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 We received unpublished data from 11 studies; eight full data sets and three summary data sets.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.

Medical, pharmacy and nursing students in the Baltic countries: interactions with the pharmaceutical and medical device industries.

BACKGROUND: Interactions between pharmaceutical and medical device industries and students can lead to commercial influences on educational messages, with a potential to bias future treatment choice. This is the first study in the Baltic countries describing exposure and attitudes of medical, pharmacy and nursing students towards cooperation with industry. METHODS: A cross-sectional on-line survey of current medical, pharmacy and nursing students (n = 918) in three Baltic countries was carried out. RESULTS: We found that most students participate in events organized or sponsored by industry and accept a range of gifts and benefits. Students in the Baltic countries consider cooperation with industry important; at the same time, most do not feel that they have sufficient training on how to ethically interact with pharmaceutical and medical device companies and believe that these interactions can influence their prescribing or dispensing patterns. There is a tendency to rationalize cooperation with industry by referring to the current economic situation and patient benefits. Pharmacy students have higher rates of participation and they accept gifts and other benefits more often than nursing or medical students; therefore, they are likely to be more vulnerable to potential industry influence. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the need to include topics on ethics and conflicts of interests in cooperation with industry in curriculum of health care students in Baltic countries. Without proper training, students continue to be at risk to industry influence and may develop habits for their further practice differing from evidence-based practice in prescribing and dispensing of medicines, as well as use of medical devices.

Device representatives in hospitals: are commercial imperatives driving clinical decision-making?

Despite concerns about the relationships between health professionals and the medical device industry, the issue has received relatively little attention. Prevalence data are lacking; however, qualitative and survey research suggest device industry representatives, who are commonly present in clinical settings, play a key role in these relationships. Representatives, who are technical product specialists and not necessarily medically trained, may attend surgeries on a daily basis and be available to health professionals 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to provide advice. However, device representatives have a dual role: functioning as commissioned sales representatives at the same time as providing advice on approaches to treatment. This duality raises the concern that clinical decision-making may be unduly influenced by commercial imperatives. In this paper, we identify three key ethical concerns raised by the relationship between device representatives and health professionals: (1) impacts on healthcare costs, (2) the outsourcing of expertise and (3) issues of accountability and informed consent. These ethical concerns can be addressed in part through clarifying the boundary between the support and sales aspects of the roles of device representatives and developing clear guidelines for device representatives providing support in clinical spaces. We suggest several policy options including hospital provision of expert support, formalising clinician conduct to eschew receipt of meals and payments from industry and establishing device registries.

HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT METHODS GUIDELINES FOR MEDICAL DEVICES: HOW CAN WE ADDRESS THE GAPS? THE INTERNATIONAL FEDERATION OF MEDICAL AND BIOLOGICAL ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE.

OBJECTIVES: Current health technology assessment (HTA) methods guidelines for medical devices may benefit from contributions by biomedical and clinical engineers. Our study aims to: (i) review and identify gaps in the current HTA guidelines on medical devices, (ii) propose recommendations to optimize the impact of HTA for medical devices, and (iii) reach a consensus among biomedical engineers on these recommendations. METHODS: A gray literature search of HTA agency Web sites for assessment methods guidelines on devices was conducted. The International Federation of Medical and Biological Engineers (IFMBE) then convened a structured focus group, with experts from different fields, to identify potential gaps in the current HTA guidelines, and to develop recommendations to fill these perceived gaps. The thirty recommendations generated from the focus group were circulated in a Delphi survey to eighty-five biomedical and clinical engineers. RESULTS: Thirty-two panelists, from seventeen countries, participated in the Delphi survey. The responses showed a strong agreement on twenty-seven of thirty recommendations. Some uncertainties remain about the methods to accurately assess the effectiveness and safety, and interoperability of a medical device with other devices or within the clinical setting. CONCLUSIONS: As medical devices differ from drug therapies, current HTA methods may not accurately reflect the conclusions of their assessment. Recommendations informed by the focus group discussions and Delphi survey responses aimed to address the perceived gaps, and to provide a more integrated approach in medical device assessments in combining engineering with other perspectives, such as clinical, economic, patient, human factors, ethical, and environmental.

