Pharmaceutical company payments to authors of the Japanese guidelines for the management of hypertension.

ABSTRACT: Antihypertensive drugs have been of significant interest to the pharmaceutical industry due to increasing sales opportunities in a global market. The financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and the Japanese Society of Hypertension (JSH) have a possible influence on clinical practices in Japan. This study examined the distribution of pharmaceutical payments made to the authors of the revised Guidelines for the Management of Hypertension (JSH2019) and the transparency of the Conflict of Interest disclosure that each author made.We retrospectively obtained publicly available data regarding payments made by Japanese pharmaceutical companies to all authors of the JSH2019 in 2016. We also collected data on individual financial disclosure of JSH2019 authors to investigate whether their self-reported financial relationship with companies were compliant to the financial disclosure policy of JSH2019.The total and mean payment values reported by pharmaceutical companies were $4,246,436 and $21,447, respectively. Of the 198 authors, 171 (86.4%) authors received at least 1 payment. Of 74 authors required to disclose their conflict of interest (COI) the authors, one-third failed to follow the COI policy covering the clinical guidelines.Major pharmaceutical companies selling antihypertensive drug products in the Japanese market had a significant financial connection with the JSH2019 authors. Financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and authors or Japanese medical societies are raising significant concerns about the credibility of clinical guidelines and the potentially biases and undue influences that they may cause, especially with respect to adverse prescription patterns.

European Research Council: bottom-up principles of the Scientific Council and top-down proposal of the resigned President.

The recent resignation of the President of the European Research Council (ERC) Mauro Ferrari has opened a wide discussion both on the method of designation of the President of the ERC and on the validity of the different funding mechanisms for scientific research. From this point of view, Sars-CoV-2 was not only responsible for the pandemic, but also triggered a debate on an alleged primacy of applied research over the fundamental research.

Financial conflicts of interest among National Comprehensive Cancer Network clinical practice guideline panelists in 2019.

BACKGROUND: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are evidence-based guidelines that serve as a standard of care in oncology practice, reimbursements, and quality improvement initiatives. To our knowledge, the extent of financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines have not been systemically evaluated. The current study evaluated the extent of FCOIs in the NCCN CPGs for the most common malignancies in the United States. METHODS: The authors examined the latest 2019 versions of the NCCN CPGs for the 10 most common cancers by incidence in the United States. Using disclosure lists, they catalogued the FCOIs for the panelists under various categories outlined in the CPG. The authors also tabulated the companies and institutions involved in each panel disclosure. An "episode" describes 1 instance of participation of a panelist in 1 company in 1 category of each guideline. "Affiliation" describes an industrial, commercial, or institutional affiliation reported by a panelist in each episode. RESULTS: Of the 491 panelists on the CPG panel, 483 (98.3%) completed FCOI disclosures. A total of 224 (46.4%) reported at least 1 FCOI episode. A total of 1103 episodes were disclosed with an average of 4.9 episodes reported per panelist with FCOIs. Acting as part of scientific advisory boards, as a consultant, or as an expert witness was the most common FCOI category (19.9%). A total of 191 companies were associated with 1103 episodes of FCOI. The top companies were Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck, Genentech, and AstraZeneca. Among cancers, the prevalence of FCOIs was highest for lung cancer (56%), bladder cancer (52%), pancreatic cancer (52%), non-Hodgkin lymphoma (50%), kidney cancer (49%), colorectal cancer (43%), breast cancer (42%), melanoma (40%), prostate cancer (38%), and uterine cancer (32%). Among the panelists with FCOIs, 26%, 17%, and 57%, respectively, reported 1, 2, and >3 episodes. There were 127 episodes noted among the CPG chairs and/or vice chairs who reported FCOIs (mean, 6.4 episodes). The chairs and/or vice chairs of CPGs for uterine cancer, pancreatic cancer, melanoma, and prostate cancer were not found to have any FCOIs. CONCLUSIONS: FCOIs are very prevalent among NCCN CPG panelists. In nearly one-half of the CPGs, the majority of the panelists had at least 1 FCOI. Greater than one-half of the CPG chairs and/or vice chairs reported multiple FCOIs. Further research studies are necessary to determine the impact of these FCOIs.

Financial ties between leaders of influential US professional medical associations and industry: cross sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the nature and extent of financial relationships between leaders of influential professional medical associations in the United States and pharmaceutical and device companies. DESIGN: Cross sectional study. SETTING: Professional associations for the 10 costliest disease areas in the US according to the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Financial data for association leadership, 2017-19, were obtained from the Open Payments database. POPULATION: 328 leaders, such as board members, of 10 professional medical associations: American College of Cardiology, Orthopaedic Trauma Association, American Psychiatric Association, Endocrine Society, American College of Rheumatology, American Society of Clinical Oncology, American Thoracic Society, North American Spine Society, Infectious Diseases Society of America, and American College of Physicians. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Proportion of leaders with financial ties to industry in the year of leadership, the four years before and the year after board membership, and the nature and extent of these financial relationships. RESULTS: 235 of 328 leaders (72%) had financial ties to industry. Among 293 leaders who were medical doctors or doctors of osteopathy, 235 (80%) had ties. Total payments for 2017-19 leadership were almost $130m (£103m; €119m), with a median amount for each leader of $31 805 (interquartile range $1157 to $254 272). General payments, including those for consultancy and hospitality, were $24.8m and research payments were $104.6m-predominantly payments to academic institutions with association leaders named as principle investigators. Variation was great among the associations: median amounts varied from $212 for the American Psychiatric Association leaders to $518 000 for the American Society of Clinical Oncology. CONCLUSIONS: Financial relationships between the leaders of influential US professional medical associations and industry are extensive, although with variation among the associations. The quantum of payments raises questions about independence and integrity, adding weight to calls for policy reform.

Autophagy, Inflammation, and Metabolism (AIM) Center in its second year.

The NIH-funded center for autophagy research named Autophagy, Inflammation, and Metabolism (AIM) Center of Biomedical Research Excellence, located at the University of New Mexico Health Science Center is now completing its second year as a working center with a mission to promote autophagy research locally, nationally, and internationally. The center has thus far supported a cadre of 6 junior faculty (mentored PIs; mPIs) at a near-R01 level of funding. Two mPIs have graduated by obtaining their independent R01 funding and 3 of the remaining 4 have won significant funding from NIH in the form of R21 and R56 awards. The first year and a half of setting up the center has been punctuated by completion of renovations and acquisition and upgrades for equipment supporting autophagy, inflammation and metabolism studies. The scientific cores usage, and the growth of new studies is promoted through pilot grants and several types of enablement initiatives. The intent to cultivate AIM as a scholarly hub for autophagy and related studies is manifested in its Vibrant Campus Initiative, and the Tuesday AIM Seminar series, as well as by hosting a major scientific event, the 2019 AIM symposium, with nearly one third of the faculty from the International Council of Affiliate Members being present and leading sessions, giving talks, and conducting workshop activities. These and other events are often videostreamed for a worldwide scientific audience, and information about events at AIM and elsewhere are disseminated on Twitter and can be followed on the AIM web site. AIM intends to invigorate research on overlapping areas between autophagy, inflammation and metabolism with a number of new initiatives to promote metabolomic research. With the turnover of mPIs as they obtain their independent funding, new junior faculty are recruited and appointed as mPIs. All these activities are in keeping with AIM's intention to enable the next generation of autophagy researchers and help anchor, disseminate, and convey the depth and excitement of the autophagy field.