Public Speaker Characteristics at Meetings of the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drug Advisory Committee and the Ophthalmic Devices Panel.

PURPOSE: We investigated meetings of the Dermatologic and Ophthalmic Drug Advisory Committee (DODAC) and the Ophthalmic Devices Panel (ODP) of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to determine whether a relationship exists between receipt of industry payments by speakers of the Open Public Hearing (OPH) portion and the nature of their recommendations regarding treatment approval. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. METHODS: We reviewed publicly available transcripts of all DODAC and ODP meetings from February 2009 to December 2019. For each meeting, information about each public speaker including presence of conflict of interest (COI) and whether their testimony regarding the drug or device was positive, negative, or neutral toward treatment approval was extracted in a blinded fashion using a pilot-tested Google Form. RESULTS: Of the 86 speakers, 66 (76.7%) included a COI disclosure statement and 41 (47.7%) disclosed a COI. Regarding classification of the speakers' testimonies, 70 (81.4%) of 86 were positive, 9 (10.5%) of 86 were negative, and 7 (8.1%) of 86 were neutral. Each one of the 41 speakers with a COI gave a positive testimony. Speakers who disclosed a COI were significantly more likely to give a positive testimony than speakers who did not (P < .001). CONCLUSION: We recommend the DODAC and ODP require full disclosure of COI information and introduce stricter policies to manage COIs, allowing the committee to fully understand the context of the public speakers' comments, including the possible influence of COI on these comments.

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.

Association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews: systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces, and narrative reviews. DESIGN: Systematic review. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies that compared the association between conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations of drugs or devices (eg, recommending a drug) in clinical guidelines, advisory committee reports, opinion pieces (eg, editorials), or narrative reviews. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Methodology Register (from inception to February 2020), reference lists, Web of Science, and grey literature. DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the methodological quality of the studies. Pooled relative risks and 95% confidence intervals were estimated using random effects models (relative risk >1 indicates that documents with conflicts of interest more often had favourable recommendations than documents with no conflicts of interest). Financial and non-financial conflicts of interest were analysed separately, and the four types of documents were analysed separately (preplanned) and combined (post hoc). RESULTS: 21 studies that analysed 106 clinical guidelines, 1809 advisory committee reports, 340 opinion pieces, and 497 narrative reviews were included. Unpublished data were received for 11 studies (eight full datasets and three summary datasets). 15 studies showed risk of confounding because the compared documents could differ in factors other than conflicts of interest (eg, different drugs used for different populations). The relative risk for associations between financial conflicts of interest and favourable recommendations for clinical guidelines was 1.26 (95% confidence interval 0.93 to 1.69; four studies of 86 clinical guidelines), for advisory committee reports was 1.20 (0.99 to 1.45; four studies of 629 advisory committee reports), for opinion pieces was 2.62 (0.91 to 7.55; four studies of 284 opinion pieces), and for narrative reviews was 1.20 (0.97 to 1.49; four studies of 457 narrative reviews). An analysis of all four types of documents combined supported these findings (1.26, 1.09 to 1.44). In one study that investigated specialty interests, the association between including radiologists as authors of guidelines and recommending routine breast cancer was: relative risk 2.10, 95% confidence interval 0.92 to 4.77; 12 clinical guidelines). 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. Limitations of this review were 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 influence recommendations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Cochrane Methodology Review Protocol MR000040.

"The Hopkins Mongol Case": The Dawn of the Bioethics Movement.

One of the earliest controversies in the modern history of bioethics was known at the time as "the Hopkins Mongol case," involving an infant with Trisomy 21 and duodenal atresia whose parents declined to consent to surgery. Fluids and feeding were withheld, and the infant died of dehydration after 15 days. The child's short life had a profound impact on the author's career and that of several others and ultimately led to changes in the care of children and adults with disabilities and the way difficult end-of-life decisions are made in US hospitals today. It also contributed to the growth of the modern bioethics movement and scholarship focused on pediatric bioethics issues.

Ethics in embryo research: a position statement by the ASRM Ethics in Embryo Research Task Force and the ASRM Ethics Committee.

Scientific research using human embryos advances human health and offspring well-being and provides vital insights into the mechanisms for reproduction and disease. Research involving human embryos is ethically acceptable if it is likely to provide significant new knowledge that may benefit human health, well-being of the offspring, or reproduction.

Characteristics and conflicts of interests of public speakers at the Psychopharmacologic Drug and Advisory Committee meetings regarding psychiatric drugs.

The Psychopharmacologic Drug Advisory Committee (PDAC) is one of 33 advisory committees of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). During committee meetings, an open public hearing takes place where speakers provide testimonies about the drug in question and are asked, not required, to disclose any conflicts of interests (COIs) before speaking. These speakers may present with COIs which include, but are not limited to, reimbursement for travel and lodging by the pharmaceutical company to attend the meeting; previous or current payments for consulting from the pharmaceutical company and compensation as a paid investigator in previously conducted clinical trials for the drug under review. Our study aimed to investigate the characteristics and COIs of public speakers at PDAC meetings of the FDA. We evaluated 145 public speakers at FDA committee meetings over a 10-year period. We found a total of 52 public speakers disclosed a COI with travel and lodging being the most prominent. Among these speakers, 82.4% provided a positive testimony regarding the psychiatric drug in question. Speakers who had the condition in question were not more likely to provide a positive statement than those who did not. Our results showed that disclosing a COI was associated with increased odds of public speakers providing a favourable testimony for the recommendation of psychiatric drugs. The implications of these findings are concerning since COIs have the potential to skew public speaker's testimonies and persuade committee members to recommend a drug through emotionally charged tactics.