Human Subject Protection; Acceptance of Data From Clinical Investigations for Medical Devices. Final rule.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is amending its regulations on acceptance of data from clinical investigations for medical devices. We are requiring that data submitted from clinical investigations conducted outside the United States intended to support an investigational device exemption (IDE) application, a premarket notification (510(k)) submission, a request for De Novo classification, a premarket approval (PMA) application, a product development protocol (PDP) application, or a humanitarian device exemption (HDE) application be from investigations conducted in accordance with good clinical practice (GCP), which includes obtaining and documenting the review and approval of the clinical investigation by an independent ethics committee (IEC) and obtaining and documenting freely given informed consent of subjects, which includes individuals whose specimens are used in investigations of medical devices. The final rule updates the criteria for FDA acceptance of data from clinical investigations conducted outside the United States to help ensure the quality and integrity of data obtained from these investigations and the protection of human subjects. As part of this final rule, we are also amending the IDE, 510(k), and HDE regulations to address the requirements for FDA acceptance of data from clinical investigations conducted inside the United States. The final rule provides consistency in FDA requirements for acceptance of data from clinical investigations, whatever the application or submission type.

Limited Awareness of the Essences of Certification or Compliance Markings on Medical Devices.

Medical devices have been long used for odiagnostic, therapeutic or rehabilitation purposes. Currently, they can range from a low-cost portable device that is often used for personal health monitoring to high-end sophisticated equipment that can only be operated by trained professionals. Depending on the functional purposes, there are different certification or compliance markings on the device when it is sold. One common certification marking is the Conformité Européenne affixation but this has a range of certification mark numbering for a variety of functional purposes. While the regulators and medical device manufacturers understand the associated significance and clinical implications, these may not be apparent to the professionals (using or maintaining the device) and the general public. With portable healthcare devices and mobile applications gaining popularity, better awareness of certification marking will be needed. Particularly, there are differences in the allowed functional purposes and the associated cost derivations of devices with a seemingly similar nature. A preferred approach such as an easy-to-understand notation next to any certification marking on a device can aid in differentiation without the need to digest mountainous regulatory details.

The practices of do-it-yourself brain stimulation: implications for ethical considerations and regulatory proposals.

Scientists and neuroethicists have recently drawn attention to the ethical and regulatory issues surrounding the do-it-yourself (DIY) brain stimulation community, which comprises individuals stimulating their own brains with transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) for self-improvement. However, to date, existing regulatory proposals and ethical discussions have been put forth without engaging those involved in the DIY tDCS community or attempting to understand the nature of their practices. I argue that to better contend with the growing ethical and safety concerns surrounding DIY tDCS, we need to understand the practices of the community. This study presents the results of a preliminary inquiry into the DIY tDCS community, with a focus on knowledge that is formed, shared and appropriated within it. I show that when making or acquiring a device, DIYers (as some members call themselves) produce a body of knowledge that is completely separate from that of the scientific community, and share it via online forums, blogs, videos and personal communications. However, when applying tDCS, DIYers draw heavily on existing scientific knowledge, posting links to academic journal articles and scientific resources and adopting the standardised electrode placement system used by scientists. Some DIYers co-opt scientific knowledge and modify it by creating their own manuals and guides based on published papers. Finally, I explore how DIYers cope with the methodological limitations inherent in self-experimentation. I conclude by discussing how a deeper understanding of the practices of DIY tDCS has important regulatory and ethical implications.

Implantable Smart Technologies (IST): Defining the 'Sting' in Data and Device.

In a world surrounded by smart objects from sensors to automated medical devices, the ubiquity of 'smart' seems matched only by its lack of clarity. In this article, we use our discussions with expert stakeholders working in areas of implantable medical devices such as cochlear implants, implantable cardiac defibrillators, deep brain stimulators and in vivo biosensors to interrogate the difference facets of smart in 'implantable smart technologies', considering also whether regulation needs to respond to the autonomy that such artefacts carry within them. We discover that when smart technology is deconstructed it is a slippery and multi-layered concept. A device's ability to sense and transmit data and automate medicine can be associated with the 'sting' of autonomy being disassociated from human control as well as affecting individual, group, and social environments.

