment were those for gastric carcinoma (92%) and colorectal carcinoma (92%). The median payment was highest for authors of colorectal carcinoma guidelines ($7781; IQR, $2506-$18 633), whereas it was lowest for authors of pancreatic carcinoma guidelines ($2207; IQR, $304-$9240). Only breast carcinoma CPGs published the authors' individual COI disclosure in an identifiable matter; guidelines for lung, colorectal, pancreatic, and hepatocellular carcinomas disclosed the financial relationships between the authors and companies anonymously; and the gastric carcinoma CPGs did not have a COI disclosure section.Conclusions and relevanceMost oncologic CPG authors received payments from pharmaceutical companies, and COI disclosure methods appeared to be insufficient. Given the possibility of bias in guideline content if authors have any financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, CPGs from Japan may require improved transparency.

Project description:Importance:Financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and physicians can bias the conduct, findings, and reporting of clinical trials. In Japan, the valsartan scandal was a significant event: all 5 key articles on the valsartan clinical trials were retracted after the revelation of data falsification. Consequently, the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association issued transparency guidelines, and pharmaceutical payments have been publicly disclosed since 2013. However, the distribution of payments from pharmaceutical companies among authors involved in the valsartan scandal after its revelation has not been studied to date. Objective:To identify the characteristics and distribution of payments from pharmaceutical companies to researchers involved in the valsartan scandal in Japan by using a comprehensive payment database. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective cross-sectional study, conducted from January 1, 2016, through September 30, 2017, used information on payments from 78 pharmaceutical companies to 50 authors of 5 articles retracted after the valsartan scandal: the Kyoto Heart Study, Jikei Heart Study, SMART (Shiga Microalbuminuria Reduction Trial), VART (Valsartan Amlodipine Randomized Trial), and Nagoya Heart Study. Payments from companies to physicians were analyzed during the period from January 1, 2016, to September 30, 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures:The main outcomes were the amount and proportion of payments made by pharmaceutical companies to authors, and the forms of these payments. Results:Of 50 eligible authors, 30 (60%) received payments from pharmaceutical companies in 2016. The payments in the Japanese yen totaled ¥67.15 million (US $590 896) and the mean (SD) payment was more than ¥1.34 million (¥3.01 million) (US $11 817 [$27 292]). Five authors (10%) received more than ¥5 million (US $44 000) and 3 authors (6%) received more than ¥10 million (US $88 000). The total payments to the corresponding author of each article was ¥29 million (US $255 307), accounting for 43.2% of the total payments. Regarding forms of the payments, lecture fees accounted for 81.3% of the total payment (¥54.56 million). Conclusions and Relevance:Many authors involved in the valsartan scandal received payments from the pharmaceutical industry. Although whether such payments to these authors have decreased since the scandal is unclear, the findings appear to demonstrate that their financial relationships with the industry are still prominent. The findings of the study appear to support the need to encourage more transparency in such relationships because misconduct can occur within unclear relationships.

Project description:There is a substantial effort to increase the accuracy of conflicts of interest (COI) reporting, and reduce the influence of COI between physicians and industry, especially as it relates to clinical practice guidelines.We used the newly implemented Open Payments dataset to evaluate the accuracy of COI disclosures of authors of clinical practice guidelines that were either newly published or revised within 2014 and were included in the National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) website (maintained by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services). Authors were considered as having inaccurate COI disclosure if they had not reported all companies from which they had received funds >$5000 in the 12 months preceding the guideline's publication.We identified 223 guidelines that were either newly published (109/223; 48.9%) or revised (114/223; 51.1%) within 2014 and were included in the NGC website. Among the 1329 guideline authors with available Open Payments data, 523 received >$5000 from at least 1 healthcare-associated entity. However, only 56 out of the 523 authors (10.7%) were found to have accurate COI disclosure. The percentage of authors with accurate COI disclosure in revised guidelines was significantly lower than in newly published guidelines (6.8% vs 14.3%; P?<?0.01) and was also found to differ between specialties. Furthermore, authors were less likely to inaccurately disclose "research payments" (37/49, 75.5%) compared to "general payments" (488/559, 87.3%, P?=?0.02) as well as "other/associated research funding" (430/506, 85.0%, P?=?0.08). No statistically significant association was detected between funding amount and disclosure accuracy.The majority of guideline authors lacked significant COIs, but among authors that received significant funds from at least 1 healthcare-associated entity the frequency of accurate disclosure was low. These findings indicate that the current process of disclosing COIs may be suboptimal and a proactive approach should be adopted in order to minimize COI reporting discrepancies. Furthermore, every effort should be undertaken to ensure the completeness and accuracy of the data recorded in the Open Payments database.