Financial Conflicts of Interest Among Authors of Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guidelines.

CONTEXT

There has been a proliferation of clinical practice guidelines in endocrinology and a coincident increased interest in transparency regarding relationships between physicians and industry.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We collected self-reported disclosures and Open Payments data for 169 authors of 26 clinical practice guidelines published between 2010 and 2017 by the Endocrine Society. Conflicts of interest in which pharmaceutical and device companies manufactured drugs or products pertinent to an author's specific clinical practice guideline(s) were deemed relevant. Open Payments data were grouped into research and nonresearch (consultancies, honoraria, travel, food) categories.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We compared the policies of the Endocrine Society regarding seven conflict of interest recommendations issued by the National Academy of Medicine in 2011.

CONCLUSION

Relevant nonresearch financial conflicts of interest were self-reported by 42% of authors of clinical practice guidelines. Open Payments were recorded for 74% (84 of 113) of US authors between 2013 and 2016. Payments to 84 US authors totaled $5.5 million for nonresearch activities and $30.9 million for research. The nonresearch payments were divided into consulting (46%), honoraria (26%), travel (25%), and food (3%). The Endocrine Society partially follows the National Academy of Medicine recommendations to limit conflicts of interest. Readers should be aware of how clinical practice guidelines are developed and the policies of the organizations and journals that publish them. Professional societies and journal editors should strive to ensure that their policies and practices promote objective and unbiased clinical practice guidelines.