Engineering the Brain: Ethical Issues and the Introduction of Neural Devices.

Neural devices now under development stand to interact with and alter the human brain in ways that may challenge standard notions of identity, normality, authority, responsibility, privacy and justice.

Legislative aspects of the development of medical devices.

European industry of medical device technologies represents 30% of all worlds sales. New health technologies bring effective treatment approaches, help shorten stays in hospital1),bring better treatment results and accelerate rehabilitation which leads to the earlier patients recovery.Legislative aspects are one of the key areas influencing the speed of development of medical devices and their launching. The aim of this article is to specify current state of legislation in the development of medical devices in the European Union in comparison with the market leaders such as China, Japan and USA.The best established market of medical devices is in the USA. Both Japan and China follow the USA model. However, a non-professional code of ethics in China in some respect contributes to the decrease of quality of medical devices, while Japan as well as the EU countries try really hard to conform to all the regulations imposed on the manufacturing of medical devices.

When Are "Paraphernalia" Critical Medical Supplies?

Evidence of harm reduction interventions' morbidity and mortality benefits is abundant and of high quality, so there are good reasons for regional and national groups to advocate for more widespread distribution of legally regulated "drug paraphernalia," including needles, syringes, and fentanyl test strips. But lack of consistency among states' laws means that patients' interstate travel can subject them to being charged with possession of illegal items. This commentary on a case offers guidance to clinicians looking to help patients understand legal risks of interstate travel with supplies that are prescribed or recommended to reduce harms of their drug use and explores the ethical responsibilities of physicians in jurisdictions that legally prohibit these harm reduction interventions.

Artifacts, intentions, and contraceptives: the problem with having a plan B for plan B.

It is commonly proposed that artifacts cannot be understood without reference to human intentions. This fact, I contend, has relevance to the use of artifacts in intentional action. I argue that because artifacts have intentions embedded into them antecedently, when we use artifacts we are sometimes compelled to intend descriptions of our actions that we might, for various reasons, be inclined to believe that we do not intend. I focus this argument to a specific set of artifacts, namely, medical devices, before considering an extended application to emergency contraceptive devices. Although there is some debate about whether emergency contraception has an abortifacient effect, I argue that if there is an abortifacient effect, then the effect cannot normally be a side effect of one's action.

How do medical device manufacturers' websites frame the value of health innovation? An empirical ethics analysis of five Canadian innovations.

While every health care system stakeholder would seem to be concerned with obtaining the greatest value from a given technology, there is often a disconnect in the perception of value between a technology's promoters and those responsible for the ultimate decision as to whether or not to pay for it. Adopting an empirical ethics approach, this paper examines how five Canadian medical device manufacturers, via their websites, frame the corporate "value proposition" of their innovation and seek to respond to what they consider the key expectations of their customers. Our analysis shows that the manufacturers' framing strategies combine claims that relate to valuable socio-technical goals and features such as prevention, efficiency, sense of security, real-time feedback, ease of use and flexibility, all elements that likely resonate with a large spectrum of health care system stakeholders. The websites do not describe, however, how the innovations may impact health care delivery and tend to obfuscate the decisional trade-offs these innovations represent from a health care system perspective. Such framing strategies, we argue, tend to bolster physicians' and patients' expectations and provide a large set of stakeholders with powerful rhetorical tools that may influence the health policy arena. Because these strategies are difficult to counter given the paucity of evidence and its limited use in policymaking, establishing sound collective health care priorities will require solid critiques of how certain kinds of medical devices may provide a better (i.e., more valuable) response to health care needs when compared to others.

Impairing loyalty: corporate responsibility for clinical misadventure.

