Top

Intensive Care Medicine

Published in:

Open Access 01-10-2018 | Review

Industry-funded versus non-profit-funded critical care research: a meta-epidemiological overview

Authors: Perrine Janiaud, Ioana-Alinea Cristea, John P. A. Ioannidis

Published in: Intensive Care Medicine | Issue 10/2018

Abstract

Purpose

To study the landscape of funding in intensive care research and assess whether the reported outcomes of industry-funded randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are more favorable.

Methods

We systematically assembled meta-analyses evaluating any type of intervention in the critical care setting and reporting the source of funding for each included RCT. Furthermore, when the intervention was a drug or biologic, we searched also the original RCT articles, when their funding information was unavailable in the meta-analysis. We then qualitatively summarized the sources of funding. For binary outcomes, separate summary odds ratios were calculated for trials with and without industry funding. We then calculated the ratio of odds ratios (RORs) and the summary ROR (sROR) across topics. ROR < 1 implies that the experimental intervention is relatively more favorable in trials with industry funding compared with trials without industry funding. For RCTs included in the ROR analysis, we also examined the conclusions of their abstract.

Results

Across 67 topics with 568 RCTs, 88 were funded by industry and another 73 had both industry and non-profit funding. Across 33 topics with binary outcomes, the sROR was 1.10 [95% CI (0.96–1.26), I² = 1%]. Conclusions were not significantly more commonly unfavorable for the experimental arm interventions in industry-funded trials (21.3%) compared with trials without industry funding (18.2%).

Conclusion

Industry-funded RCTs are the minority in intensive care. We found no evidence that industry-funded trials in intensive care yield more favorable results or are less likely to reach unfavorable conclusions.

Available only for authorised users

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

Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326:1167–1170. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1167 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Patsopoulos NA, Ioannidis JPA, Analatos AA (2006) Origin and funding of the most frequently cited papers in medicine: database analysis. BMJ 332:1061–1064. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38768.420139.80 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

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:e184. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040184 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Ioannidis JPA, Greenland S, Hlatky MA et al (2014) Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet 383:166–175. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62227-8 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B et al (2017) Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:MR000033. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.mr000033.pub3 CrossRefPubMed

Drain PK, Parker RA, Robine M, Holmes KK (2018) Global migration of clinical research during the era of trial registration. PLoS One 13:e0192413. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192413 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Moses H, Matheson DHM, Cairns-Smith S et al (2015) The anatomy of medical research: US and international comparisons. JAMA 313:174–189. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2014.15939 CrossRefPubMed

Stamatakis E, Weiler R, Ioannidis JPA (2013) Undue industry influences that distort healthcare research, strategy, expenditure and practice: a review. Eur J Clin Investig 43:469–475. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12074 CrossRef

10.

Jørgensen AW, Hilden J, Gøtzsche PC (2006) Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 333:782. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38973.444699.0B CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

11.

Yank V, Rennie D, Bero LA (2007) Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 335:1202–1205. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.39376.447211.BE CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

12.

Lathyris DN, Patsopoulos NA, Salanti G, Ioannidis JPA (2010) Industry sponsorship and selection of comparators in randomized clinical trials. Eur J Clin Investig 40:172–182. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02240.x CrossRef

13.

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 18:247–261. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-011-9265-3 CrossRefPubMed

14.

Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Group (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 152:726–732. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00232 CrossRefPubMed

15.

Hakoum MB, Jouni N, Abou-Jaoude EA et al (2017) Characteristics of funding of clinical trials: cross-sectional survey and proposed guidance. BMJ Open 7:e015997. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015997 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

16.

Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A, Johansen HK et al (2007) Ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials. PLoS Med 4:e19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040019 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

17.

Coopersmith CM, Wunsch H, Fink MP et al (2012) A comparison of critical care research funding and the financial burden of critical illness in the United States. Crit Care Med 40:1072–1079. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0b013e31823c8d03 CrossRefPubMed

18.

Mitka M (2012) NIH signals intent to boost funding of emergency care research and training. JAMA 308:1193–1194. https://doi.org/10.1001/2012.jama.11142 CrossRefPubMed

19.

Friedrich JO, Adhikari NKJ, Beyene J (2007) Inclusion of zero total event trials in meta-analyses maintains analytic consistency and incorporates all available data. BMC Med Res Methodol 7:5. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-5 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

20.

Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH (1997) Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 127:820–826CrossRefPubMed

21.

DerSimonian R, Laird N (1986) Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 7:177–188CrossRefPubMed

22.

Ioannidis JPA, Patsopoulos NA, Rothstein HR (2008) Reasons or excuses for avoiding meta-analysis in forest plots. BMJ 336:1413–1415. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.a117 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

23.

Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter J, Olkin I (2009) Why add anything to nothing? The arcsine difference as a measure of treatment effect in meta-analysis with zero cells. Stat Med 28:721–738. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3511 CrossRefPubMed

24.

Siempos II, Ntaidou TK, Filippidis FT, Choi AMK (2015) Effect of early versus late or no tracheostomy on mortality and pneumonia of critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet Respir Med 3:150–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00007-7 CrossRefPubMed

25.

Wang B, Chen R, Guo X et al (2017) Effects of levosimendan on mortality in patients with septic shock: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Oncotarget 8:100524–100532. https://doi.org/10.18632/oncotarget.20123 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

26.

Volbeda M, Wetterslev J, Gluud C et al (2015) Glucocorticosteroids for sepsis: systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis. Intensive Care Med 41:1220–1234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-015-3899-6 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

27.

Osadnik CR, Tee VS, Carson-Chahhoud KV et al (2017) Non-invasive ventilation for the management of acute hypercapnic respiratory failure due to exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 7:CD004104. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd004104.pub4 CrossRefPubMed

28.

