28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Evaluation of Pharmaceutical Company Payments and Conflict of Interest Disclosures Among Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline Authors in Japan

      research-article
      , MD 1 , , , MD 2 , , MD 3 , , MD 4 , , MD 2
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          This cross-sectional study evaluates the payment type and distribution from pharmaceutical companies, as well as policy transparency for conflict of interest disclosures among clinical practice guideline authors in Japan.

          Key Points

          Question

          What is the extent of payments from pharmaceutical companies to authors of oncologic clinical practice guidelines in Japan?

          Findings

          In a cross-sectional study using databases from pharmaceutical companies, 255 of 326 authors (78.2%) of 6 prominent oncologic clinical guidelines received payments from pharmaceutical companies, with 25.8% receiving more than $10 000. Only guidelines for breast carcinoma published the authors’ individual conflict of interest disclosures in an identifiable matter.

          Meaning

          These findings suggest the need for improved transparency in conflict of interest policy for authors of clinical practice guidelines in Japan.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Clinical 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.

          Objectives

          To 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 Participants

          This 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 Measures

          Amount 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).

          Results

          Of 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 Relevance

          Most 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.

          Related collections

          Most cited references16

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Pharmaceutical Industry-Sponsored Meals and Physician Prescribing Patterns for Medicare Beneficiaries.

          The association between industry payments to physicians and prescribing rates of the brand-name medications that are being promoted is controversial. In the United States, industry payment data and Medicare prescribing records recently became publicly available.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Professional medical associations and their relationships with industry: a proposal for controlling conflict of interest.

            Professional medical associations (PMAs) play an essential role in defining and advancing health care standards. Their conferences, continuing medical education courses, practice guidelines, definitions of ethical norms, and public advocacy positions carry great weight with physicians and the public. Because many PMAs receive extensive funding from pharmaceutical and device companies, it is crucial that their guidelines manage both real and perceived conflict of interests. Any threat to the integrity of PMAs must be thoroughly and effectively resolved. Current PMA policies, however, are not uniform and often lack stringency. To address this situation, the authors first identified and analyzed conflicts of interest that may affect the activities, leadership, and members of PMAs. The authors then went on to formulate guidelines, both short-term and long-term, to prevent the appearance or reality of undue industry influence. The recommendations are rigorous and would require many PMAs to transform their mode of operation and perhaps, to forgo valuable activities. To maintain integrity, sacrifice may be required. Nevertheless, these changes are in the best interest of the PMAs, the profession, their members, and the larger society.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Interactions between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: what does the literature say?

              J Lexchin (1993)
              To determine the effect of three types of interaction between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry--company-funded clinical trials, company-sponsored continuing medical education (CME) and information for physicians supplied by pharmaceutical detailers--on orientation and quality of clinical trials, content of CME courses and physicians' prescribing behaviour. MEDLINE and HEALTH searches for English-language articles published from 1978 to 1993, supplemented by material from the author's personal collection. A total of 227 papers from the MEDLINE and HEALTH searches and about 2000 items from the author's library were initially reviewed. The following selection criteria were used: studies conducted in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Britain and the United States; studies conducted after 1977; quantitative surveys containing details of the survey methods; studies on the orientation and quality of company-funded clinical trials and on the content of CME courses giving explicit criteria used in the evaluation; and reports on the outcome of interactions stating how the outcomes were assessed. Thirty-six studies met these criteria. Information was extracted on five topics: physicians' attitudes toward drug industry interactions, frequency with which physicians participate in the interactions, orientation and quality of company-funded clinical trials, content of company-sponsored CME courses and changes in physicians' prescribing behaviour as a result of an interaction. Although most physicians participate only occasionally in company-sponsored clinical trials, most see detailers and attend company-sponsored CME courses. However, physicians do not have a very high opinion of the information from detailers or of company-sponsored CME events. Many doctors regard pharmaceutical companies as an important source of funding for clinical trials, but they also have concerns about accepting money from this source. Company funding of clinical trials may affect the quality of the trials and the types of research that physicians undertake. Company-sponsored CME courses may have a commercial bias even if conducted under guidelines designed to ensure the independence of the event. All three types of interactions affect physicians' prescribing behaviour and, in the case of obtaining information from detailers, physicians' prescribing practices are less appropriate as a result of the interaction. Physicians are affected by their interactions with the pharmaceutical industry. Further research needs to be done in most cases to determine whether such interactions lead to more or less appropriate prescribing practices. The CMA's guidelines on this topic should be evaluated to see whether they are effective in controlling physician-industry interactions. Further measures may be necessary if the guidelines fail to prevent negative effects on prescribing practices.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                26 April 2019
                April 2019
                26 April 2019
                : 2
                : 4
                : e192834
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Gastroenterology, Sendai Kousei Hospital, Sendai, Miyagi, Japan
                [2 ]Medical Governance Research Institute, Shinagawa, Tokyo, Japan
                [3 ]Department of Surgery, Minamisoma Municipal General Hospital, Minamisoma, Fukushima, Japan
                [4 ]Department of Neurosurgery, Minamisoma Municipal General Hospital, Minamisoma, Fukushima, Japan
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: March 7, 2019.
                Published: April 26, 2019. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2834
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2019 Saito H et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Author: Hiroaki Saito, MD, Department of Gastroenterology, Sendai Kousei Hospital, 4-15, Hirose-cho, Aoba-ku, Sendai, Miyagi 9800873, Japan ( h.saito0515@ 123456gmail.com ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Saito and Ozaki had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Saito, Ozaki, Shimada.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Saito, Ozaki, Sawano, Tanimoto.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Saito.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Saito, Ozaki.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Ozaki, Tanimoto.
                Supervision: Ozaki, Sawano, Shimada, Tanimoto.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Saito reported receiving an honorarium from Taiho Pharmaceutical Co Ltd. Drs Ozaki and Tanimoto reported receiving personal fees from Medical Network Systems Inc. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: The Medical Governance Research Institute and the Waseda Chronicle provided financial support for the present research. The Medical Governance Research Institute is a nonprofit organization and has received donations from various people, industries, and organizations, which includes donations from Ain Pharmaciez Inc.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funding organizations had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Additional Contributions: Masahiro Kami, MD, PhD (Medical Governance Research Institute), provided constructive opinion and did not receive compensation. The Waseda Chronicle helped with acquisition of the payment data, and Editage staff provided English language editing; they were compensated for their work.
                Article
                zoi190125
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.2834
                6487566
                31026027
                52f2eb28-6c1a-4f27-bf7d-ba2acc43e74e
                Copyright 2019 Saito H et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 7 December 2018
                : 4 March 2019
                : 7 March 2019
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Health Policy

                Comments

                Comment on this article