In a world of complex and sometimes conflicting literature, many physicians and professional societies rely on experts to synthesize the evidence and produce general guidelines supporting best practices. To evaluate the potential for sponsorship bias, these authors perform a cross-sectional study of recently published national and international guidelines associated with the greatest healthcare expenditures.
In line our with our recent coverage of the BMJ investigative report, 75% of guideline committee members disclosed relevant financial conflicts of interest. The astute reader may judge for themselves whether these most frequently reported COIs are relevant:
- ADHD: manufacturers of methylphenidate HCl and atomoxetine
- Alzheimers disease: manufacturers of solanezumab and donepezil HCl
- Anemia/CKD: manufacturer of darbepoetin alfa
- Asthma: manufacturers of fluticasone propionate and montelukast sodium
- Bipolar/depression: manufacturers of duloxetine, olanzepine, sertraline, and ziprasadone.
- Cholesterol: manufacturers of simvastatin and rosuvastatin
- COPD: manufacturers of budesonide & fometerol, tiotropium bromide, and fluticasone propionate
- Hypertension: manufacturers of irbesartan, losartan, and amlodipine besylate/benazepril HCl
- Myocardial infarction: manufacturers of rosuvastatin, rivaroxaban, and alteplase
- Multiple sclerosis: manufacturers of interferon beta and terifunomide
- Rheumatoid arthritis: manufacturers of certolizumab pegol, adalimunab, and abatacept
I’m sure these guidelines reliably provide funding-agnostic recommendations. We might as well just have a bidding war between drug companies to vie for favored product status.
“Expanding Disease Definitions in Guidelines and Expert Panel Ties to Industry: A Cross-sectional Study of Common Conditions in the United States”
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001500