Ethics education and moral decision-making in clinical commissioning: an interview study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical commissioning involves ethically challenging decisions about health resource allocation. However, commissioners come from a range of professional backgrounds with varying levels of training and expertise in ethical decision-making. Hence, they may lack the relevant training and resources to feel fully prepared for this increasingly demanding role. AIM: This study aims to provide insight into how prepared commissioners feel in making ethical decisions; what ethics learning needs they might have; and how these might be addressed. DESIGN AND SETTING: This qualitative interview study explored the experiences of commissioners working for clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) in England. METHOD: Eighteen participants were interviewed between December 2017 and July 2018 using a purposive sampling approach to participant selection. Transcriptions were coded and analysed using the constant comparative method of thematic analysis. RESULTS: Most participants had not received ethics training in preparation for, or during, their commissioning role, and reported difficulties identifying and analysing ethical issues. Participants often felt uncomfortable about decisions they were involved in, attributing this to a number of factors: a sense of moral unease; concerns that CCGs' decision-making processes were not sufficiently transparent; and that CCGs were not fully accountable to the population served. CONCLUSION: Commissioners face complex decisions involving ethical issues, and associated moral unease is exacerbated by a lack of ethics training and lack of confidence in identifying and analysing these. This study shows a clear need for additional support and ethics training for commissioners to support them in this area of decision-making.

Constructing 'exceptionality': a neglected aspect of NHS rationing.

In the British NHS the principle of exceptionality involves assessing whether a patient is sufficiently different from the generality of patients to justify providing a treatment, such as an expensive cancer drug, not approved for routine funding. In England, individual requests for certain high-cost treatments are considered by local panels that examine exceptionality alongside treatment efficacy and cost as the main criteria for funding. This was also the case in Wales until September 2017. Our paper draws on audio recordings of panel meetings and interviews in a Welsh Health Board to investigate how exceptionality was constructed in discussions. It focuses on the problematic combination of different decision criteria in meeting talk, particularly regarding the discourses associated with efficacy and exceptionality. Exceptionality is a fluid category that raised questions about the evidence-based nature of panel decision making. In particular, the paper discusses the use of subgroup data from RCTs and the difficulty of deciding how small a subgroup of patients should be before it is deemed exceptional. Determining exceptionality has been an important mechanism for deciding that a minority of NHS patients can still receive high-cost treatments not routinely provided for all. As a neglected rationing mechanism it warrants sociological examination.

LeRoy Walters's Legacy of Bioethics in Genetics and Biotechnology Policy.

LeRoy Walters was at the center of public debate about emerging biological technologies, even as "biotechnology" began to take root. He chaired advisory panels on human gene therapy, the human genome project, and patenting DNA for the congressional Office of Technology Assessment. He chaired the subcommittee on Human Gene Therapy for NIH's Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee. He was also a regular advisor to Congress, the executive branch, and academics concerned about policy governing emerging biotechnologies. In large part due to Prof. Walters, the Kennedy Institute of Ethics was one of the primary sources of talent in bioethics, including staff who populated policy and science agencies dealing with reproductive and genetic technologies, such as NIH and OTA. His legacy lies not only in his writings, but in those people, documents, and discussions that guided biotechnology policy in the United States for three decades.

Clinic, courtroom or (specialist) committee: in the best interests of the critically Ill child?

Law's processes are likely always to be needed when particularly intractable conflicts arise in relation to the care of a critically ill child like Charlie Gard. Recourse to law has its merits, but it also imposes costs, and the courts' decisions about the best interests of such children appear to suffer from uncertainty, unpredictability and insufficiency. The insufficiency arises from the courts' apparent reluctance to enter into the ethical dimensions of such cases. Presuming that such reflection is warranted, this article explores alternatives to the courts, and in particular the merits of specialist ethics support services, which appear to be on the rise in the UK. Such specialist services show promise, as they are less formal and adversarial than the courts and they appear capable of offering expert ethical advice. However, further research is needed into such services - and into generalist ethics support services - in order to gauge whether this is indeed a promising development.

Bioethics and multiculturalism: nuancing the discussion.

In his recent analysis of multiculturalism, Tom Beauchamp has argued that those who implement multicultural reasoning in their arguments against common morality theories, such as his own, have failed to understand that multiculturalism is neither a form of moral pluralism nor ethical relativism but is rather a universalistic moral theory in its own right. Beauchamp's position is indeed on the right track in that multiculturalists do not consider themselves ethical relativists. Yet, Beauchamp tends to miss the mark when he argues that multiculturalism is in effect a school of thought that endorses a form of moral universalism that is akin to his own vision of a common morality. As a supporter of multiculturalism, I would like to discuss some aspects of Beauchamp's comments on multiculturalism and clarify what a multicultural account of public bioethics might look like. Ultimately, multiculturalism is purported as a means of managing diversity in the public arena and should not be thought of as endorsing either a version of moral relativism or a universal morality. By simultaneously refraining from the promotion of a comprehensive common moral system while it attempts to avoid a collapse into relativism, multiculturalism can serve as the ethico-political framework in which diverse moralities can be managed and in which opportunities for ethical dialogue, debate and deliberation on the prospects of common bioethical norms are made possible.