Video: Every Case Tells a Story| Webinar: ACR/CHEST ILD Guidelines in Practice

An official publication of the ACR and the ARP serving rheumatologists and rheumatology professionals

  • Conditions
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout and Crystalline Arthritis
    • Myositis
    • Osteoarthritis and Bone Disorders
    • Pain Syndromes
    • Pediatric Conditions
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Sjögren’s Disease
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
    • Systemic Sclerosis
    • Vasculitis
    • Other Rheumatic Conditions
  • FocusRheum
    • ANCA-Associated Vasculitis
    • Axial Spondyloarthritis
    • Gout
    • Psoriatic Arthritis
    • Rheumatoid Arthritis
    • Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
  • Guidance
    • Clinical Criteria/Guidelines
    • Ethics
    • Legal Updates
    • Legislation & Advocacy
    • Meeting Reports
      • ACR Convergence
      • Other ACR meetings
      • EULAR/Other
    • Research Rheum
  • Drug Updates
    • Analgesics
    • Biologics/DMARDs
  • Practice Support
    • Billing/Coding
    • EMRs
    • Facility
    • Insurance
    • QA/QI
    • Technology
    • Workforce
  • Opinion
    • Patient Perspective
    • Profiles
    • Rheuminations
      • Video
    • Speak Out Rheum
  • Career
    • ACR ExamRheum
    • Awards
    • Career Development
  • ACR
    • ACR Home
    • ACR Convergence
    • ACR Guidelines
    • Journals
      • ACR Open Rheumatology
      • Arthritis & Rheumatology
      • Arthritis Care & Research
    • From the College
    • Events/CME
    • President’s Perspective
  • Search

Ethics Forum: What Are Conflicts of Interest?

Thomas R. Collins  |  October 17, 2019

One scenario dealt with an issue addressed recently in published literature: conflicts of interest and clinical practice guidelines. In the scenario, a physician organization has decided to write a guideline for a new immunologic disease. Disclosure statements showed that 20% of the guideline group recently participated in an industry-funded trial involving the disease, and 20% received consulting fees from the leading manufacturer of a treatment for the disease.

Meeting attendees were asked which statement they most agree with: 1) All of the current members can stay on the guideline group; 2) members who have industry ties should be excluded from the guideline group; 3) the members who received the consulting fees from the leading manufacturer of a treatment for the new immunologic disease should be excluded from the guideline group; or 4) the members who recently participated in industry-funded trials for the new immunologic disease should be excluded from the guideline group.

ad goes here:advert-1
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

The most common choice was No. 3, with 38.98% of responses, but choice No. 2, with its tighter restriction, was a close second (33.9%). About 24% said all the current members could stay on the guideline group.

In another scenario, a 46-year-old woman was recently diagnosed with seropositive rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and is on 15 mg of prednisone a day. Her rheumatologist is in private practice with an infusion center and has participated in industry-funded trials for a new intravenous (IV) biologic medication that is now FDA approved for RA. The doctor discussed the options with the patient, and the patient received the new IV biologic.

ad goes here:advert-2
ADVERTISEMENT
SCROLL TO CONTINUE

Attendees were asked what they thought was the most likely reason the patient received the new IV biologic medication: 1) the rheumatologist believes IV medications may work better than oral or subcutaneous medications; 2) the rheumatologist believes the new IV biologic medication is superior to other options; 3) the rheumatologist has a financial relationship with the company that makes the new IV biologic medication; or 4) the rheumatologist prefers IV medication because it will be more profitable.

About 40% chose No. 2, and about 9% chose No. 1—meaning that about 49% assigned a primarily medical motive to the physician. But about 30% chose No. 4, and about 21% chose No. 3—meaning about 51% assigned a primarily monetary motive to the physician.

On how to handle a situation in which a pharmaceutical representative offers to provide educational materials for a fellowship program that has had its funding decreased, about 40% said the fellows should be able to receive the materials through the program director. But about 31% said the best choice was for the university to provide more funding.

Page: 1 2 3 4 | Single Page
Share: 

Filed under:Ethics Tagged with:2018 ACR/ARHP Annual MeetingEthicsEthics ForumJane Kang

Related Articles

    ACR Survey Seeks to Better Define Conflicts of Interest

    November 17, 2019

    Recognizing that situations involving ties with the pharmaceutical industry and conflicts of interest are often not black and white, the ACR’s Committee on Ethics and Conflict of Interest has collected feedback on four ethically challenging scenarios to gauge how rheumatology providers think about them. The survey generated responses that were often mixed, showing that when…

    Ethics Forum: Is a Conflict-of-Interest Slide Enough?

    December 18, 2018

    We have all been to numerous lectures, grand rounds and other continuing medical education activities where the speaker, prepared and poised at the podium, begins his lecture with a title slide. Soon after, we see the ubiquitous conflicts of interest slide, which lists the invited speaker’s research funding, his consulting activities and his board memberships—all…

    Conflicts of Interest in Guideline Development: What to Do When Everyone Has a Conflict

    March 12, 2023

    Avoiding real and apparent conflicts of interest is a fundamental principle of guideline development, but what should we do when every thought leader is conflicted? An example of this conundrum in rheumatology has been the ACR’s ongoing effort to establish guidelines for the management of lupus nephritis, which has been stymied by the fact that…

    AMA Updates Code of Medical Ethics

    January 17, 2017

    Eight years ago, the American Medical Association’s (AMA) Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs embarked on a comprehensive review of the AMA Code of Medical Ethics. What emerged after years of hard effort, intensive feedback and thoughtful revisions was a modernized version of the guide, which the AMA House of Delegates voted to adopt in…

  • About Us
  • Meet the Editors
  • Issue Archives
  • Contribute
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us
  • Copyright © 2025 by John Wiley & Sons, Inc. All rights reserved, including rights for text and data mining and training of artificial technologies or similar technologies. ISSN 1931-3268 (print). ISSN 1931-3209 (online).
  • DEI Statement
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Use
  • Cookie Preferences