Industry compensation and self-reported financial conflicts of interest among authors of highly cited peripheral artery disease studies.

Objective: Industry compensation to authors may influence the interpretation of study results. Scientific journals often require author disclosure of a relevant financial conflict of interest (FCOI) but seldom quantify compensation and leave reporting up to the author's discretion. Professional and public concerns related to potential bias introduced into medical research by FCOI have arisen, especially when physician compensation from manufacturers is not disclosed. Little is known, however, about the prevalence of industry compensation to authors of related publications, payment amounts, or how this information compares with self-reported FCOI. The objective of this study was to compare industry compensation and disclosed FCOI among highly referenced publications related to treatment of peripheral artery disease, a disease that affects approximately 8.5 million Americans and is often treated with medications and devices.

Methods: "Peripheral artery disease" was used as a Web of Science search term to identify publications from 2013 to 2016, excluding review articles, conference proceedings, book chapters, abstract publications, and non-English language publications. The top 99 most cited publications were abstracted for self-reported FCOI by author. Industry compensation to authors was queried using a ProPublica Dollars for Docs custom data set based on Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments data. Providers practicing in the United States in any of the following specialties were included: cardiology, cardiothoracic surgery, vascular and interventional radiology, or vascular surgery. Payment transactions were matched to physician authors on the basis of provider name, specialty, and geographic location. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics and categorical tests. Descriptive statistics are reported as frequency (percentage) or median (interquartile range).

Results: Among 1008 vascular specialist authors identified, 218 (22%) self-reported FCOI. Fifty-six physician authors had compensation reported to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services by industry during the study period. Among those identified as recipients of industry compensation, 28 (50%) self-reported FCOI. Industry payments to the 56 authors totaled $11,139,987, with a median total payment of $18,827 (interquartile range, $152,084) per author. Food and beverage was the most frequently identified nature of payment (n = 8981 [74%]), promotional speaking involved the largest total amount of payments ($3,256,431), and royalty or license was the highest median payment ($51,431 [$72,215]). Physicians reporting FCOI received a total of $9,435,340 during the study period vs $1,706,647 for those who did not report any FCOI. Median total payments were higher among authors reporting FCOI vs not ($81,224 [$324,171] vs $9494 [$43,448]; P < .001).

Conclusions: Nondisclosed author compensation from industry is relatively uncommon among highly cited peripheral artery disease research studies but may be associated with substantial payments. These results suggest that self-reported FCOI does not provide a comprehensive overview of industry compensation. Reporting all payments rather than only those deemed relevant by the author might provide a more complete and transparent report of potential FCOI, allowing independent assessment of relevance in interpreting study findings.