ChatGPT for Automated Cross-Checking of Authors' Conflicts of Interest Against Industry Payments.

OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services "OpenPayments" database tracks industry payments to US physicians to improve research conflicts of interest (COIs) transparency, but manual cross-checking of articles' authors against this database is labor-intensive. This study aims to assess the potential of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT to automate COI data analysis in medical publications. STUDY DESIGN: An observational study analyzing the accuracy of ChatGPT in automating the cross-checking of COI disclosures in medical research articles against the OpenPayments database. SETTING: Publications regarding Food and Drug Administration-approved biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab. METHODS: First, ChatGPT evaluated author affiliations from PubMed to identify those based in the United States. Second, for author names matching 1 or multiple payment recipients in OpenPayments, ChatGPT undertook a comparative analysis between author affiliation and OpenPayments recipient metadata. Third, ChatGPT scrutinized full article COI statements, producing an intricate matrix of disclosures for each author against each relevant company (Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline). A random subset of responses was manually checked for accuracy. RESULTS: In total, 78 relevant articles and 294 unique US authors were included, leading to 980 LLM queries. Manual verification showed accuracies of 100% (200/200; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 98.1%-100%) for country analysis, 97.4% (113/116; 95% CI: 92.7%-99.1%) for matching author affiliations with OpenPayments metadata, and 99.2% (1091/1100; 95% CI: 98.5%-99.6%) for COI statement data extraction. CONCLUSION: LLMs have robust potential to automate author-company-specific COI cross-checking against the OpenPayments database. Our findings pave the way for streamlined, efficient, and accurate COI assessment that could be widely employed across medical research.

Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and the practice, knowledge and beliefs of medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: No previous review has assessed the extent and effect of industry interactions on medical oncologists and haematologists specifically. METHODS: A systematic review investigated interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and how these might affect the clinical practice, knowledge and beliefs of cancer physicians. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection databases were searched from inception to February 2021. RESULTS: Twenty-nine cross-sectional and two cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. These were classified into three categories of investigation: (1) extent of exposure to industry for cancer physicians as whole (n = 11); (2) financial ties among influential cancer physicians specifically (n = 11) and (3) associations between industry exposure and prescribing (n = 9). Cancer physicians frequently receive payments from or maintain financial ties with industry, at a prevalence of up to 63% in the United States (US) and 70.6% in Japan. Among influential clinicians, 86% of US and 78% of Japanese oncology guidelines authors receive payments. Payments were associated with either a neutral or negative influence on the quality of prescribing practice. Limited evidence suggests oncologists believe education by industry could lead to unconscious bias. CONCLUSIONS: There is substantial evidence of frequent relationships between cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry in a range of high-income countries. More research is needed on clinical implications for patients and better management of these relationships. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO identification number CRD42020143353.

Conflicts of interest in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: associations with recommendations.

BACKGROUND: Treatment and diagnostic recommendations are often made in clinical guidelines, reports from advisory committee meetings, opinion pieces such as editorials, and narrative reviews. Quite often, the authors or members of advisory committees have industry ties or particular specialty interests which may impact on which interventions are recommended. Similarly, clinical guidelines and narrative reviews may be funded by industry sources resulting in conflicts of interest. OBJECTIVES: To investigate to what degree financial and non-financial conflicts of interest are associated with favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews. SEARCH METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register for studies published up to February 2020. We also searched reference lists of included studies, Web of Science for studies citing the included studies, and grey literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies comparing the association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations of drugs or devices (e.g. recommending a particular drug) in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, or narrative reviews. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently included studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. When a meta-analysis was considered meaningful to synthesise our findings, we used random-effects models to estimate risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), with RR > 1 indicating that documents (e.g. clinical guidelines) with conflicts of interest more often had favourable recommendations. We analysed associations for financial and non-financial conflicts of interest separately, and analysed the four types of documents both separately (pre-planned analyses) and combined (post hoc analysis). MAIN RESULTS: We included 21 studies analysing 106 clinical guidelines, 1809 advisory committee reports, 340 opinion pieces, and 497 narrative reviews. We received unpublished data from 11 studies; eight full data sets and three summary data sets. Fifteen studies had a risk of confounding, as they compared documents that may differ in other aspects than conflicts of interest (e.g. documents on different drugs used for different populations). The associations between financial conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations were: clinical guidelines, RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 0.93 to 1.69 (four studies of 86 clinical guidelines); advisory committee reports, RR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.99 to 1.45 (four studies of 629 advisory committee reports); opinion pieces, RR: 2.62, 95% CI: 0.91 to 7.55 (four studies of 284 opinion pieces); and narrative reviews, RR: 1.20, 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.49 (four studies of 457 narrative reviews). An analysis combining all four document types supported these findings (RR: 1.26, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.44). One study investigating specialty interests found that the association between including radiologist guideline authors and recommending routine breast cancer screening was RR: 2.10, 95% CI: 0.92 to 4.77 (12 clinical guidelines). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We interpret our findings to indicate that financial conflicts of interest are associated with favourable recommendations of drugs and devices in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews. However, we also stress risk of confounding in the included studies and the statistical imprecision of individual analyses of each document type. It is not certain whether non-financial conflicts of interest impact on recommendations.

