Conflicts of interest common among panel members of guidelines that expand disease definitions

An assessment of expert members of panels making decisions about definitions or diagnostic criteria for common conditions in the US, which were published in guidelines used by physicians and other healthcare professionals caring for patients, found that most members had ties to industry. The assessment was made in a study from Ray Moynihan of Bond University, Queensland, Australia, and colleagues published in this week's issue of PLOS Medicine.

Of the 16 publications appearing between 2000 and April 2013 that met the authors' criteria of changing disease definitions, 10 proposed changes widening disease definitions and one narrowed a definition. Conditions being expanded included , Alzheimer disease and . Among the 14 panels with disclosure sections, the average proportion of members with industry ties was 75%.Twelve panels were chaired by people with industry ties. For members with ties, the median number of companies to which they were tied was seven. Companies with the highest proportions of ties manufactured drugs used to treat the disease.

In 2009, a US Institute of Medicine (IOM) report recommended that professional societies and other organizations drafting should "generally exclude as panel members individuals with ," and in 2011 another IOM report recommended furthermore that panel chairs should be free of conflicts. To assess the potential impact of these recommendations, the authors compared panel publications released in 2012 with those released earlier and found no difference—guidelines published in 2012 had an average of 76% of with ties, vs 74% before 2012.

The authors state, "This study did not investigate the merits of the proposed changes to the conditions identified. However, findings that diagnostic thresholds are being lowered by panels dominated by those with financial ties to multiple companies which may benefit directly from those decisions, raises questions about current processes of disease definition."

A limitation of the study is that the authors did not compare their results with guidelines that did not change disease definitions to determine whether industry ties were more common among panelists of guidelines that changed definitions compared with those that did not. Furthermore, the authors state, "As both [IOM] reports make clear, there are financial as well as non-financial or intellectual conflicts such as academic advancement, and there should be no assumption that having a conflict is unethical, or 'that any particular professional will necessarily let financial gain influence his or her judgment'."

More information: Moynihan RN, Cooke GP, Doust JA, Bero L, Hill S, et al. (2013) Expanding Disease Definitions in Guidelines and Expert Panel Ties to Industry: A Crosssectional Study of Common Conditions in the United States. PLoS Med 10(8): e1001500. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001500

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

Doctor behind 'free radical' aging theory dies

Nov 25, 2014

Dr. Denham Harman, a renowned scientist who developed the most widely accepted theory on aging that's now used to study cancer, Alzheimer's disease and other illnesses, has died in Nebraska at age 98.

Mexican boy who had massive tumor recovering

Nov 25, 2014

An 11-year-old Mexican boy who had pieces of a massive tumor removed and who drew international attention after U.S. officials helped him get treatment in the southwestern U.S. state of New Mexico is still recovering after ...

New medical device to make the mines safer

Nov 21, 2014

Dehydration can be a serious health issue for Australia's mining industry, but a new product to be developed with input from Flinders University's Medical Device Partnering Program (MDPP) is set to more effectively ...

US family gets $6.75 million in Botox case

Nov 20, 2014

A New York couple who said Botox treatment of their son's cerebral palsy left him with life-threatening complications and sued its manufacturer won a $6.75 million verdict from a federal jury on Thursday.

User comments

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.