Can you rely on the drugs that your doctor prescribes?

June 14, 2018 by Joel Lexchin And Lisa A Cosgrove, The Conversation
The reliability of a new guideline for the management of chronic hepatitis C is questionable, given the financial conflicts of interest documented by its authors. Credit: Shutterstock

The Canadian Medical Association Journal (CMAJ) has just published a new guideline for the management of hepatitis C—a disease that is underdiagnosed and undertreated in Canada.

This guideline is aimed at doctors and details recent advances in treating adults with chronic hepatitis C virus infection. It was produced by a from the Canadian Association for the Study of the Liver (CASL).

As the complexity of medical care grows exponentially, clinical guidelines such as this become increasingly important in helping doctors weave their way through the diagnosis and treatment of disease. As the number of guidelines increases, so too does their influence.

Well-constructed medical guidelines can be a boon to patient care, but poor guidelines have the potential for harm. There are two interrelated threats. The first is when committee members have a financial conflict of interest (FCOI) with companies producing products recommended in the guidelines. The second occurs when guidelines rely on poor quality evidence.

In the lead up to the Global Hepatitis Summit 2018, to be held in Toronto on June 14-17, we believe there are reasons to be concerned about this new hepatitis C guideline on both counts.

First, all eight authors of the CMAJ article, including the chair, declared FCOI with companies that produced the drugs recommended in the guideline. Second, the committee did not include an expert on evidence evaluation or someone representing the public or patients.

Do guidelines recommend the best drugs?

One of the authors of this article (Joel Lexchin) was part of a study that looked at FCOI in Canadian medical guidelines. We examined 28 guidelines that recommended drug treatment for a wide variety of diseases.

In more than 25 per cent of these documents, over half of the authors disclosed FCOI with manufacturers of drugs that they recommended.

The guideline for the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder from the American Psychiatric Association was studied by Lisa Cosgrove, the second author of this article. Financial ties to industry were disclosed by all members of this guideline development committee.

The presence of this FCOI may have been the reason why fewer than half of the studies cited in support of the recommendations met criteria for high quality and why 17 per cent did not measure clinically relevant results.

To guard against the corruption of guidelines, safeguards have been put in place. The U.S. Institute of Medicine (IOM), now the National Academy of Medicine, has recommendations about the membership on guideline committees. According to them, the chair and the majority of members should be free of FCOI and the committee should include an expert in the evaluation of evidence and a patient or public representative.

When the highly respected Cochrane organization produces , it explains in detail why studies are included or excluded. It also evaluates the multiple sources of bias that potentially exist in all studies.

The point about bias is extremely important as there is good evidence that studies financed by drug and device manufacturers are much more likely to report positive results and conclusions, compared with studies with any other source of funding.

Finally, guidelines produced by industry-tied authors tend to recommend expensive drugs despite a lack of evidence for their safety and efficacy.

3D illustration of the hepatitis C virus (HCV). Credit: Shutterstock
Silent on many questions

So, how valuable is a guideline for the management of hepatitis C, in which eight authors declared FCOI with recommended drug producers? How reliable are the recommendations from a committee that did not document how evidence was evaluated or include a public or patient representative?

The committee did attempt to get around some of these deficiencies. First the guideline explicitly states: "No funding, direct or in kind, was provided to the guideline panel for this work." Second, "in order to manage competing interests, the final guideline was vetted by the Canadian Association for the Study of the Liver membership, and specifically by the association's executive." Third, the "guideline was circulated by email to community organizations that represented patients."

Who were the community organizations and did they have ties with the companies making the drugs the guideline recommends? The guideline is silent on these questions.

Who is on the executive of CASL? Do they as individuals have links with industry? Does the association itself have links?

Getting even partial answers to these questions requires some digging. A simple Google search on "Canadian Association for the Study of the Liver" doesn't produce any direct links. The closest is a link to the Canadian Liver Journal. Visit this page, click around a few more times and eventually you get to the CASL website.

There are 33 people on the executive board including three of the guideline committee members; so, executive committee members were reviewing what they themselves had written.

