Financial payments made by pharmaceutical companies to the authors of Japanese hematology clinical practice guidelines between 2016 and 2017

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

Kida

Ozaki

et al. 2021

Self Cite

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.

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4,13,44,45 In this respect, the CPG development system of PG-MARJ is exceptionally vulnerable to both financial and intellectual COIs. 24,29,35 These suggestions should be pursued for all CPGs as they would help patients and physicians judge the relevance of offered recommendations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Financial and Intellectual Conflicts of Interest Among Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines Authors for Allergic Rhinitis

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

Kida

Ozaki

et al. 2021

Self Cite

“…In addition, Japanese hematology guideline authors receive an average of $25,471 to $49,693 in personal payments from pharmaceutical companies (ref. [23]), one of the largest average payments among guideline authors in several specialties (ref. [11, 24, 25]).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmaceutical Payments to Japanese Certificated Hematologists: A Retrospective Analysis of Personal Payments from Pharmaceutical Companies between 2016 and 2019

Kusumi¹,

Kamamoto

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

Background: A growing and significant financial relationship exist between physicians and pharmaceutical companies. However, little is known about the characteristics and trends of personal payments from pharmaceutical companies to hematologists. This study was aimed to evaluate the financial relationship between hematology specialists and pharmaceutical companies in Japan between 2016 and 2019. Methods: Descriptive analyses were performed to evaluate personal payments from 92 major pharmaceutical companies to all board-certificated hematologists in Japan. Furthermore, trend of payments over four years were evaluated by generalized estimating equations. Results: Among the 4,183 hematology specialists, 2,706 (64.7%) received a total of US$36,291,434. The personal payments were worth $13,411 (standard deviation: $34,856) on average, with a median of $2,471 (Interquartile range: $851-$9,677) over the four-year period, respectively. Only the top 10% of specialists accounted for 76.8% of the total payments. The average payment values constantly increased from $4,259 to $5,574 between 2016 and 2019, with a significant mean annual increase rate of 11.2% (95%CI: 9.1-13.4%). The proportion of hematology specialists with payments also slightly increased by 1.8% (95%CI: 0.6-3.0%) per year. Conclusions: Most Japanese board-certified hematology specialists received substantial personal payments. These payments are becoming increasingly more prevalent and greater among hematology specialists.

“…Notably, during the study period, on 15 January 2019, the Money Database, which summarizes a payment of honorarium and donations from Pharma to healthcare sectors was made publicly available in Japan. Since then, several academic papers and media reports have documented the financial relationships among Pharma and various healthcare sectors [ 20 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 50 , 51 , 52 ]. This potentially contributed to a recent increase in public attention to the issue of FCOI in Japan and warrants a follow-up study to further evaluate this issue.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Awareness and Perceptions among Members of a Japanese Cancer Patient Advocacy Group Concerning the Financial Relationships between the Pharmaceutical Industry and Physicians

Senoo

Harada

et al. 2022

IJERPH

Self Cite

Objectives: Awareness and perceptions of financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) between pharmaceutical companies (Pharma) and healthcare domains remain unclear in Japanese cancer patient communities. This study aimed to assess awareness (RQ1), the influence of FCOI on physician trustworthiness (RQ2), and their perception (RQ3) among the Japanese cancer patient advocacy group members. Methods: A cross-sectional study using a self-administered survey was conducted with a Japanese cancer patient advocacy group between January and February 2019. The main outcome measures included awareness and perceptions of physician–Pharma interactions, their impact on physician trustworthiness, and attitudes towards FCOI among medical and other professions. Furthermore, we performed thematic analyses on the comments which responders provided in the surveys. Results: Among the 524 contacted members, 96 (18.3%) completed the questionnaire, including 69 (77.5%) cancer patients. In RQ1, most of the respondents were aware of physician–Pharma interactions, although the extent differed based on the nature of the interaction. Furthermore, the respondents mainly considered these interactions influential on clinical practice (RQ2) and agreed to the need for further regulation of physician–Pharma interactions (QR3). In qualitative analyses (n = 56), we identified the 4 following themes: perception towards the FCOI (Theme 1), concerns about the respondent’s treatment (Theme 2), reason of physician–Pharma interactions (Theme 3), and possible solutions from the patient perspective (Theme 4). Conclusions: Most respondents were generally aware of physician–Pharma-associated FCOI and perceived them negatively. Additionally, participants appeared supportive of further FCOI regulation to protect patient-centred care. Abbreviations: FCOI—financial conflicts of interest; United States—US; Pharma—pharmaceutical companies; RQ—research question.