Advertisement

Impact of Funding Source on Clinical Trial Results Including Cardiovascular Outcome Trials

Published:October 03, 2015DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.09.034
      Previous authors have suggested a higher likelihood for industry-sponsored (IS) studies to have positive outcomes than non-IS studies, though the influence of publication bias was believed to be a likely confounder. We attempted to control for the latter using a prepublication database to compare the primary outcome of recent trials based on sponsorship. We used the “advanced search” feature in the clinicaltrials.gov website to identify recently completed phase III studies involving the implementation of a pharmaceutical agent or device for which primary data were available. Studies were categorized as either National Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsored or IS. Results were labeled “favorable” if the results favored the intervention under investigation or “unfavorable” if the intervention fared worse than standard medical treatment. We also performed an independent literature search to identify the cardiovascular trials as a case example and again categorized them into IS versus NIH sponsored. A total of 226 studies sponsored by NIH were found. When these were compared with the latest 226 IS studies, it was found that IS studies were almost 4 times more likely to report a positive outcome (odds ratio [OR] 3.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6087 to 5.9680, p <0.0001). As a case example of a specialty, we also identified 25 NIH-sponsored and 215 IS cardiovascular trials, with most focusing on hypertension therapy (31.6%) and anticoagulation (17.9%). IS studies were 7 times more likely to report favorable outcomes (OR 7.54, 95% CI 2.19 to 25.94, p = 0.0014). They were also considerably less likely to report unfavorable outcomes (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.26, p <0.0001). In conclusion, the outcomes of large clinical studies especially cardiovascular differ considerably on the basis of their funding source, and publication bias appears to have limited influence on these findings.
      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to American Journal of Cardiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Als-Nielsen B.
        • Chen W.
        • Gluud C.
        • Kjaergard L.L.
        Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events?.
        JAMA. 2003; 290: 921-928
        • Bekelman J.E.
        • Li Y.
        • Gross C.P.
        Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review.
        JAMA. 2003; 289: 454-465
        • Ridker P.M.
        • Torres J.
        Reported outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations: 2000-2005.
        JAMA. 2006; 295: 2270-2274
        • Lexchin J.
        • Bero L.A.
        • Djulbegovic B.
        • Clark O.
        Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.
        BMJ. 2003; 326: 1167-1170
        • DeAngelis C.D.
        • Fontanarosa P.B.
        Impugning the integrity of medical science: the adverse effects of industry influence.
        JAMA. 2008; 299: 1833-1835
        • Schott G.
        • Pachl H.
        • Limbach U.
        • Gundert-Remy U.
        • Ludwig W.D.
        • Lieb K.
        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. 2010; 107: 279-285
        • Wahlbeck K.
        • Adams C.
        Sponsored drug trials show more-favourable outcomes.
        BMJ. 1999; 318: 465
        • Peppercorn J.
        • Blood E.
        • Winer E.
        • Partridge A.
        Association between pharmaceutical involvement and outcomes in breast cancer clinical trials.
        Cancer. 2007; 109: 1239-1246
        • Loscalzo J.
        The NIH budget and the future of biomedical research.
        N Engl J Med. 2006; 354: 1665-1667
        • Moses 3rd, H.
        • Dorsey E.R.
        Biomedical research in an age of austerity.
        JAMA. 2012; 308: 2341-2342
        • Rochon P.A.
        • Gurwitz J.H.
        • Simms R.W.
        • Fortin P.R.
        • Felson D.T.
        • Minaker K.L.
        • Chalmers T.C.
        A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis.
        Arch Intern Med. 1994; 154: 157-163
        • Ngai S.
        • Gold J.L.
        • Gill S.S.
        • Rochon P.A.
        Haunted manuscripts: ghost authorship in the medical literature.
        Account Res. 2005; 12: 103-114
        • Wislar J.S.
        • Flanagin A.
        • Fontanarosa P.B.
        • Deangelis C.D.
        Honorary and ghost authorship in high impact biomedical journals: a cross sectional survey.
        BMJ. 2011; 343: 6128
        • Gøtzsche P.C.
        • Hróbjartsson A.
        • Johansen H.K.
        • Haahr M.T.
        • Altman D.G.
        • Chan A.W.
        Ghost authorship in industry-initiated randomised trials.
        Plos Med. 2007; 4: e19
        • Roper N.
        • Korenstein D.
        Industry collaboration and primary guest authorship of high-impact randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2015; 30: 1421-1425
        • Ross J.S.
        • Hill K.P.
        • Egilman D.S.
        • Krumholz H.M.
        Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: a case study of industry documents from rofecoxib litigation.
        JAMA. 2008; 299: 1800-1812
        • Chan A.-W.
        • Hróbjartsson A.
        • Haahr M.T.
        • Gøtzsche P.C.
        • Altman D.G.
        Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.
        JAMA. 2004; 291: 2457-2465
        • Dorsey E.R.
        • de Roulet J.
        • Thompson J.P.
        • Reminick J.I.
        • Thai A.
        • White-Stellato Z.
        • Beck C.A.
        • George B.P.
        • Moses 3rd, H.
        Funding of US biomedical research, 2003-2008.
        JAMA. 2010; 303: 137-143
        • Flacco M.E.
        • Manzoli L.
        • Boccia S.
        • Capasso L.
        • Aleksovska K.
        • Rosso A.
        • Scaioli G.
        • De Vito C.
        • Siliquini R.
        • Villari P.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Head-to-head randomized trials are mostly industry sponsored and almost always favor the industry sponsor.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68: 811-820
        • Chuang-Stein C.
        • Beltangady M.
        • Dunne M.
        • Morrison B.
        The ethics of non-inferiority trials.
        Lancet. 2008; 371 (author reply 896–897): 895-896
        • Soliman E.Z.
        The ethics of non-inferiority trials.
        Lancet. 2008; 371: 895
        • Lundh A.
        • Sismondo S.
        • Lexchin J.
        • Busuioc O.A.
        • Bero L.
        Industry sponsorship and research outcome.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 12: MR000033