Top

Intensive Care Medicine

Published in:

01-10-2018 | Systematic Review

Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis

Authors: Andreas Lundh, Joel Lexchin, Barbara Mintzes, Jeppe B. Schroll, Lisa Bero

Published in: Intensive Care Medicine | Issue 10/2018

Abstract

Purpose

Clinical research is widely sponsored by drug and device companies. We investigated whether industry sponsored drug and device studies have more favorable outcomes and differ in risk of bias, compared with studies having other sources of sponsorship. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review.

Methods

In this update we searched MEDLINE and Embase (2010 to February 2015), Cochrane Methodology Register (2015, Issue 2) and Web of Science (June 2015). We included empirical studies that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. Two assessors included papers, extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether conclusions agreed with results.

Results

We included 27 additional papers in this update (review now includes 75 papers). Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, RR: 1.27 (95% CI 1.17–1.37), no difference in harms results RR: 1.37 (95% CI 0.64–2.93) and more often favorable conclusions RR: 1.34 (95% CI 1.19–1.51) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Nineteen papers reported on sponsorship and efficacy effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in reporting of data and heterogeneity of results. Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment, follow-up and selective outcome reporting. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.25 (95% CI 1.05–1.50), compared with non-industry sponsored studies.

Conclusions

Drug and device studies sponsored by manufacturing companies have more favorable efficacy results and conclusions than studies sponsored by other sources.

Available only for authorised users

Wyatt J (1991) Use and sources of medical knowledge. Lancet 338:1368–1373PubMed

PhRMA. Pharmaceutical marketing in perspective: its value and role as one of many factors informing prescribing. http://phrma-docs.phrma.org/sites/default/files/pdf/phrma_marketing_brochure_influences_on_prescribing_final.pdf. Accessed 26 April 2018

Moses H 3rd, Matheson DH, Cairns-Smith S, George BP, Palisch C, Dorsey ER (2015) The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons. JAMA 313:174–189PubMed

Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 289:454–465PubMed

Lexchin J, Bero L, Djulbegovic B, Clark O (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: a systematic review. BMJ 326:1167–1170PubMedPubMedCentral

Sismondo S (2008) Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: a qualitative systematic review. Contemp Clin Trials 29:109–113PubMed

Schott G, Pachl H, Limbach U, Gundert-Remy U, Ludwig WD, Lieb K (2010) The financing of drug trials by pharmaceutical companies and its consequences. Part 1: a qualitative, systematic review of the literature on possible influences on the findings, protocols, and quality of drug trials. Dtsch Arztebl Int 107:279–285PubMedPubMedCentral

Bero LA, Rennie D (1996) Influences on the quality of published drug studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 12:209–237PubMed

Lexchin J (2012) Those who have the gold make the evidence: how the pharmaceutical industry biases the outcomes of clinical trials of medications. Sci Eng Ethics 18:247–261PubMed

10.

Sismondo S (2008) How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: causal structures and responses. Soc Sci Med 66:1909–1914PubMed

11.

Rosefsky JB (2003) Results of clinical trials sponsored by for-profit vs nonprofit entities. JAMA 290:3070–3071PubMed

12.

Higgins JPT, Green S (2011) cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane collaboration. http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 26 April 2018

13.

Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L (2017) Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:MR000033PubMed

14.

Lundh A, Lexchin J, Sismondo S, Busuioc OA, Bero L (2011) Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:MR000033

15.

Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L (2012) Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:MR000033PubMed

16.

Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 339:b2535PubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, Schünemann HJ (2008) GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 336:924–926PubMedPubMedCentral

18.

The Cochrane Collaboration (2014) Review Manager (RevMan), version 5.3.5.: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen

19.

Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL (2003) Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA 290:921–928PubMed

20.

Sinyor M, Schaffer A, Smart KA, Levitt AJ, Lanctôt KL, Grysman NH (2012) Sponsorship, antidepressant dose, and outcome in major depressive disorder: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Clin Psychiatry 73:e277–e287PubMed

21.

