Financial contributions to guideline group members from industry: An analysis based on the US Open Payments database

• Published in: Zeitschrift für Evidenz, Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen, 2020-08, Vol.153-154, p.39-43
• Main Authors: Anjos, Dominique Rodil Dos, Eisch, Eva, Mathes, Tim
• Format: Article
• Language: eng ; ger
• ISSN: 2212-0289
• DOI: 10.1016/j.zefq.2020.05.003

INTRODUCTIONEvidence-based clinical practice guidelines are one of the most important sources to inform clinical decision-making. They contain recommendations to support treatment decisions. These recommendations should be free from bias and should only aim to increase patient benefit. To ensure this, recommendations should be free from bias caused by conflicts of interest. When conflicts of interest exist, they should be completely transparent. The aim of this study was to analyze the payments from pharmaceutical and medical device industry to clinical practice guideline panel members (GPM). In addition, we assessed the completeness and accuracy of the GPMs' conflict of interest statements. METHODSA manual search for international guidelines was conducted on the website of the National Guideline Clearinghouse. We included all available clinical practice guidelines published in 2017. We extracted the names of all guideline group members and identified the payments they had received from industry over the four years preceding the publication using the "open payments" database. RESULTSIn total, 81 guidelines were identified. We found data on payments for 543 out of 659 GPMs. For 34% of the GPMs, there was no declaration of individual conflicts of interest in either the guideline or related documents. The sum of payments across all guidelines to all GPMs was 10,844,938 USD. The average payment amounted to 19,972 USD and the median 1,227 USD. Sixty two percent of GPMs received at least 500 USD. Of these, 17% stated that they had no conflict of interest to declare. DISCUSSIONThe amount of industrial payments in some subject areas raises doubt about the independence of guideline recommendations. Stricter rules are needed to avoid and manage conflicts of interest of guideline authors. The analysis carried out indicates that conflict of interest involving GPMs is a considerable problem. CONCLUSIONGPMs receive sizeable payments from industry. The payments are often inadequately disclosed or not disclosed at all. This threatens the objectivity of the recommendations in clinical practice guidelines.