Project description:BackgroundAuthors of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) disclose financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) to promote transparency ethics. Typically, they do so on standard declaration forms containing generic open-ended questions on FCOIs. Yet, the literature is scant on the format and effect of alternative disclosure forms. Does supplementing a standard form with subsequent detailed disclosure forms tailored to the context of the CPG improve the yield or accuracy of FCOIs declarations?MethodsFor an international CPG in gastroenterology on the endoscopic surveillance for colorectal neoplasia in inflammatory bowel disease, we compared the use of a standard FCOIs disclosure form with a contextual FCOIs disclosure form that detailed commercial relations related to the CPG topic. This included manufacturers of endoscopes, endoscopy equipment and accessories. Participants completed the generic form early, and the supplementary contextual form six months later. We then compared the FCOI disclosures obtained.Findings26 participants provided FCOIs disclosures using both disclosure forms. We found discrepancies regarding (1) the disclosure of FCOIs (presence/absence), and (2) the listing of financial entities. While the number of participants who disclosed a FCOI remained the same (30.8%) using the two forms, disclosures were not from the same individuals: two additional participants disclosed a FCOI, whereas two participants withdrew previous disclosures. Among those who reported a FCOI in either form, we noted inconsistencies in disclosures for 70% of the participants. This included changes in FCOIs disclosure status or modifications of "their commercial relations".DiscussionAccurate reporting of FCOIs advances the transparency and ethical integrity of CPGs. Our experience suggests that a contextual FCOIs disclosure form tailored to content of the CPG with narrow, detailed questions provides supplementary, more complete FCOIs declarations than generic forms alone. The finding raises challenges on how forms are best written and formatted, optimally timed, and more effectively processed with sensitivity to professional behaviour, so as to heighten transparency.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Starting in the late 1990s, the pharmaceutical industry sought to increase prescribing of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Influencing the content of clinical practice guidelines may have been one strategy industry employed. In this study we assessed potential risk of bias from financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry in guidelines for opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain published between 2007 and 2013, the peak of opioid prescribing. METHODS:We used the Guideline Panel Review (GPR) to appraise the guidelines included in the 2014 systematic review and critical appraisal by Nuckols et al. These were English language opioid prescribing guidelines for adults with chronic non-cancer pain published between July 2007 and July 2013, the peak of opioid prescribing. The GPR assigns red flags to items known to introduce potential bias from financial conflicts of interest. We operationalized the GPR by creating specific definitions for each red flag. Two reviewers independently evaluated each guideline. Disagreements were resolved with discussion. We also compared our score to the critical appraisal scores for overall quality from the study by Nuckols et al. RESULTS:We appraised 13 guidelines, which received 43 red flags in total. Guidelines had 3.3 red flags on average (out of a possible seven) with range from one to six. Four guidelines had missing information, so red flags may be higher than reported. The guidelines with the highest and second highest scores for overall quality in the 2014 critical appraisal by Nuckols et al. had five and three red flags, respectively. CONCLUSION:Our findings reveal that the guidelines for opioid prescribing chronic non-cancer pain from 2007 to 2013 were at risk of bias because of pervasive conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry and a paucity of mechanisms to address bias. Even highly-rated guidelines examined in a 2014 systematic review and critical appraisal had many red flags.

Project description:Background and objectivesRigorous and transparent management strategies for conflicts of interest and clinical practice guidelines with the best available evidence are necessary for the development of nephrology guidelines. However, there was no study assessing financial and nonfinancial conflicts of interest, quality of evidence underlying the Japanese guidelines for CKD, and conflict of interest policies for guideline development.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsThis cross-sectional study examined financial and nonfinancial conflicts of interest among all 142 authors of CKD guidelines issued by the Japanese Society of Nephrology using a personal payment database from all 92 major Japanese pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019 and self-citations by guideline authors. Also, the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations underlying the guidelines and conflicts of interest policies of Japanese, US, and European nephrology societies were evaluated.ResultsAmong 142 authors, 125 authors (88%) received $6,742,889 in personal payments from 56 pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2019. Four-year combined median payment per author was $8258 (interquartile range, $2230‒$51,617). The amounts of payments and proportion of guideline authors with payments remained stable during and after guideline development. The chairperson, vice chairperson, and group leaders received higher personal payments than other guideline authors. Of 861 references in the guidelines, 69 (8%) references were self-cited by the guideline authors, and 76% of the recommendations were on the basis of low or very low quality of evidence. There were no fully rigorous and transparent conflicts of interest policies for nephrology guideline authors in the United States, Europe, and Japan.ConclusionsMost of the Japanese CKD guideline recommendations were on the basis of low quality of evidence by the guideline authors tied with pharmaceutical companies, suggesting the need for better financial conflicts of interest management.

Project description:ObjectivesThis study examines financial conflict of interest (FCOI) of clinicians who made submissions to the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR), the arm of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technology in Health that recommends whether oncology drug indications should be publicly funded. Final reports from pCODR published between October 2016 and February 2019 were examined.DesignDescriptive study.Data sourcesWebsite of pCODR.InterventionsNone.Primary and secondary outcomesThe primary outcome is the number of submissions declaring FCOI. Secondary outcomes are the number of times where clinicians agreed and disagreed with preliminary recommendation from pCODR and the association between the distribution of individual clinicians' FCOI and pCODR's funding recommendations.ResultsThere were 46 drug indication reports from pCODR. Clinicians made 261 submissions. Clinicians declared they received payments from companies 323 times and named 38 different companies making those payments a total of 500 times. Financial conflicts with drug companies were declared in 176 (66.3%) of all submissions. In 21 (45.7%) of the 46 drug indications, 50% or more of the clinicians had a conflict with the company making the drug. Clinicians commented on 37 preliminary recommendations. In all 25 where pCODR recommended funding or conditional funding, the clinicians either agreed or agreed in part. pCODR recommended that the drug indication not be funded 12 times and 9 times clinicians disagreed with that recommendation. The distribution of clinician responses was statistically significantly different depending on whether pCODR recommended funding/conditional funding or do not fund p<0.0001 (Fisher exact test). The distribution of clinicians' FCOI differed depending on whether the recommendation was fund/conditional fund or do not fund p=0.027 (Fisher exact test).ConclusionFinancial conflicts with pharmaceutical companies are widespread among experts making submissions to the pCODR.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of Financial Conflicts of Interest and Drug Statements in the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Clinical Practice Guideline in Japan.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets