Discrepancies in Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures Among Physicians Receiving Compensation for Monoclonal Antibody Drugs.

Abstract

Monoclonal antibody drugs are widely used, highly marketed, expensive compounds. Relationships between these drug manufacturers and physicians may increase the potential for bias in relevant studies. The aim of this study is to determine the rate of disclosures among physicians receiving compensations for monoclonal antibody drugs (MAbDs). This is a retrospective, population-based, cross-sectional study. The 50 physicians who received the highest financial compensation for selected MAbDs from 2016 to 2020 were included. Payment data were obtained from the Open Payments Database, bibliometric data were obtained from SCOPUS, and disclosure data were obtained from relevant publications found in PubMed. The primary outcome was rate of disclosure concordance between self-declared conflict-of-interest and industry-reported payments documented in the Open Payments Database. Of the 50 physicians examined, 74% (N = 37) had publications examined. A cumulative 6170 payments totaling $18,484,228 were analyzed. A total of 418 relevant papers were reviewed. The rate of full disclosure (all relevant financial relationships disclosed) was 39.5%, partial disclosure (some but not all financial relationships disclosed) was 28.0%, and no disclosure was 26.3%. 6.2% did not require disclosure. Publications authored by dermatologists had the highest rate of full disclosure at 49.3%. There was no association between h-index and disclosure rate. Practice guidelines had the highest rate of full disclosure at 69.2% while basic science papers had the lowest (0%). Lastly, substantial variations in specific journal disclosure policies were found. Substantial inconsistencies were found between self-reported disclosures and the Open Payments Database among physicians receiving high compensation for MAbDs. A policy of full disclosure for all publications should be adopted.