Dataset Information

Evaluating Industry Payments Among Dermatology Clinical Practice Guidelines Authors.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Checketts JX

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5817443 | biostudies-other | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluating Industry Payments Among Dermatology Clinical Practice Guidelines Authors.

Checketts Jake X JX Sims Matthew Thomas MT Vassar Matt M

JAMA dermatology 20171201 12

<h4>Importance</h4>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.<h4>Objective</h4>To evaluate payments received by physicians who author dermatology clinical practice guidelines, compa ...[more]

PMID: 29049553

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundOncologists 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 methodsWe 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.ResultsDuring 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).ConclusionMedical 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 practiceOncologists 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.

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.

Project description:ObjectiveA skewed percentage of industry payments goes to "key opinion leaders" (KOLs) whose prominence and influence has increased with time. Given that KOL is neither precisely defined nor quantifiable, we turned to the level of industry payments as a surrogate quantifiable metric and assessed the associations between industry payments to US rheumatologists and their authorships of publications in high-impact rheumatology journals.MethodsPayments to US rheumatologists during the 2015-2020 interval were obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments database, and authorships were tallied for calendar year 2021 publications in the four rheumatology journals (Lancet Rheumatol, Nat Rev Rheumatol, Ann Rheum Dis, Arthritis Rheumatol) with the highest 2021 journal impact factors and journal citation indicators. Differences between groups were determined by chi-squared test, unpaired Student's t-test, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Mann-Whitney rank sum test, and Kruskal-Wallis one-way ANOVA on ranks. Correlations were calculated using Spearman rank order. A P value ≤0.05 was considered significant.ResultsThere were 278 individual US rheumatologists who received industry payments and served as authors of publications in the four high-impact rheumatology journals. Non-research-associated payments to these individuals strongly correlated with research-associated payments. Payments to male US rheumatologists were greater than those to their female counterparts, and payments strongly correlated with the number of publications among male authors but only weakly, and often not significantly, among female authors.ConclusionA substantial fraction of the authorships in calendar year 2021 publications in four high-impact rheumatology journals arose from a very small percentage of all US rheumatologists who had received industry payments during the 2015-2020 interval. Payments to male US rheumatologist-authors were strikingly different from those to female US rheumatologist-authors, and further investigation is needed to explain the glaring difference in payments.

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:BackgroundFinancial relationships between organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines and biomedical companies are vulnerable to conflicts of interest. We sought to determine whether organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines have financial relationships with biomedical companies and whether there are associations between organizations' conflict of interest policies and recommendations and disclosures provided in guidelines.Methods and findingsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey and review of websites of 95 national/international medical organizations that produced 290 clinical practice guidelines published on the National Guideline Clearinghouse website from January 1 to December 31, 2012. Survey responses were available for 68% (65/95) of organizations (167/290 guidelines, 58%), and websites were reviewed for 100% (95/95) of organizations (290/290 guidelines, 100%). In all, 63% (60/95) of organizations producing clinical practice guidelines reported receiving funds from a biomedical company; 80% (76/95) of organizations reported having a policy for managing conflicts of interest. Disclosure statements (disclosing presence or absence of financial relationships with biomedical companies) were available in 65% (188/290) of clinical practice guidelines for direct funding sources to produce the guideline, 51% (147/290) for financial relationships of the guideline committee members, and 1% (4/290) for financial relationships of the organizations producing the guidelines. Among all guidelines, 6% (18/290) disclosed direct funding by biomedical companies, 40% (117/290) disclosed financial relationships between committee members and biomedical companies (38% of guideline committee members, 773/2,043), and 1% (4/290) disclosed financial relationships between the organizations producing the guidelines and biomedical companies. In the survey responses, 60 organizations reported the procedures that they included in their conflict of interest policies (158 guidelines): guidelines produced by organizations reporting more comprehensive conflict of interest policies (per additional procedure, range 5-17) included fewer positive (rate ratio [RR] 0.91, 95% CI 0.86-0.95) and more negative (RR 1.32, 95% CI 1.09-1.60) recommendations regarding patented biomedical products. The clinical practice guidelines produced by organizations reporting more comprehensive conflict of interest policies were also more likely to include disclosure statements for direct funding sources (odds ratio [OR] 1.31, 95% CI 1.10-1.56) and financial relationships of guideline committee members (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.09-1.79), but not financial relationships of the organizations (0 disclosures). Limitations of the study include the use of the National Guideline Clearinghouse as the single source of clinical practice guidelines and the self-report of survey responses and organizations' website postings.ConclusionsFinancial relationships between organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines and biomedical companies are common and infrequently disclosed in guidelines. Our study highlights the need for an effective policy to manage organizational conflicts of interest and disclosure of financial relationships.

Project description:An increased awareness of the interactions between the medical industry and health care professionals may lead to lower health care costs and more effective health care practices. To assess the characteristics of industry payments made to ophthalmologists between 2013 and 2017. This analysis included data reported in the June 29, 2018, update of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Open Payments Database (OPD). The OPD contains public records of industry payments made to physicians and teaching hospitals from August 1, 2013, to December 31, 2017, as reported by the medical industry. All general or research payments distributed to US ophthalmologists and contained in the OPD were included in this study. Data are summarized by practitioner, manufacturer, payment category, and geographic location. Main outcomes were the distribution, quantity, and value of payments made to ophthalmologists practicing in the United States or US territories. The financial characteristics of payment category, manufacturer, product, and location were also assessed. This analysis revealed that the OPD showed industry reporting a total of 20 943 ophthalmologists receiving 736 517 payments worth $543 679 603.53 (1.67% of all industry-reported funds in the OPD). The median payment value was $22.44. Most payments were for food and beverages (581 588 [78.96%]), whereas most funds were allocated toward research ($310 142 151.88 [57.05%]) and consulting fees ($73 565 327.71 [13.51%]). The median payout to each ophthalmologist was $637.75 (interquartile range, $167.33-$2065.54). California was the highest-grossing state, receiving $101 135 980.34 (18.60%) of all payments. Fifteen companies were responsible for 87.68% of all funds distributed ($476 719 470.11) and were mostly involved in the production of pharmaceutical agents (anti-vascular endothelial growth factor agents, glaucoma eyedrops, and ocular lubricants) and surgical devices (cataract and glaucoma). Although there is no way to know the veracity of these reports, the findings suggest the financial ophthalmologist-industry relationship is substantial. These relationships may be adding to health care costs and affecting the quality of care, although those associations were not evaluated in this study.

Dataset Information

Evaluating Industry Payments Among Dermatology Clinical Practice Guidelines Authors.

Publications

Evaluating Industry Payments Among Dermatology Clinical Practice Guidelines Authors.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets