The association between drug industry payments and NCCN guideline panel membership.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 2068-2068
Author(s):  
Aaron Philip Mitchell ◽  
Akriti A. Mishra ◽  
Pranammya Dey ◽  
Michael A. Curry ◽  
Niti A. Trivedi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Linear Models ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Medical Oncologists ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Medical School Graduation ◽  
Open Payments ◽  
Financial Relationships

2068 Background: The high frequency of financial relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and influential oncologists who author clinical practice guidelines may influence guideline recommendations. Therefore, we assessed the financial relationships held by NCCN Guidelines panelists before and after joining the panel, compared to those held by a matched set of oncologists. Methods: Membership of NCCN Guidelines panels for the 20 most common cancers was obtained from archival guidelines and linked manually to Open Payments records of industry payments. We identified physicians who newly joined an NCCN panel during the August 2013-December 2018 study period, and we included medical oncologists who had at least 1 year of Open Payments data before and after joining. These medical oncologists who joined an NCCN panel (panelists) were matched 1:2 to medical oncologists with the same gender, institutional affiliation, and medical school graduation year, who did not join an NCCN panel (non-panelists). The dollar value of industry payments was then calculated over the 1 year before (pre-join) and after (post-join) the date that each panelist joined. We used generalized linear models to assess differences in industry payments between the panelists and matched non-panelists in the pre-join period. We used difference-in-difference estimation (DiD) to assess whether joining an NCCN panel was associated with increased payments in the post-join period. Results: There were 54 panelists and 108 non-panelists (matched from 1447 eligible oncologists at NCCN institutions). Mean per-oncologist payments among panelists were greater than non-panelists in the pre-join period ($11,259 vs $3,427, p = 0.02). From the pre-join to post-join period there was a similar increase in mean per-oncologist payments among panelists and non-panelists ($2,236 vs. $1,569, DiD estimate +$667, p = 0.77). Conclusions: Medical oncologists who were selected to an NCCN Guidelines panel had greater financial ties to industry compared to peer oncologists who were not selected. This difference was present prior to joining; oncologists did not experience a greater increase in financial payments from industry in the 1-year period after joining an NCCN panel. These results suggest an opportunity to reduce the potential influence of industry in oncology clinical practice guidelines through the selection of guideline panelists with fewer ties to industry.

scholarly journals Increasing Financial Payments From Industry to Medical Oncologists in the United States, 2014–2017

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Mohammed W. Rahman ◽  
Niti U. Trivedi ◽  
Peter B. Bach ◽  
Aaron P. Mitchell
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Pharmaceutical Industry ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Clinical Decision Making ◽  
Guideline Development ◽  
Temporal Trends ◽  
The United States ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Medical Oncologists

Background: Personal payments from the pharmaceutical industry to US physicians are common and are associated with changes in physicians’ clinical practice and interpretation of clinical trial results. We assessed temporal trends in industry payments to oncologists, with particular emphasis on payments to authors of oncology clinical practice guideline and on payments related to immunotherapy drugs. Methods: We included US physicians with active National Plan and Provider Enumeration System records and demographic data available in the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Physician Compare system who had a specialty type of medical oncology or general internal medicine. Medical oncologists serving on NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) Panels were identified manually. Industry payments, and the subset associated with PD-1/PD-L1 drugs, were identified in Open Payments, the federal repository of all transactions of financial value from industry to physicians and teaching hospitals, from 2014 to 2017. Results: There were 13,087 medical oncologists and 85,640 internists who received payments. The mean, annual, per-physician value of payments to oncologists increased from $3,811 in 2014 to $5,854 in 2017, and from $444 to $450 for internists; the median payment increased from $152 to $199 for oncologists and remained at $0 for internists. Oncologists who served on NCCN Guidelines Panels received a greater value in payments and experienced a greater relative increase: mean payments increased from $10,820 in 2014 to $18,977 in 2017, and median payments increased from $500 to $1,366. Among companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs, mean annual per-oncologist payments associated with PD-1/PD-L1 drugs increased from $28 to $773. Total per-oncologist payments from companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs experienced a 165% increase from 2014 to 2017, compared with a 31% increase among similar companies not marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs. Conclusions: Pharmaceutical industry payments increased for US oncologists from 2014 to 2017 more than for general internists. The increase was greater among oncologists contributing to clinical practice guidelines and among pharmaceutical companies marketing PD-1/PD-L1 drugs. The increasing flow of money from industry to US oncologists supports ongoing concern regarding commercial interests in guideline development and clinical decision-making.

scholarly journals Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Practice Guidelines: Accelerating an Evolution. An Endocrine Society Consensus Statement*

2018 ◽  
Vol 103 (12) ◽  
pp. 4339-4342 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christopher R McCartney ◽  
Clifford J Rosen
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Development Process ◽  
Consensus Statement ◽  
Conflicts Of Interest ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Endocrine Society ◽  
Open Payments

Abstract An analysis of the Endocrine Society’s clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published from 2010 to 2017—presented by Irwig et al. in the current issue of The Journal of Endocrinology and Metabolism—suggested that the Endocrine Society met five of seven National Academy of Medicine (NAM) standards concerning financial conflicts of interest in CPGs. As current contributors to the Endocrine Society’s CPG efforts, we offer additional context related to the 2011 NAM standards and the current environment concerning industry support in medicine, and we comment on the nature of industry support received by the Society’s CPG authors according to Irwig and colleagues’ analysis of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ Open Payments database. Perhaps most importantly, we outline the Society’s recent and ongoing efforts to enhance the value of its CPGs. Such efforts include a 2016 revision of CPG author conflict of interest rules—a change that was invisible to the investigatory methods used by Irwig et al.—in addition to other processes designed to enhance CPG objectivity. We conclude our commentary by recognizing that good-faith attempts to enhance transparency and to reduce conflicts of interest (real or apparent) in CPGs will ultimately serve the best interests of patients and providers; we confirm the Endocrine Society’s resolute commitment to providing high-quality, evidence-based clinical guidance via a CPG development process that faithfully accords with current CPG best practices.

Colon Cancer, Version 2.2021, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-359
Author(s):  
Al B. Benson ◽  
Alan P. Venook ◽  
Mahmoud M. Al-Hawary ◽  
Mustafa A. Arain ◽  
Yi-Jen Chen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colon Cancer ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Systemic Therapy ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽  
Therapy Options ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Positive Treatment ◽  
Biomarker Testing

This selection from the NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Colon Cancer focuses on systemic therapy options for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), because important updates have recently been made to this section. These updates include recommendations for first-line use of checkpoint inhibitors for mCRC, that is deficient mismatch repair/microsatellite instability-high, recommendations related to the use of biosimilars, and expanded recommendations for biomarker testing. The systemic therapy recommendations now include targeted therapy options for patients with mCRC that is HER2-amplified, or BRAF V600E mutation–positive. Treatment and management of nonmetastatic or resectable/ablatable metastatic disease are discussed in the complete version of the NCCN Guidelines for Colon Cancer available at NCCN.org. Additional topics covered in the complete version include risk assessment, staging, pathology, posttreatment surveillance, and survivorship.

Level of Scientific Evidence Underlying Recommendations from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) Clinical Practice Guidelines for Hematologic Malignancies: Are We Moving Forward?

Blood ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 136 (Supplement 1) ◽  
pp. 32-32
Author(s):  
Aakash Desai ◽  
Harry E Fuentes ◽  
Sri Harsha Tella ◽  
Caleb J Scheckel ◽  
Thejaswi Poonacha ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
National Comprehensive Cancer Network ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Hematologic Malignancies ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
Therapeutic Recommendations ◽  
Cancer Network

Background: National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines are the most comprehensive and widely used standard for clinical care in malignant hematology by clinicians and payers in the US. The level of scientific evidence in NCCN guidelines for malignant hematological conditions has not been recently investigated. We describe the distribution of categories of evidence and consensus (EC) among the 10 most common hematologic malignancies with regard to recommendations for staging, initial and salvage therapy, and surveillance. Methods: NCCN uses a system of guideline development distinct from other major professional organizations. The NCCN definitions for EC are: category I, high level of evidence such as randomized controlled trials with uniform consensus; category IIA, lower level of evidence with uniform consensus; category IIB, lower level of evidence without a uniform consensus but with no major disagreement; and category III, any level of evidence but with major disagreement. We compared our results with previously published results from 2011 guidelines. Results: Total recommendations increased by 16.6% from 1160 (2011) to 1353 (2020). Of the 1353 recommendations, Category 1, 2A, 2B and 3 EC were 5%, 91%, 4%, 1% while in 2011 they were 3%, 93%, 4% and 0% respectively. Recommendations with category 1 EC were found in all guidelines, except for Burkitt's Lymphoma. 6.3% of therapeutic recommendations were category 1 EC with the majority (56.4%) pertaining to initial therapy. Guidelines with highest proportions of therapeutic recommendations with category 1 EC were Multiple Myeloma (12.4%), CLL/SLL (6.9%) and AML (5.6%). Between 2011 and 2020, the proportion of category I recommendations increased significantly only in Follicular lymphoma and CLL/SLL. No category 1 EC recommendations existed in staging or surveillance. Conclusion: Recommendations issued in the 2020 NCCN guidelines are largely developed from lower levels of evidence but with uniform expert opinion. Despite the major advances in hematology in the past decade, this is largely unchanged. Our study underscores the urgent need and available opportunities to expand the current evidence base in malignant hematological disorders which forms the platform for clinical practice guidelines. Figure Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

The management of early breast carcinoma before and after the introduction of clinical practice guidelines

Cancer ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 101 (3) ◽  
pp. 476-485 ◽  
Author(s):  
Victoria White ◽  
Myee Pruden ◽  
Graham Giles ◽  
John Collins ◽  
Konrad Jamrozik ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Breast Carcinoma ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Early Breast Carcinoma

scholarly journals Cutaneous Melanoma, Version 2.2019, NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 367-402 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel G. Coit ◽  
John A. Thompson ◽  
Mark R. Albertini ◽  
Christopher Barker ◽  
William E. Carson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Targeted Therapy ◽  
Clinical Practice Guidelines ◽  
Practice Guidelines ◽  
Cutaneous Melanoma ◽  
Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Checkpoint Inhibitor ◽  
Distant Metastatic Disease ◽  
Nccn Guidelines ◽  
The Past

The NCCN Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology (NCCN Guidelines) for Cutaneous melanoma have been significantly revised over the past few years in response to emerging data on immune checkpoint inhibitor therapies and BRAF-targeted therapy. This article summarizes the data and rationale supporting extensive changes to the recommendations for systemic therapy as adjuvant treatment of resected disease and as treatment of unresectable or distant metastatic disease.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document