Alasbali T, Smith M, Geffen N, Trope GE, Flanagan JG, Jin Y et al (2009) Discrepancy between results and abstract conclusions in industry- vs nonindustry-funded studies comparing topical prostaglandins. Am J Ophthalmol 147:33–38PubMed

22.

Hart B, Lundh A, Bero L (2012) Effect of reporting bias on meta-analyses of drug trials: reanalysis of meta-analyses. BMJ 344:d7202PubMed

23.

Bero L, Oostvogel F, Bacchetti P, Lee K (2007) Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug-drug comparisons: why some statins appear more efficacious than others. PLoS Med 4:e184PubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Booth CM, Cescon DW, Wang L, Tannock IF, Krzyzanowska MK (2008) Evolution of the randomized controlled trial in oncology over three decades. J Clin Oncol 26:5458–5464PubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Bourgeois FT, Murthy S, Mandl KD (2010) Outcome reporting among drug trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Ann Intern Med 153:158–166PubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Djulbegovic B, Kumar A, Miladinovic B, Reljic T, Galeb S, Mhaskar A et al (2013) Treatment success in cancer: industry compared to publicly sponsored randomized controlled trials. PLoS ONE 8:e58711PubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Etter JF, Burri M, Stapleton J (2007) The impact of pharmaceutical company funding on results of randomized trials of nicotine replacement therapy for smoking cessation: a meta-analysis. Addiction 102:815–822PubMed

28.

Flacco ME, Manzoli L, Boccia S, Capasso L, Aleksovska K, Rosso A et al (2015) Head-to-head randomized trials are mostly industry sponsored and almost always favor the industry sponsor. J Clin Epidemiol 68:811–820PubMed

29.

Perlis CS, Harwood M, Perlis RH (2005) Extent and impact of industry sponsorship conflicts of interest in dermatology research. J Am Acad Dermatol 52:967–971PubMed

30.

Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, Fields KK, Bennett CL, Adams JR et al (2000) The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet 356:635–638PubMed

31.

Dunn AG, Mandl KD, Coiera E, Bourgeois FT (2013) The effects of industry sponsorship on comparator selection in trial registrations for neuropsychiatric conditions in children. PLoS ONE 8:e84951PubMedPubMedCentral

32.

Estellat C, Ravaud P (2012) Lack of head-to-head trials and fair control arms: randomized controlled trials of biologic treatment for rheumatoid arthritis. Arch Int Med 172:237–244

33.

Katz KA, Karlawish JH, Chiang DS, Bognet RA, Propert KJ, Margolis DJ (2006) Prevalence and factors associated with use of placebo control groups in randomized controlled trials in psoriasis: a cross-sectional study. J Am Acad Dermatol 55:814–822PubMed

34.

Lathyris DN, Patsopoulos NA, Salanti G, Ioannidis JP (2010) Industry sponsorship and selection of comparators in randomized clinical trials. Eur J Clin Invest 40:172–182PubMed

35.

Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH, Simms RW, Fortin PR, Felson DT, Minaker KL et al (1994) A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Arch Int Med 154:157–163

36.

Safer DJ (2002) Design and reporting modifications in industry-sponsored comparative psychopharmacology trials. J Nerv Ment Dis 190:583–592PubMed

37.

Mann H, Djulbegovic B (2013) Comparator bias: why comparisons must address genuine uncertainties. J R Soc Med 106:30–33PubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Johansen HK, Gøtzsche PC (1999) Problems in the design and reporting of trials of antifungal agents encountered during meta-analysis. JAMA 282:1752–1759PubMed

39.

Furukawa TA (2004) All clinical trials must be reported in detail and made publicly available. BMJ 329:626PubMedPubMedCentral

40.

Psaty BM, Kronmal RA (2008) Reporting mortality findings in trials of rofecoxib for Alzheimer disease or cognitive impairment: a case study based on documents from rofecoxib litigation. JAMA 299:1813–1817PubMed

41.

Psaty BM, Prentice RL (2010) Minimizing bias in randomized trials: the importance of blinding. JAMA 304:793–794PubMed

42.

