None of the guidelines included in either study was fully compliant with National Academy of Medicine standards, which include written disclosure, appointing committee chairs or cochairs with no conflicts of interest, and keeping committee members with conflicts to a minority of the committee membership, wrote Colette DeJong, MD, and Robert Steinbrook, MD, in an accompanying editorial. In the study by Khan et al., “Notably, 14 of the 18 panels had chairs with industry payments, and 10 had a majority of members with payments,” they wrote.

However, the federal government has so far shown no interest in supporting a fully independent entity to develop clinical practice guidelines, as occurs in the United Kingdom via the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. “Preparation of guidelines by an independent public body with assured funding and independence could be an effective approach, not only for eliminating issues related to financial conflicts of interest but also for assuring the use of rigorous methodologies and avoiding the wasteful duplication of efforts by multiple committees,” they wrote.

Financial conflicts in clinical practice guidelines persist in the United States in part because many professional societies have financial conflicts with industry, the editorialists wrote.

“Robust, objective, and unbiased clinical practice guidelines support improvements in patient care; the best interests of patients are the paramount consideration,” they emphasized (JAMA Intern Med. 2018 Oct 29. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4974).

Dr. DeJong is affiliated with the University of California, San Francisco; Dr. Steinbrook is Editor at Large for JAMA Internal Medicine. They had no financial conflicts to disclose.