Los médicos y la industria farmacéutica: impacto sobre actitudes y hábitos de prescripción / Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: impact on prescription attitudes and habits

Resumen Introducción: La relación médico-industria farmacéutica (IF) se ha identificado como un problema ético por favorecer conflictos de interés derivados de los beneficios que reciben los médicos y que pueden afectar su juicio clínico. Objetivo: Identificar la frecuencia de participación de médicos en actividades financiadas por la IF, las actitudes de estos profesionales hacia los representantes de la IF, su conducta prescriptiva y la asociación de sus características y del trabajo con la participación en actividades financiadas por la IF. Método: Encuesta transversal a médicos internistas y cardiólogos. El cuestionario incluyó características de los médicos y centro de trabajo, participación en actividades financiadas por la IF, actitudes hacia los representantes y conducta de prescripción. Resultados: Se analizaron 455 cuestionarios, 78.5 % de los encuestados tuvo conocimiento de la relación médico-IF, la mayoría respondió reunirse con representantes de la IF, 30 % indicó haber recibido subsidios financieros y 10 % consideró que los obsequios afectan su prescripción. Tener conocimiento previo de la relación médico-IF se asoció con menor participación en actividades educativas financiadas por por la IF. Conclusión: Las prácticas y preferencias hacia la IF muestran la necesidad de diseñar estrategias para evitar la prescripción inapropiada.

Abstract Introduction: The physician-pharmaceutical industry relationship has been identified as an ethical problem, due to conflicts of interest motivated by the benefits that doctors receive and that can affect their clinical judgment. Objective: To identify the frequency of physicians participation in activities financed by the pharmaceutical industry (PI), their attitudes towards PI representatives (PIRs), their prescriptive behavior and the association between their characteristics and their workplace with their participation in activities financed by the PI. Method: Cross-sectional survey to internists and cardiologists. The questionnaire included characteristics of the doctors and their workplace, participation in activities financed by the PI, attitudes towards PIRs, and prescription behavior. Results: 455 questionnaires were analyzed; 78.5 % of surveyed subjects were aware of the physician-PI relationship, the majority acknowledged meeting with PIRs, 30 % indicated having received financial subsidies and 10 % considered that gifts affect their prescription. Having prior knowledge of the physician-PI relationship was associated with less participation in PI-financed educational activities. Conclusion: Practices and preferences towards the PI show the need to design strategies to avoid inappropriate prescription.

Importancia del cuadro básico de medicamentos en la prescripción médica / Importance of the list of essential medicines in medical prescription

Resumen La implementación en instituciones de salud de un cuadro básico permite adquirir y administrar una larga lista de medicamentos que presenta a los médicos las alternativas de tratamiento, así como la descripción académica colegiada de indicaciones, dosis, efectos secundarios, interacciones y análisis de costo-beneficio, con lo que se facilita la prescripción médica y la administración de insumos para la salud. El Comité de Ética y Transparencia en la Relación Médico-Industria emite diversas recomendaciones para la optimización de los beneficios generados por los cuadros básico de medicamentos.

Abstract The implementation of an essential medicines list in health institutions allows acquiring and administering a long list of drugs that offers treatment alternatives to physicians, as well as a collegiate academic description of indications, doses, side effects, interactions and cost-benefit analyses, thus facilitating medical prescription and administration of health products. The Committee of Ethics and Transparency in the Physician-Industry Relationship issues several recommendations for optimizing the benefits generated by essential medicines lists.

[Cost/benefit analysis of cancer drugs]. / Bénéfice clinique et coût des traitements anticancéreux.

A detailed analysis of the clinical benefit for 47 approved cancer drugs, using two internationally recognized assessment systems, shows essentially no correlation between clinical benefit and weekly treatment costs. This is true both in the USA and in four European countries, although prices are dramatically lower in Europe.

Disclosures Undisclosed.

BACKGROUND: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments public database, resulting from the Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2010, was designed to increase transparency of physicians' financial relationships with pharmaceutical manufacturers. We compared physician-reported conflict-of-interest (COI) disclosures in journal articles with this database to determine any discrepancies in physician-reported disclosures. METHODS: COIs reported by authors from 2014 through 2016 were analyzed in 3 journals: Foot & Ankle International (FAI), The Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery (JBJS), and The Journal of Arthroplasty (JOA). Payment information in the CMS Open Payments database was cross-referenced with each author's disclosure statement to determine if a disclosure discrepancy was present. RESULTS: We reviewed 3,465 authorship positions (1,932 unique authors) in 1,770 articles. Within this sample, 7.1% of authorships had a recorded undisclosed COI (disclosure discrepancy), and 13.2% of articles had first and/or last authors with a disclosure discrepancy. Additionally, we saw a great variation in the percentage of authorships with disclosure discrepancies among the journals (JBJS, 2.3%; JOA, 3.6%; and FAI, 23.7%). CONCLUSIONS: Discrepancies exist between payment disclosures made by authors and those published in the CMS Open Payments database. Although the percentage of articles with these discrepancies varies widely among the journals that were analyzed in this study, no trend was found when analyzing the number of discrepancies over the 3-year period. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: COI disclosures are important for the interpretation of study results and need to be accurately reported. However, COI disclosure criteria vary among orthopaedic journals, causing uncertainty regarding which conflicts should be disclosed.

Medical Marketing in the United States, 1997-2016.

IMPORTANCE: Manufacturers, companies, and health care professionals and organizations use an array of promotional activities to sell and increase market share of their products and services. These activities seek to shape public and clinician beliefs about laboratory testing, the benefits and harms of prescription drugs, and some disease definitions. OBJECTIVE: To review the marketing of prescription drugs, disease awareness campaigns, health services, and laboratory tests and the related consequences and regulation in the United States over a 20-year period (1997-2016). EVIDENCE: Analysis (1997-2016) of consumer advertising (Kantar Media data for spending and number of ads); professional marketing (IQVIA Institute for Human Data Science, Open Payments Data [Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services]); regulations and legal actions of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Federal Trade Commission (FTC), state attorneys general, and US Department of Justice; and searches (1975-2018) of peer-reviewed medical literature (PubMed), business journals (Business Source Ultimate), and news media (Lexis Nexis) for articles about expenditures, content, and consequences and regulation of consumer and professional medical marketing. Spending is reported in 2016 dollars. FINDINGS: From 1997 through 2016, spending on medical marketing of drugs, disease awareness campaigns, health services, and laboratory testing increased from $17.7 to $29.9 billion. The most rapid increase was in direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising, which increased from $2.1 billion (11.9%) of total spending in 1997 to $9.6 billion (32.0%) of total spending in 2016. DTC prescription drug advertising increased from $1.3 billion (79 000 ads) to $6 billion (4.6 million ads [including 663 000 TV commercials]), with a shift toward advertising high-cost biologics and cancer immunotherapies. Pharmaceutical companies increased DTC marketing about diseases treated by their drugs with increases in disease awareness campaigns from 44 to 401 and in spending from $177 million to $430 million. DTC advertising for health services increased from $542 million to $2.9 billion, with the largest spending increases by hospitals, dental centers, cancer centers, mental health and addiction clinics, and medical services (eg, home health). DTC spending on advertising for laboratory tests (such as genetic testing) increased from $75.4 million to $82.6 million, although the number of ads increased more substantially (from 14 100 to 255 300), reflecting an increase in less expensive electronic media advertising. Marketing to health care professionals by pharmaceutical companies accounted for most promotional spending and increased from $15.6 billion to $20.3 billion, including $5.6 billion for prescriber detailing, $13.5 billion for free samples, $979 million for direct physician payments (eg, speaking fees, meals) related to specific drugs, and $59 million for disease education. Manufacturers of FDA-approved laboratory tests paid $12.9 million to professionals in 2016. From 1997 through 2016, the number of consumer and professional drug promotional materials that companies submitted for FDA review increased from 34 182 to 97 252, while FDA violation letters for misleading drug marketing decreased from 156 to 11. Since 1997, 103 financial settlements between drug companies and federal and state governments resulted in more than $11 billion in fines for off-label or deceptive marketing practices. The FTC has acted against misleading marketing by a single for-profit cancer center. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Medical marketing increased substantially from 1997 through 2016, especially DTC advertising for prescription drugs and health services. Pharmaceutical marketing to health professionals accounted for most spending and remains high even with new policies to limit industry influence. Despite the increase in marketing over 20 years, regulatory oversight remains limited.

