User login
A study published in JAMA Oncology has quantified financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry among authors of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.
In 2014, the authors studied received more money in research payments than “general” payments (for things like consulting, meals, and lodging)—$29 million vs $1.25 million.
But more of the authors received general payments than research payments—84% vs 47%.
Study investigators said this finding may mean that some of the guideline authors are receiving general payments unconnected to research. However, because the study only included 1 year of data, these results may not tell the full story.
“Understanding the extent to which guideline authors have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry—and the types of financial arrangements that they have—is useful for the NCCN and for the public,” said investigator Stacie Dusetzina, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
“As we learn more about the role of industry payments in shaping prescribing and practice, it is best to proceed with caution and continue to encourage transparency.”
For this study, Dr Dusetzina and her colleagues analyzed financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) for 125 panelists who worked on setting the NCCN guidelines for lung, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer (the cancers with the highest incidence in the US).
Eighty-six percent (n=108) of the guideline authors reported at least 1 FCOI in 2014. The total value of FCOIs was $30,287,549, which included $29,036,127 in research payments and $1,251,422 in general payments.
Eighty-four percent of the authors (n=105) received general payments, and 47% (n=59) received research payments.
The authors received an average of $10,011 in general payments and an average of $236,066 in research payments.
The majority of the payments received were within the limits set by the NCCN, but 8 authors (6%) exceeded them. The NCCN says guideline authors cannot receive $20,000 or more from a single company or $50,000 or more in total.
Dr Dusetzina and her colleagues noted that this study was not designed to explore whether the payments influenced the guideline authors’ clinical practice or the recommendations they made in the guidelines.
However, finding a high prevalence of financial relationships with industry among guideline authors lays the foundation for future studies to investigate the impact of such relationships.
“It is not a given that industry funding leads to undue influence,” Dr Dusetzina said, “but it is important to analyze these relationships and the potential impact they have on care guidelines because they do influence patient care decisions and the cost of providing patient care.” 
A study published in JAMA Oncology has quantified financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry among authors of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.
In 2014, the authors studied received more money in research payments than “general” payments (for things like consulting, meals, and lodging)—$29 million vs $1.25 million.
But more of the authors received general payments than research payments—84% vs 47%.
Study investigators said this finding may mean that some of the guideline authors are receiving general payments unconnected to research. However, because the study only included 1 year of data, these results may not tell the full story.
“Understanding the extent to which guideline authors have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry—and the types of financial arrangements that they have—is useful for the NCCN and for the public,” said investigator Stacie Dusetzina, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
“As we learn more about the role of industry payments in shaping prescribing and practice, it is best to proceed with caution and continue to encourage transparency.”
For this study, Dr Dusetzina and her colleagues analyzed financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) for 125 panelists who worked on setting the NCCN guidelines for lung, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer (the cancers with the highest incidence in the US).
Eighty-six percent (n=108) of the guideline authors reported at least 1 FCOI in 2014. The total value of FCOIs was $30,287,549, which included $29,036,127 in research payments and $1,251,422 in general payments.
Eighty-four percent of the authors (n=105) received general payments, and 47% (n=59) received research payments.
The authors received an average of $10,011 in general payments and an average of $236,066 in research payments.
The majority of the payments received were within the limits set by the NCCN, but 8 authors (6%) exceeded them. The NCCN says guideline authors cannot receive $20,000 or more from a single company or $50,000 or more in total.
Dr Dusetzina and her colleagues noted that this study was not designed to explore whether the payments influenced the guideline authors’ clinical practice or the recommendations they made in the guidelines.
However, finding a high prevalence of financial relationships with industry among guideline authors lays the foundation for future studies to investigate the impact of such relationships.
“It is not a given that industry funding leads to undue influence,” Dr Dusetzina said, “but it is important to analyze these relationships and the potential impact they have on care guidelines because they do influence patient care decisions and the cost of providing patient care.”
A study published in JAMA Oncology has quantified financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry among authors of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines.
In 2014, the authors studied received more money in research payments than “general” payments (for things like consulting, meals, and lodging)—$29 million vs $1.25 million.
But more of the authors received general payments than research payments—84% vs 47%.
Study investigators said this finding may mean that some of the guideline authors are receiving general payments unconnected to research. However, because the study only included 1 year of data, these results may not tell the full story.
“Understanding the extent to which guideline authors have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry—and the types of financial arrangements that they have—is useful for the NCCN and for the public,” said investigator Stacie Dusetzina, PhD, of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
“As we learn more about the role of industry payments in shaping prescribing and practice, it is best to proceed with caution and continue to encourage transparency.”
For this study, Dr Dusetzina and her colleagues analyzed financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) for 125 panelists who worked on setting the NCCN guidelines for lung, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer (the cancers with the highest incidence in the US).
Eighty-six percent (n=108) of the guideline authors reported at least 1 FCOI in 2014. The total value of FCOIs was $30,287,549, which included $29,036,127 in research payments and $1,251,422 in general payments.
Eighty-four percent of the authors (n=105) received general payments, and 47% (n=59) received research payments.
The authors received an average of $10,011 in general payments and an average of $236,066 in research payments.
The majority of the payments received were within the limits set by the NCCN, but 8 authors (6%) exceeded them. The NCCN says guideline authors cannot receive $20,000 or more from a single company or $50,000 or more in total.
Dr Dusetzina and her colleagues noted that this study was not designed to explore whether the payments influenced the guideline authors’ clinical practice or the recommendations they made in the guidelines.
However, finding a high prevalence of financial relationships with industry among guideline authors lays the foundation for future studies to investigate the impact of such relationships.
“It is not a given that industry funding leads to undue influence,” Dr Dusetzina said, “but it is important to analyze these relationships and the potential impact they have on care guidelines because they do influence patient care decisions and the cost of providing patient care.”