Evaluating Industry Payments Among Dermatology Clinical Practice Guidelines Authors

Abstract

IMPORTANCEIt 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.

Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guidelines*

“…The objective data from the OP program is a valuable tool for transparency because some authors of CPGs fail to disclose relevant ties to industry. An analysis of 40 authors from three CPGs published by the American Academy of Dermatology in 2013 to 2016 demonstrated that 55% of the disclosure statements were discrepant from OP data and that 15% (6 of 40) of authors reported no COIs yet received significant industry payments (38). Although our study was not designed to compare every payment from the OP database with self-disclosures, we did come across several noticeable discrepancies.…”

Current state and future prospects of artificial intelligence in ophthalmology: a review

“…74 Additionally, if AI does improve medical care, it will be important to pass those improvements on to those populations who cannot afford them. AI MLCs will likely be sold with and for implementation with certain medical technologies.…”

“…It will be important to anticipate conflicts of interest, which may be similar to precautions that exist when dealing with medical companies with a financial interest. 74 Additionally, if AI does improve medical care, it will be important to pass those improvements on to those populations who cannot afford them. The responsibility for advocating this will likely fall to healthcare professionals due to competing financial interests of medical companies.…”

Financial ties between authors of the clinical practice guidelines and pharmaceutical companies: an example from Japan

“…Ensuring objectivity and neutrality is important in clinical practice guidelines development, but previous research shows that authors of clinical practice guidelines may become critical marketing promotion targets of pharmaceutical companies [3,9,10]. In reality, they had strong financial conflicts of interest; the authors of national comprehensive cancer centre guidelines received an average of $10 011 in a year [11]; 81.6% of the dermatology [10] and 53% of the gastroenterology clinical practice guideline authors had financial relationships with industrial companies [12]. Similar databases have been developed in Germany and the UK, which also reveal financial ties between the industry and physicians [9,13].…”