Industry Payments to Physicians and Prescriptions of Brand-Name Proton-Pump Inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE: To characterize the association between industry payments and prescriptions of 2 brand-name proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs). STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional retrospective. SETTING: Physicians nationwide. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: We identified all physicians receiving industry payments for Dexilant and Nexium 2014-2015 from the Open Payments database. We linked this to records of prescriptions for PPIs paid for by Medicare Part D these same years and compared the proportion of prescriptions written for Dexilant and Nexium in industry-compensated vs nonindustry compensated physicians. The number and dollar amount of payments were associated with the rate of drug prescriptions. RESULTS: We identified 254,452 physicians prescribing PPIs; 8586 and 2766 physicians received industry payments for Dexilant and Nexium, respectively. A total of 5052 of 7876 (64%) physicians compensated for Dexilant prescribed Dexilant vs 39,778 of 246,571 (16%) noncompensated physicians ( P < .001). For Nexium, 2525 of 2654 (95%) compensated physicians prescribed Nexium, compared to 123,913 of 252,067 (49%) noncompensated physicians. For both Dexilant and Nexium, there was a significant correlation between the number (ρ = 0.22, P < .001 and ρ = 0.12, P < .001) and dollar amount (ρ = 0.22, P < .001 and ρ = 0.13, P < .001) of payments and the percentage of prescriptions written for the compensated drug. Industry payments for Nexium remained associated with rate of prescription even after generic esomeprazole became available. CONCLUSION: Both the number and dollar amount of industry payments were associated with increased prescriptions for both Dexilant and Nexium. Although unable to show causality, this study suggests that industry payments may increase physician prescriptions of costly, brand-name drugs.

Conflict of interest among Italian medical oncologists: a national survey.

OBJECTIVES: To assess Italian medical oncologists' opinion on the implications of conflict of interest (COI) on medical education, care and research, and to evaluate their direct financial relationships. DESIGN: National cross-sectional survey conducted between March and April 2017 among Italian oncologists. SETTING: Online survey sponsored by the Italian College of Medical Oncology Chiefs through its website. PARTICIPANTS: Italian oncologists who filled out an anonymous questionnaire including 19 items and individual and working characteristics. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The proportion of medical oncologists perceiving COI as an outstanding issue and those receiving direct payments from industry. RESULTS: There were 321 respondents, representing 13% of Italian tenured medical oncologists. Overall, 62% declared direct payments from the pharmaceutical industry in the last 3 years. Sixty-eight per cent felt the majority of Italian oncologists have a COI with industry, but 59% suppose this is not greater than that of other specialties. Eighty-two per cent consider that most oncology education is supported by industry. More than 75% believe that current allocation of industry budget on marketing and promotion rather than research and development is unfair, but 75% consider it appropriate to receive travel and lodging hospitality from industry. A median net profit margin of €5000 per patient enrolled in an industry trial was considered appropriate for the employee institution. Sixty per cent agree to receive a personal fee for patients enrolled in industry trials, but 79% state this should be reported in the informed consent. Over 90% believe that scientific societies should publish a financial report of industry support. Finally, 79% disagree to being a coauthor of an article written by a medical writer when no substantial scientific contribution is made. CONCLUSIONS: Among Italian oncologists COI is perceived as an important issue influencing costs, education, care and science. A more rigorous policy on COI should be implemented.

