Aaron P Mitchell1, Akriti Mishra1, Pranam Dey1,2, Michael A Curry1, Niti U Trivedi1, Michael Haddadin1,3, Mohammed W Rahman1,4, Aaron N Winn5, Stacie B Dusetzina6, Peter B Bach1. 1. Health Outcomes Research Group, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA. 2. Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA. 3. University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center, Worcester, Massachusetts, USA. 4. Hunter College, State University of New York, New York, New York, USA. 5. Department of Clinical Sciences, School of Pharmacy, Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, USA. 6. Department of Health Policy, School of Medicine, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. It is unknown whether participation on clinical practice guideline committees is associated with differences in the amounts of industry money received. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study from August 2013 to December 2018. We manually abstracted membership records of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines committees for the 20 most common cancers and linked to Open Payments. The study sample included medical oncologists selected to join an NCCN Guidelines committee ("joiners") during the study period. Joiners were matched 1:2 to medical oncologists who had no participation on NCCN committees (controls) by gender, NCCN institution, and medical school graduation year. We performed difference-in-differences (DiD) estimation to assess whether selection to an NCCN committee was associated with the dollar value of payments received from industry, using generalized estimating equations to address correlation between matched pairs and between repeated observations of the same pair. RESULTS: During the study period, 54 physicians joined an NCCN Guidelines committee. These physicians received more payments than matched controls in the year prior to joining ($11,259 vs. $3,427; p = .02); this difference did not increase in the year after joining (DiD = $731; p = .45). CONCLUSION: Medical oncologists selected to NCCN Guidelines committees had greater financial ties to industry than their peers. The potential influence of industry in oncology clinical practice guidelines may be reduced through the selection of committee members with fewer ties to industry. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. This creates concern about the potential for industry influence on guidelines. However, it is unknown whether oncologists who author guidelines have greater industry relationships than their peers. This study compared medical oncologists who were newly selected to join a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines panel with medical oncologists at the same institutions and at similar career stages. At the time they joined, oncologists joining NCCN Guidelines panels had received more than three times the dollar value of industry payments than their peers. The potential for industry influence may be reduced by the selection of less-conflicted panel members.
BACKGROUND: Oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial relationships with the pharmaceutical industry. It is unknown whether participation on clinical practice guideline committees is associated with differences in the amounts of industry money received. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted a nested case-control study from August 2013 to December 2018. We manually abstracted membership records of National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines committees for the 20 most common cancers and linked to Open Payments. The study sample included medical oncologists selected to join an NCCN Guidelines committee ("joiners") during the study period. Joiners were matched 1:2 to medical oncologists who had no participation on NCCN committees (controls) by gender, NCCN institution, and medical school graduation year. We performed difference-in-differences (DiD) estimation to assess whether selection to an NCCN committee was associated with the dollar value of payments received from industry, using generalized estimating equations to address correlation between matched pairs and between repeated observations of the same pair. RESULTS: During the study period, 54 physicians joined an NCCN Guidelines committee. These physicians received more payments than matched controls in the year prior to joining ($11,259 vs. $3,427; p = .02); this difference did not increase in the year after joining (DiD = $731; p = .45). CONCLUSION: Medical oncologists selected to NCCN Guidelines committees had greater financial ties to industry than their peers. The potential influence of industry in oncology clinical practice guidelines may be reduced through the selection of committee members with fewer ties to industry. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines frequently have financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. This creates concern about the potential for industry influence on guidelines. However, it is unknown whether oncologists who author guidelines have greater industry relationships than their peers. This study compared medical oncologists who were newly selected to join a National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Guidelines panel with medical oncologists at the same institutions and at similar career stages. At the time they joined, oncologists joining NCCN Guidelines panels had received more than three times the dollar value of industry payments than their peers. The potential for industry influence may be reduced by the selection of less-conflicted panel members.
Authors: Melissa Dillmon; John M Goldberg; Suresh S Ramalingam; Robert J Mayer; Patrick Loehrer; Catherine Van Poznak Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2012-09-18 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Colette DeJong; Thomas Aguilar; Chien-Wen Tseng; Grace A Lin; W John Boscardin; R Adams Dudley Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2016-08-01 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Aaron P Mitchell; Niti U Trivedi; Renee L Gennarelli; Susan Chimonas; Sara M Tabatabai; Johanna Goldberg; Luis A Diaz; Deborah Korenstein Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2020-11-24 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Manvi Sharma; Aisha Vadhariya; Michael L Johnson; Zachary A Marcum; Holly M Holmes Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2018-04-02 Impact factor: 2.655