Gillies D, Todd DA, Foster JP, Batuwitage BT (2017) Heat and moisture exchangers versus heated humidifiers for mechanically ventilated adults and children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 9:CD004711. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd004711.pub3 CrossRefPubMed

29.

Solé-Lleonart C, Rouby J-J, Blot S et al (2017) Nebulization of antiinfective agents in invasively mechanically ventilated adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Anesthesiology 126:890–908. https://doi.org/10.1097/ALN.0000000000001570 CrossRefPubMed

30.

Bellù R, de Waal KA, Zanini R (2008) Opioids for neonates receiving mechanical ventilation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (1):CD004212. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd004212.pub3 CrossRef

31.

Guay J, Ochroch EA (2015) Intraoperative use of low volume ventilation to decrease postoperative mortality, mechanical ventilation, lengths of stay and lung injury in patients without acute lung injury. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd011151.pub2 CrossRefPubMed

32.

Kuriyama A, Umakoshi N, Fujinaga J, Takada T (2015) Impact of closed versus open tracheal suctioning systems for mechanically ventilated adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med 41:402–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-014-3565-4 CrossRefPubMed

33.

Sud S, Sud M, Friedrich JO et al (2016) High-frequency oscillatory ventilation versus conventional ventilation for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 4:CD004085. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd004085.pub4 CrossRefPubMed

34.

Zhang Y, Ding S, Li C et al (2017) Effects of N-acetylcysteine treatment in acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis. Exp Ther Med 14:2863–2868. https://doi.org/10.3892/etm.2017.4891 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

35.

Busani S, Damiani E, Cavazzuti I et al (2016) Intravenous immunoglobulin in septic shock: review of the mechanisms of action and meta-analysis of the clinical effectiveness. Minerva Anestesiol 82:559–572PubMed

36.

Alarcon JD, Rubiano AM, Okonkwo DO et al (2017) Elevation of the head during intensive care management in people with severe traumatic brain injury. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 12:CD009986. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd009986.pub2 CrossRefPubMed

37.

Bradt J, Dileo C (2014) Music interventions for mechanically ventilated patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd006902.pub3 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

38.

Morag I, Ohlsson A (2016) Cycled light in the intensive care unit for preterm and low birth weight infants. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd006982.pub4 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

39.

Rose L, Adhikari NK, Leasa D et al (2017) Cough augmentation techniques for extubation or weaning critically ill patients from mechanical ventilation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 1:CD011833. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd011833.pub2 CrossRefPubMed

40.

Wu R, Lin S-Y, Zhao H-M (2015) Albuterol in the treatment of acute respiratory distress syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. World J Emerg Med 6:165–171. https://doi.org/10.5847/wjem.j.1920-8642.2015.03.001 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

41.

Monro-Somerville T, Sim M, Ruddy J et al (2017) The effect of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy on mortality and intubation rate in acute respiratory failure: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Crit Care Med 45:e449–e456. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000002091 CrossRefPubMed

42.

Flacco ME, Manzoli L, Boccia S et al (2015) Head-to-head randomized trials are mostly industry sponsored and almost always favor the industry sponsor. J Clin Epidemiol 68:811–820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.016 CrossRefPubMed

43.

Thorlund K, Imberger G, Johnston BC et al (2012) Evolution of heterogeneity (I ²) estimates and their 95% confidence intervals in large meta-analyses. PLoS One. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039471 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

44.

Chan A-W, Altman DG (2005) Epidemiology and reporting of randomised trials published in PubMed journals. Lancet 365:1159–1162. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(05)71879-1 CrossRefPubMed

45.

Ioannidis JP, Caplan AL, Dal-Ré R (2017) Outcome reporting bias in clinical trials: why monitoring matters. BMJ 356:j408CrossRefPubMed

46.

Tonelli AR, Zein J, Adams J, Ioannidis JPA (2014) Effects of interventions on survival in acute respiratory distress syndrome: an umbrella review of 159 published randomized trials and 29 meta-analyses. Intensive Care Med 40:769–787. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00134-014-3272-1 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

47.

Marshall JC, Kwong W, Kommaraju K, Burns KEA (2016) Determinants of citation impact in large clinical trials in critical care: the role of investigator-led clinical trials groups. Crit Care Med 44:663–670. https://doi.org/10.1097/CCM.0000000000001466 CrossRefPubMed

48.

Iqbal SA, Wallach JD, Khoury MJ et al (2016) Reproducible research practices and transparency across the biomedical literature. PLoS Biol 14:e1002333. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002333 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

49.

Rios LP, Odueyungbo A, Moitri MO et al (2008) Quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in general endocrinology literature. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 93:3810–3816. https://doi.org/10.1210/jc.2008-0817 CrossRefPubMed

50.

Pengel LHM, Barcena L, Morris PJ (2009) The quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials in solid organ transplantation. Transpl Int 22:377–384. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1432-2277.2008.00789.x CrossRefPubMed

51.

Kesselheim AS, Rajan PV (2014) Regulating incremental innovation in medical devices. BMJ 349:g5303CrossRefPubMed

Title: Industry-funded versus non-profit-funded critical care research: a meta-epidemiological overview
Authors: Perrine Janiaud
Ioana-Alinea Cristea
John P. A. Ioannidis
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/s00134-018-5325-3

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Industry-funded versus non-profit-funded critical care research: a meta-epidemiological overview

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 10/2018

Haloperidol serum concentrations in critically ill patients included in the REDUCE study

Public awareness of sepsis is still poor: we need to do more

Do I have a conflict of interest? Not sure

Conflicts of interest and the patient–doctor covenant

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

Conflicts of interest in infection prevention and control research: no smoke without fire. A narrative review