Fair, just and compassionate: A pilot for making allocation decisions for patients requesting experimental drugs outside of clinical trials.

Patients have received experimental pharmaceuticals outside of clinical trials for decades. There are no industry-wide best practices, and many companies that have granted compassionate use, or 'preapproval', access to their investigational products have done so without fanfare and without divulging the process or grounds on which decisions were made. The number of compassionate use requests has increased over time. Driving the demand are new treatments for serious unmet medical needs; patient advocacy groups pressing for access to emerging treatments; internet platforms enabling broad awareness of compelling cases or novel drugs and a lack of trust among some that the pharmaceutical industry and/or the FDA have patients' best interests in mind. High-profile cases in the media have highlighted the gap between patient expectations for compassionate use and company utilisation of fair processes to adjudicate requests. With many pharmaceutical manufacturers, patient groups, healthcare providers and policy analysts unhappy with the inequities of the status quo, fairer and more ethical management of compassionate use requests was needed. This paper reports on a novel collaboration between a pharmaceutical company and an academic medical ethics department that led to the formation of the Compassionate Use Advisory Committee (CompAC). Comprising medical experts, bioethicists and patient representatives, CompAC established an ethical framework for the allocation of a scarce investigational oncology agent to single patients requesting non-trial access. This is the first account of how the committee was formed and how it built an ethical framework and put it into practice.

The Association of Industry Payments to Physicians with Prescription of Brand-Name Intranasal Corticosteroids.

Objectives To examine the association of industry payments for brand-name intranasal corticosteroids with prescribing patterns. Study Design Cross-sectional retrospective analysis. Setting Nationwide. Subjects and Methods We identified physicians prescribing intranasal corticosteroids to Medicare beneficiaries 2014-2015 and physicians receiving payment for the brand-name intranasal corticosteroids Dymista and Nasonex. Prescription and payment data were linked by physician, and we compared the proportion of prescriptions written for brand-name intranasal corticosteroids in industry-compensated vs non-industry-compensated physicians. We associated the number and dollar amount of industry payments with the relative frequency of brand-name prescriptions. Results In total, 164,587 physicians prescribing intranasal corticosteroids were identified, including 7937 (5%) otolaryngologists; 10,800 and 3886 physicians received industry compensation for Dymista and Nasonex, respectively. Physicians receiving industry payment for Dymista prescribed more Dymista as a proportion of total intranasal corticosteroid prescriptions than noncompensated physicians (3.1% [SD = 9.6%] vs 0.2% [SD = 2.5%], respectively, P < .001). Similar trends were seen for Nasonex (12.0% [SD = 16.8%] vs 4.8% [SD = 13.6%], P < .001). The number and dollar amount of payment were significantly correlated to the relative frequency of Dymista (ρ = 0.26, P < .001 and ρ = 0.20, P < .001, respectively) and Nasonex prescriptions (ρ = 0.09, P < .001 and ρ = 0.15, P < .001, respectively). For Dymista, this association was stronger in otolaryngologists than general practitioners ( P < .001). There was a stronger correlation between the percentage of prescriptions and the number and dollar amount of payments for Dymista than for Nasonex ( P = .014 and P < .001). Conclusions Industry compensation for brand-name intranasal corticosteroids is significantly associated with prescribing patterns. The magnitude of association may depend on physician specialty and the drug's time on the market.