IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0227045.html

Drivers of the opioid crisis: An appraisal of financial conflicts of interest in clinical practice guideline panels at the peak of opioid prescribing

Author

Listed:
  • Sheryl Spithoff
  • Pamela Leece
  • Frank Sullivan
  • Nav Persaud
  • Peter Belesiotis
  • Liane Steiner

Abstract

Background: Starting in the late 1990s, the pharmaceutical industry sought to increase prescribing of opioids for chronic non-cancer pain. Influencing the content of clinical practice guidelines may have been one strategy industry employed. In this study we assessed potential risk of bias from financial conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry in guidelines for opioid prescribing for chronic non-cancer pain published between 2007 and 2013, the peak of opioid prescribing. Methods: We used the Guideline Panel Review (GPR) to appraise the guidelines included in the 2014 systematic review and critical appraisal by Nuckols et al. These were English language opioid prescribing guidelines for adults with chronic non-cancer pain published between July 2007 and July 2013, the peak of opioid prescribing. The GPR assigns red flags to items known to introduce potential bias from financial conflicts of interest. We operationalized the GPR by creating specific definitions for each red flag. Two reviewers independently evaluated each guideline. Disagreements were resolved with discussion. We also compared our score to the critical appraisal scores for overall quality from the study by Nuckols et al. Results: We appraised 13 guidelines, which received 43 red flags in total. Guidelines had 3.3 red flags on average (out of a possible seven) with range from one to six. Four guidelines had missing information, so red flags may be higher than reported. The guidelines with the highest and second highest scores for overall quality in the 2014 critical appraisal by Nuckols et al. had five and three red flags, respectively. Conclusion: Our findings reveal that the guidelines for opioid prescribing chronic non-cancer pain from 2007 to 2013 were at risk of bias because of pervasive conflicts of interest with the pharmaceutical industry and a paucity of mechanisms to address bias. Even highly-rated guidelines examined in a 2014 systematic review and critical appraisal had many red flags.