Chan AW, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG (2004) Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA 291:2457–2465PubMed

43.

Dwan K, Altman DG, Arnaiz JA, Bloom J, Chan AW, Cronin E et al (2008) Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias. PLoS ONE 3:e3081PubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Gøtzsche PC (2011) Why we need easy access to all data from all clinical trials and how to accomplish it. Trials 12:249PubMedPubMedCentral

45.

McGauran N, Wieseler B, Kreis J, Schuler YB, Kolsch H, Kaiser T (2010) Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review. Trials 11:37PubMedPubMedCentral

46.

Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad J, Meijer G, Beermann B (2003) Evidence b(i)ased medicine-selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ 326:1171–1173PubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Rising K, Bacchetti P P, Bero L (2003) Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: review of publication and presentation. PLoS Med 5:e217

48.

Vedula SS, Bero L, Scherer RW, Dickersin K (2009) Outcome reporting in industry-sponsored trials of gabapentin for off-label use. N Engl J Med 361:1963–1971PubMed

49.

Killin LO, Russ TC, Starr JM, Abrahams S, Della Sala S (2014) The effect of funding sources on donepezil randomized controlled trial outcome: a meta-analysis. BMJ Open 4:e004083PubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Naci H, Dias S, Ades AE (2014) Industry sponsorship bias in research findings: a network meta-analysis of LDL cholesterol reduction in randomised trials of statins. BMJ 349:g5741PubMedPubMedCentral

51.

Boutron I, Dutton S, Ravaud P, Altman DG (2010) Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes. JAMA 303:2058–2064PubMed

52.

Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Singer J, Goldsmith CH, Hutchison BG, Milner RA et al (1991) Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 44:91–98PubMed

53.

Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C et al (2007) Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:10PubMedPubMedCentral

54.

Corona G, Maseroli E, Rastrelli G, Isidori AM, Sforza A, Mannucci E et al (2014) Cardiovascular risk associated with testosterone-boosting medications: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Expert Opin Drug Saf 13:1327–1351PubMed

55.

Xu L, Freeman G, Cowling BJ, Schooling CM (2013) Testosterone therapy and cardiovascular events among men: a systematic review and meta-analysis of placebo-controlled randomized trials. BMC Med 11:108PubMedPubMedCentral

56.

Golder S, Loke YK (2008) Is there evidence for biased reporting of published adverse effects data in pharmaceutical industry-funded studies? Br J Clin Pharmacol 66:767–773PubMedPubMedCentral

57.

Doshi P, Jones M, Jefferson T (2012) Rethinking credible evidence synthesis. BMJ 344:d7898PubMed

58.

Godlee F (2009) We want raw data, now. BMJ 339:b5405

59.

Krleza-Jeric K, Chan AW, Dickersin K, Sim I, Grimshaw J, Gluud C (2005) Principles for international registration of protocol information and results from human trials of health related interventions: Ottawa statement (part 1). BMJ 330:956–958PubMedPubMedCentral

60.

DeAngelis CD, Fontanarosa PB (2010) The importance of independent academic statistical analysis. Biostatistics 11:383–384PubMed

Title: Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis
Authors: Andreas Lundh
Joel Lexchin
Barbara Mintzes
Jeppe B. Schroll
Lisa Bero
Publication date: 01-10-2018
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Intensive Care Medicine / Issue 10/2018
Print ISSN: 0342-4642
Electronic ISSN: 1432-1238
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-018-5293-7

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2018

The Boldt scandal still in need of action: the example of colloids 10 years after initial suspicion of fraud

Adrenocortical function during prolonged critical illness and beyond: a prospective observational study

Do I have a conflict of interest? Not sure

Mortality attributable to different Klebsiella susceptibility patterns and to the coverage of empirical antibiotic therapy: a cohort study on patients admitted to the ICU with infection

Urinary creatinine excretion is related to short-term and long-term mortality in critically ill patients

Unilateral pulmonary venous occlusion caused by a localized pericardial clot