Did the other 30 members have any FCOI to declare? There's no information about these people on the website. The website does say that CASL only endorses requests produced by a not-for-profit organization and that it "does not endorse or support any commercial diagnostic or therapeutic products."

But Gilead Science, Merck and AbbVie were all 2018 sponsors of Association Hepatology Fellowships. Gilead and AbbVie both produce hepatitis C drugs and Merck was working in this field until October 2017.

Does CASL get money from drug companies? Silence once more.

There is nothing in the guideline about why studies were included or excluded, nothing about how the information was abstracted from the studies and nothing about whether they were checked for biases.

Guidelines must be bias-free

The appearance of this guideline in the CMAJ raises serious questions about the journal's standards for publishing guidelines. The article was peer reviewed and FCOI was declared, but should the journal do more?

Should it require the composition of guideline committees to conform to the standards set by the National Academy of Medicine?

Should there have to be information about FCOI of the organization sponsoring the ?

Should there have to be explicit information about how studies were selected and evaluated?

Guidelines have to be seen as free of bias in order for doctors to have confidence in them. The new hepatitis C guideline published by the Canadian Medical Association Journal fails the bias test.

Explore further: Hepatitis C guideline recommends screening for all people born 1945-1975

Related Stories

Hepatitis C guideline recommends screening for all people born 1945-1975

June 4, 2018
A key recommendation in a new Canadian guideline on managing chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) is to screen all people born between 1945 and 1975 for the disease, a departure from previous guidelines. The guideline, which contains ...

Increase in Tx candidates with 2017 hypertension guidelines

May 26, 2018
(HealthDay)—The 2017 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association hypertension guideline is associated with an increase in the proportion of adults recommended for antihypertensive treatment compared with the ...

Financial relationships between biomedical companies and organizations

May 31, 2016
Financial relationships between biomedical companies and organizations that produce clinical practice guidelines are common, but often unreported.

APA releases new practice guideline on treatment of alcohol use disorder

January 8, 2018
Today, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) released a new practice guideline on the treatment of alcohol use disorder. This practice guideline provides evidence-based statements designed to increase knowledge of the ...

Guidelines 2.0: New guideline development checklist for health researchers

December 16, 2013
Researchers hope that a comprehensive new checklist will help guideline developers/organizations around the world create and implement better recommendations for health care. The guideline development checklist, created by ...

Management of diaphragmatic hernia in children: Canadian guideline to standardize care

January 29, 2018
For babies diagnosed with congenital diaphragmatic hernia, a comprehensive new guideline in CMAJ (Canadian Medical Association Journal) aims to provide guidance to physicians in diagnosing and managing the condition from ...

Recommended for you

Love organic foods? Your odds for some cancers may fall

October 22, 2018
Paying extra for those pricey organic fruits and vegetables might pay off: New research suggests eating them might help you dodge a cancer diagnosis.

A topical gel that can prevent nerve damage due to spraying crops with pesticides

October 22, 2018
A team of researchers affiliated with several institutions in India has developed a topical get that can be used by farmers to prevent nerve damage due to chemical crop spraying. In their paper published in the journal Science ...

Modern conflict: Screen time vs. nature

October 22, 2018
Even rural kids today spend more time in front of screens and less time outdoors, according to a new study of middle-school students in South Carolina.

Community health workers can reduce hospitalizations by 65 percent and double patient satisfaction with primary care

October 22, 2018
Community health workers—trusted laypeople from local communities who help high-risk patients to address social issues like food and housing insecurity—can help reduce hospital stays by 65 percent and double the rate ...

Moderate exercise before conception resulted in lower body weight, increased insulin sensitivity of offspring

October 22, 2018
Men who want to have children in the near future should consider hitting the gym.

Adding refined fiber to processed food could have negative health effects

October 19, 2018
Adding highly refined fiber to processed foods could have negative effects on human health, such as promoting liver cancer, according to a new study by researchers at Georgia State University and the University of Toledo.

0 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.