Suggested Citation

  • Sheryl Spithoff & Pamela Leece & Frank Sullivan & Nav Persaud & Peter Belesiotis & Liane Steiner, 2020. "Drivers of the opioid crisis: An appraisal of financial conflicts of interest in clinical practice guideline panels at the peak of opioid prescribing," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(1), pages 1-15, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0227045
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0227045
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227045
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0227045&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0227045?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Paul Campsall & Kate Colizza & Sharon Straus & Henry T Stelfox, 2016. "Financial Relationships between Organizations That Produce Clinical Practice Guidelines and the Biomedical Industry: A Cross-Sectional Study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(5), pages 1-16, May.
    2. repec:abf:journl:v:31:y:2020:i:3:p:24253-24254 is not listed on IDEAS
    3. Lisa A Bero & Quinn Grundy, 2016. "Why Having a (Nonfinancial) Interest Is Not a Conflict of Interest," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(12), pages 1-8, December.
    4. Van Zee, A., 2009. "The promotion and marketing of oxycontin: Commercial triumph, public health tragedy," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 99(2), pages 221-227.
    5. Susan L Norris & Haley K Holmer & Lauren A Ogden & Brittany U Burda, 2011. "Conflict of Interest in Clinical Practice Guideline Development: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(10), pages 1-6, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Jakob M Burgstaller & Ulrike Held & Andri Signorell & Eva Blozik & Johann Steurer & Maria M Wertli, 2020. "Increased risk of adverse events in non-cancer patients with chronic and high-dose opioid use—A health insurance claims analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(9), pages 1-14, September.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Damien Wyssa & Martin R Tramèr & Nadia Elia, 2019. "Reporting of conflicts of interest and of sponsorship of guidelines in anaesthesiology. A cross-sectional study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(2), pages 1-13, February.
    2. Louis‐Philippe Beland & Jason Huh & Dongwoo Kim, 2024. "The effect of opioid use on traffic fatalities," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 33(6), pages 1123-1132, June.
    3. William Encinosa & Didem Bernard & Thomas M. Selden, 2022. "Opioid and non-opioid analgesic prescribing before and after the CDC’s 2016 opioid guideline," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 22(1), pages 1-52, March.
    4. Abhimanyu Sud & Darren K. Cheng & Rahim Moineddin & Erin Zlahtic & Ross Upshur, 2021. "Time series-based bibliometric analysis of a systematic review of multidisciplinary care for opioid dose reduction: exploring the origins of the North American opioid crisis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 8935-8955, November.
    5. repec:plo:pone00:0110469 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Cecilia Diaz-Campo, Antonella Mancino, 2025. "What We RANDomly Did Not Learn: Wave Zero of the U.S. Opioid Epidemic," LCERPA Working Papers jc0156, Laurier Centre for Economic Research and Policy Analysis, revised Jun 2025.
    7. Ravi Katari, Dean Baker, 2015. "Patent Monopolies and the Costs of Mismarketing Drugs," CEPR Reports and Issue Briefs 2015-11, Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR).
    8. Johanna Catherine Maclean & Justine Mallatt & Christopher J. Ruhm & Kosali Simon, 2022. "The Opioid Crisis, Health, Healthcare, and Crime: A Review of Quasi-Experimental Economic Studies," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 703(1), pages 15-49, September.
    9. McGranahan, David A. & Parker, Timothy S., "undated". "The Opioid Epidemic: A Geography in Two Phases," USDA Miscellaneous 310390, United States Department of Agriculture.
    10. Susan L Norris & Haley K Holmer & Lauren A Ogden & Brittany U Burda & Rongwei Fu, 2013. "Conflicts of Interest among Authors of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Glycemic Control in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(10), pages 1-1, October.
    11. Deiana, Claudio & Giua, Ludovica & Nistico, Roberto, 2019. "The Economics behind the Epidemic: Afghan Opium Price and Prescription Opioids in the US," IZA Discussion Papers 12872, IZA Network @ LISER.
    12. Joel Piqué-Buisan & Josep-E Baños & Irene Cambra-Badii, 2024. "Telling the story of the opioid crisis: A narrative analysis of the TV series Dopesick," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(4), pages 1-20, April.
    13. Anne Case & Angus Deaton, 2017. "Mortality and Morbidity in the 21st Century," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 48(1 (Spring), pages 397-476.
    14. James F. Anderson & Kelley Reinsmith-Jones & Willie M. Brooks, Jr. & Adam H. Langsam, 2017. "Paradigm Shift in Responding to Drug Users and Addicts: From a Criminal Justice to a Public Health Approach," International Journal of Social Science Studies, Redfame publishing, vol. 5(5), pages 1-15, May.
    15. Shannon M. Monnat, 2022. "Demographic and Geographic Variation in Fatal Drug Overdoses in the United States, 1999–2020," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 703(1), pages 50-78, September.
    16. Joanne Khabsa & Jennifer Petkovic & Alison Riddle & Lyubov Lytvyn & Olivia Magwood & Pearl Atwere & Pauline Campbell & Srinivasa V. Katikireddi & Bronwen Merner & Mona Nasser & Stephanie Chang & Aleja, 2022. "PROTOCOL: Conflict of interest issues when engaging stakeholders in health and healthcare guideline development: a systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    17. Boslett, Andrew & Hill, Elaine, 2022. "Mortality during resource booms and busts," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 115(C).
    18. McGranahan, David & Parker, Timothy, 2021. "The Opioid Epidemic: A Geography in Two Phases," Economic Research Report 327197, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    19. Lisa Bero, 2018. "Meta-research matters: Meta-spin cycles, the blindness of bias, and rebuilding trust," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(4), pages 1-4, April.
    20. Joseph Pozsgai-Alvarez & Iván Pastor Sanz, 2021. "Mapping the (anti-)corruption field: key topics and changing trends, 1968–2020," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 851-881, November.
    21. Jessica Y. Ho, 2019. "The Contemporary American Drug Overdose Epidemic in International Perspective," Population and Development Review, The Population Council, Inc., vol. 45(1), pages 7-40, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0227045. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.