Health Outcomes Research Group, Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, New York, USA.
Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Oncologist. 2021 Sep;26(9):771-778. doi: 10.1002/onco.13823. Epub 2021 May 26.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
撰写临床实践指南的肿瘤学家经常与制药业有财务关系。目前尚不清楚参与临床实践指南委员会是否与所收到的行业资金数额的差异有关。
我们进行了一项嵌套病例对照研究,时间为 2013 年 8 月至 2018 年 12 月。我们手动从国家综合癌症网络(NCCN)指南委员会 20 种最常见癌症的成员记录中提取信息,并将其与开放支付信息相关联。研究样本包括在研究期间被选中加入 NCCN 指南委员会的肿瘤内科医生(“加入者”)。加入者按照性别、NCCN 机构和医学院毕业年份与没有参加 NCCN 委员会的肿瘤内科医生(对照)进行 1:2 配对。我们使用广义估计方程来解决配对之间和同一对重复观察之间的相关性,以差异-差异(DiD)估计来评估是否被选中加入 NCCN 委员会与从行业获得的支付金额有关。
在研究期间,有 54 名医生加入了 NCCN 指南委员会。这些医生在加入前一年收到的行业支付款项多于配对对照($11259 比 $3427;p=0.02);加入后一年,这一差异并没有增加(DiD=$731;p=0.45)。
被选入 NCCN 指南委员会的肿瘤内科医生与行业的财务联系比他们的同行更为紧密。通过选择与行业联系较少的委员会成员,可能会减少肿瘤学临床实践指南中行业的潜在影响。
撰写临床实践指南的肿瘤学家经常与制药业存在财务利益冲突。这引发了人们对行业对指南潜在影响的担忧。然而,目前尚不清楚撰写指南的肿瘤学家是否比他们的同行与行业的关系更大。本研究比较了新选入国家综合癌症网络(NCCN)指南小组的肿瘤内科医生和同机构、类似职业阶段的肿瘤内科医生。在他们加入时,加入 NCCN 指南小组的肿瘤学家收到的行业支付金额是他们同行的三倍多。通过选择利益冲突较小的小组成员,可能会减少行业的潜在影响。