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

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

Kida

Ozaki

et al. 2021

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%

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

Otolaryngol.--head neck surg.

Kida

Ozaki

et al. 2021

“…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

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.

“…[8] In cases of Japan, 91.7% of authors of clinical guideline for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus issued by the Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases received an average of $28,371 personal payments in 2016, and four pharmaceutical companies' employees were involved in the guideline development. [9] Moreover, during coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, substantial financial relationships were uncovered among healthcare professionals specialized in infectious diseases and pharmaceutical companies worldwide. However, the Japanese government COVID-19 advisory board members did not manage to disclose the detailed information on COI with pharmaceutical companies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, the Japanese government COVID-19 advisory board members did not manage to disclose the detailed information on COI with pharmaceutical companies. [10] Although COI among influential infectious disease experts such as television commentators specialized in infectious diseases [11], guideline authors [7,9], and government advisory members [10] were investigated, the whole picture of financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies remains to be elucidated. Since board-certified infectious disease specialists directly prescribe drugs for patients, it is crucial to understand financial relationships among pharmaceutical companies and those specialists.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmaceutical Payments to Japanese Board-Certified Infectious Disease Specialists: A Four-year Retrospective Analysis of Payments from 92 Pharmaceutical Companies between 2016 and 2019

Kamamoto

Yamada

et al. 2022

Preprint

Objective Conflict of interest with pharmaceutical companies is one of the most contentious issues in infectious diseases. However, there is a lack of whole picture of detailed payments in Japan. Study Design and Setting This retrospective study assessed financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and all infectious disease specialists board-certified by the Japanese Association for Infectious Disease, using publicly disclosed payment data from 92 pharmaceutical companies. Descriptive analyses were conducted for the payments. Payment trends were examined by the generalized estimating equations. Results Of 1614 board-certified infection disease specialists, 1,055 (65.4%) received a total of $17,784,070 payments, corresponding to 21,680 instances between 2016 and 2019. The mean (SD) and median (IQR) were $16,857 ($45,010) and $3,183 ($938-$11,250) in payments. All board executive members of Japanese Association for Infectious Diseases received higher payments averaging $163,792. There were no significant changes in payments per specialist (annual change rate: -1.4% [95% CI: -4.7- 2.3%], p=0.48) and prevalence of specialists with payments (annual change rate: -1.4% [95% CI: -3.1-0.2%], p=0.093) over the four years. Conclusion There were substantial financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and board-certified infectious disease specialists in Japan. Such personal payments must be restricted to a certain level to avoid potential conflict of interest.