Document is current

Article History

Received: 13 May 2025

Accepted: 9 July 2025

First Online: 6 October 2025

Declarations

:

: The assessment of interests of members of the Guideline development team is aimed at determining conflicts of interest for each question and the actions needed for their management in the process of elaboration of the Guideline. The assessment is based on the policy of the Istituto Superiore di Sanità for the management of conflicts of interest in the development of Guideline. Each interest is assessed for its nature, type, relevance for the content of the Guideline, economic value, timing and duration. The assessment includes the following information which can be of help in determining the extent to which the competing interest could reasonably affect the expert’s position: type of interest; relevance for the content of the guideline; timing and duration; position of the expert in the organization (in case of institutional interests). With respect to type of potentially competing interests, these include: (1) Economic interests, i.e. financial relationships with organizations directly producing goods or services relevant for the guideline topic. Economic interests include any monetary transaction or value related to payments for services, property shares, stock options, patents and royalties. Relevant interest can be personal, related to family members or institutional (i.e. related to the organization in which the expert works). (2) Indirect interests, such as career advancement, social position and personal beliefs. Interests considered can be: 1. Economic interests, i.e. financial relationships with organizations involved in products or services relevant for the subject of the guideline, including any direct payment for services, property shares, stock options, and patents or copyright royalties). Economic interests can be either: (a) personal economic interest, i.e. related to a personal financial benefit; (b) familial economic interest, i.e. related to the income of family members; (c) institutional economic interests, i.e. related to benefits for the institution in which the subject works. 2. Intellectual interests, i.e. benefits for career advancement and social status. Both economic and intellectual interests can be specific (i.e. directly related to the subject of the guideline) or non-specific (when they are not related to the content of the guideline).Any reported potentially conflicting interest is classified as: Level 1 (minimal or not relevant): no action needed. Level 2 (potentially relevant): this can be managed either with full participation to the development of the guideline with public disclosure of the conflict of interest at the end of the recommendation related to the interest; exclusion of the subject with the competing interest form the discussion of those recommendations possibly influenced by the competing interest. Level 3 (relevant): this can be managed with the exclusion of the subject with the competing interest from the discussion of possibly affected recommendation, or with the total exclusion of the subject with competing interest from the elaboration of the guideline. All members of the panel and of the evidence review team filled out annually a declaration of potential conflicts of interest, which were collectively discussed to determine their relevance. In all cases, the reported conflicts were considered minimal or not relevant (Level 1); therefore, all components of the panel and of the evidence review team participated to the elaboration of all recommendations.Panel members: Edoardo Mannucci received fees for training activities from Mundipharma and speaking fees from Abbott, Eli Lilly e Novo Nordisk; Riccardo Candido received consulting fees from Boehringer Ingelheim, Eli Lilly, Merck, Menarini and Roche, and speaking fees from Abbott, Eli Lilly, Mundipharma, Novo Nordisk and Sanofi; Basilio Pintaudi received consulting and/or speaking fees from Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, Theras and Pikdare; Giovanni Targher received consulting fees from Novartis; Daniela Bruttomesso received consulting and/or speaking fees from Abbott, Menarini, Roche, Sanofi, Terumo, Theras; Angela Girelli received consulting and/or speaking fees from Eli Lilly, Abbott, Sanofi; Riccardo Schiaffini received consulting and/or speaking fees from Abbott, Sanofi; Federico Spandonaro received consulting and/or speaking fees from Eli Lilly, Janssen, Sanofi, Servier, Takeda, Allergan, Amgen, Astellas, Boehringer Ingelheim, Gilead, Gore, Janssen, Lundbeck, Nestlé, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi; the others Members have no interest to declare.Evidence review team members: Daniela D’Angela and Barbara Polistena received consulting and/or speaking fees from Accord HC, Eli Lilly, Allergan, Amgen, Astellas, Bayer, Biogen, Boehringer Ingelheim, Chiesi, Daiichi Sankyo, Fond. MSD, Ipsen, Janssen, Lundbeck, Nestlé, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Sanofi, Takeda, Teva; the others Members have no interest to declare.External reviewers: Domenico Cucinotta, Francesco Dotta, and Dario Iafusco have no interest to declare.