A medical device manufacturer pays a surgeon to demonstrate a novel medical instrument in a live broadcast to an audience of specialists in another city. The surgical patient is unaware of the broadcast and unaware of the doctor's relationship with the manufacturer. It turns out that the patient required a different surgical approach to her condition-one that would not have allowed a demonstration of the instrument--and she later dies. The paper is an exploration of whether the manufacturer shares, along with the doctor, responsibility for the death of the patient. Three arguments for corporate responsibility are considered; two are criticized and the third is offered as sound.

[Ethic review on clinical experiments of medical devices in medical institutions].

Clinical experiments are always used to evaluate the safety and validity of medical devices. The experiments have two types of clinical trying and testing. Ethic review must be done by the ethics committee of the medical department with the qualification of clinical research, and the approval must be made before the experiments. In order to ensure the safety and validity of clinical experiments of medical devices in medical institutions, the contents, process and approval criterions of the ethic review were analyzed and discussed.

Managing financial and nonfinancial conflicts of interest in healthcare delivery.

The issue of conflicts of interest held by physicians and other caregivers has drawn increased attention in recent years. In response, some commentators and institutions have proposed policies intended to protect patients' rights, including disclosure of relationships with for-profit companies. Conflicts of interest policies must balance the need for transparency and patient safety, but must also take into account the positive aspects of such relationships, including innovative product development. This article discusses various types of conflicts that can and do occur in healthcare delivery and potential policy options that may address these issues. The case history, device, physician, and patient described below do not represent actual people or events, but are intended to be emblematic of the challenges faced in the current medical marketplace.

American academy of pain medicine ethics council statement on conflicts of interest: interaction between physicians and industry in pain medicine.

New concerns have appeared recently in regard to the increasingly complex relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical or devices industry. The American Academy of Pain Medicine (AAPM) Council on Ethics has discussed the issue, especially focusing on the implication of conflicts of interest for Pain Medicine, and published several recommendations for specific professional situations that the Pain Medicine physician may encounter.

Ethics, economics and the regulation and adoption of new medical devices: case studies in pelvic floor surgery.

BACKGROUND: Concern has been growing in the academic literature and popular media about the licensing, introduction and adoption of surgical devices before full effectiveness and safety evidence is available to inform clinical practice. Our research will seek empirical survey evidence about the roles, responsibilities, and information and policy needs of the key stakeholders in the introduction into clinical practice of new surgical devices for pelvic floor surgery, in terms of the underlying ethical principals involved in the economic decision-making process, using the example of pelvic floor procedures. METHODS/DESIGN: Our study involves three linked case studies using, as examples, selected pelvic floor surgery devices representing Health Canada device safety risk classes: low, medium and high risk. Data collection will focus on stakeholder roles and responsibilities, information and policy needs, and perceptions of those of other key stakeholders, in seeking and using evidence about new surgical devices when licensing and adopting them into practice. For each class of device, interviews will be used to seek the opinions of stakeholders. The following stakeholders and ethical and economic principles provide the theoretical framework for the study: Stakeholders--federal regulatory body, device manufacturers, clinicians, patients, health care institutions, provincial health departments, and professional societies. Clinical settings in two centres (in different provinces) will be included. Ethics--beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice. Economics--scarcity of resources, choices, opportunity costs.For each class of device, responses will be analysed to compare and contrast between stakeholders. Applied ethics and economic theory, analysis and critical interpretation will be used to further illuminate the case study material. DISCUSSION: The significance of our research in this new area of ethics will lie in providing recommendations for regulatory bodies, device manufacturers, clinicians, health care institutions, policy makers and professional societies, to ensure surgical patients receive sufficient information before providing consent for pelvic floor surgery. In addition, we shall provide a wealth of information for future study in other areas of surgery and clinical management, and provide suggestions for changes to health policy.

Conflicts of interest in deep brain stimulation research and the ethics of transparency.

In this article we will draw on experiences from our own research on deep brain stimulation of the central thalamus in the minimally conscious state. We describe ethical challenges faced in clinical research involving medical devices and offer several cautionary notes about its funding and the interplay of market forces and scientific inquiry and suggest some reforms.