Objective To elucidate financial and intellectual conflicts of interest (COIs) among clinical practice guideline (CPG) authors of allergic rhinitis in Japan and to evaluate the extent of transparency and accuracy in COIs by CPG authors of allergic rhinitis. Study Design A cross-sectional analysis of the payment data from all 79 pharmaceutical companies in Japan between 2016 and 2017. Setting Japan. Methods We considered all 27 CPG authors from 2 different versions of the most prominent CPGs for allergic rhinitis in Japan. Using payment data disclosed by 79 major pharmaceutical companies between 2016 and 2017, we assessed the magnitude and characteristics of financial COIs of CPG authors. We also evaluated the intellectual COIs of the CPG authors by counting self-citations of research articles related to CPG statements and recommendations. Results Of 27 CPG authors, 26 authors (96.3%) received at least 1 payment from a combined total of $1,333,552 between 2016 and 2017. The 2-year combined average and median monetary values per author were $49,391 (SD, $67,438) and $18,400 (interquartile range: $6,216-$72,494), respectively. Pharmaceutical companies with novel drugs predominantly made these payments. The percentage of citations with at least 1 CPG author relative to total citations was 47.6% in 2016 and 27.9% in 2020. There were no formal COI disclosure statements in either version. Conclusion This study found that allergic rhinitis CPG authors had significant financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, particularly those marketing novel drugs. In addition, CPG authors had relatively high self-citation rates, a potential marker of intellectual COIs. More rigorous and comprehensive COI management strategies are needed.

Background & Aims Promotional activities of pharmaceutical companies (Pharma) relating to newly marketed direct‐acting antivirals (DAAs) may have targeted the authors of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) for Hepatitis C. This study aimed to assess payments made by Pharma to the CPG authors and the financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) reported by those authors. Methods We analyzed payments reported by Pharma to the CPG authors as well as the COI as published by the JSH, using publicly available data for 2016 and 2017. Results A total of 35 of 78 Pharma‐reported payments of $613,973 in 2016, while 40 of 73 Pharma declared payments of $524,674 in 2017, with six companies failing to report. Payments by Pharma manufacturing DAAs accounted for 53.7% of the total (55.7% and 51.6% in 2016 and 2017 respectively). All 17 authors received payments from Pharma which totalled $1,138,647. The mean and median payments per author were $66,979 (standard deviation (SD): $64,875) and $46,033 (interquartile range [IQR]: $29,796 ‐ $34,428) for 2016 and 2017 combined. Conclusions Financial relationship between Pharma and the Hepatitis C CPG authors, which was unclear owing to the guideline regulation, was clarified. The authors had the strongest ties to the Pharma which manufactures DAAs in 2016 and 2017.