Article

Disclosure of competing financial interests and role of sponsors in phase III cancer trials.

Laboratoire d'Ethique Médicale et Médecine Légale, Faculté de Médecine de Paris 5, 45 rue des Saints-Pères, 75006 Paris, France.
European Journal of Cancer (Impact Factor: 4.82). 11/2005; 41(15):2237-40. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2004.12.036
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Financial relationships between industry, researchers and academic institutions are becoming increasingly complex, raising concern about sponsors' involvement in the conduct of biomedical research. A review of published randomised trials (RCTs) in cancer research was performed to assess adherence to the 1997 disclosure requirements and to document the nature of the disclosed interests. Source(s) of study support, author-sponsor relationships and the role of the study sponsor were assessed for all RCTs published between 1999 and 2003 in 12 international journals. A total of 655 cancer RCTs were identified. Of these, 516 (78.8%) disclosed the source of sponsorship. The nature of the relationship between the authors and the study sponsor was included in 219 of the 227 industry-sponsored studies. The most commonly cited relationships were (131 studies had multiple relations): grants (93.6%); employment (39.2%); consultant/honorarium (12.7%) and stock ownership and participation in a speaker's bureau (12, 5.5% each). Only 41 (18%) of the 227 industry-sponsored RCTs reported the role of the sponsor. Of these, 20 explicitly stated that the sponsor had no role in the study. Twenty-one papers described the sponsor's role, the degree of sponsor involvement was variable and usually described vaguely. Among these papers, four stated that researchers had full access to all data, one that the researchers had no limits on publication and one that 'the decision to submit the paper for publication was determined by the study sponsor'. In conclusion, no researcher should be expected to produce 'findings' without full access to the data, freedom from interference in analysis and interpretation and liberty to publish all results, however disappointing to the stakeholder they may be. In the meantime, researchers do well to arm themselves with the rules for research partnerships and editors to take on the role of watchdog.

0 Followers
 · 
77 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether changes in study sponsorship have affected the proportion of prospective research on surgery, radiotherapy, and pharmacotherapy for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) being published over time. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We examined prospective studies from PubMed, Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1980, 1985, 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, and 2010. Chi-squared tests were used to identify significant associations between sponsorship and authorship, treatments within study protocols, and presentation of results, whereas time-based trends were analyzed using the Cochran-Armitage test. RESULTS: Among 309 articles, industry (70, 22.7%) and the U.S. Government (65, 21%) were the most common sponsors. There was a significant increase in the proportion of industry-sponsored research (p for trend = .013) and a decline in U.S. government-sponsored research (p for trend = .001) over time. The inclusion of surgery in treatment protocols declined over the past four decades (p for trend = .003). Protocols incorporating pharmacotherapy were more likely to have industry support than those without pharmacotherapy (p = .001), whereas protocols with radiotherapy (p = .003) or surgery (p = .002) were less likely to have industry support. CONCLUSION: Industry is the predominant sponsor of prospective HNSCC research, with an emphasis on pharmacotherapy.
    The Oncologist 05/2013; 18(5). DOI:10.1634/theoncologist.2012-0415 · 4.54 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Clinical research affecting how doctors practice medicine is increasingly sponsored by companies that make drugs and medical devices. Previous systematic reviews have found that pharmaceutical industry sponsored studies are more often favorable to the sponsor's product compared with studies with other sources of sponsorship. This review is an update using more stringent methodology and also investigating sponsorship of device studies. To investigate 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. We searched MEDLINE (1948 to September 2010), EMBASE (1980 to September 2010), the Cochrane Methodology Register (Issue 4, 2010) and Web of Science (August 2011). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files. Cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses that quantitatively compared primary research studies of drugs or medical devices sponsored by industry with studies with other sources of sponsorship. We had no language restrictions. Two assessors identified potentially relevant papers, and a decision about final inclusion was made by all authors. Two assessors extracted data, and we contacted authors of included papers for additional unpublished data. Outcomes included favorable results, favorable conclusions, effect size, risk of bias and whether the conclusions agreed with the study results. Two assessors assessed risk of bias of included papers. We calculated pooled risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data (with 95% confidence intervals). Forty-eight papers were included. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, risk ratio (RR): 1.24 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.14 to 1.35), harms results RR: 1.87 (95% CI: 1.54 to 2.27) and conclusions RR: 1.31 (95% CI: 1.20 to 1.44) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Ten papers reported on sponsorship and effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data. The results were heterogeneous; five papers found larger effect sizes in industry sponsored studies compared with non-industry sponsored studies and five papers did not find a difference in effect size. Only two papers (including 120 device studies) reported separate data for devices and we did not find a difference between drug and device studies on the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.23). Comparing industry and non-industry sponsored studies, we did not find a difference in risk of bias from sequence generation, allocation concealment and follow-up. However, industry sponsored studies more often had low risk of bias from blinding, RR: 1.32 (95% CI: 1.05 to 1.65), compared with non-industry sponsored studies. In industry sponsored studies, there was less agreement between the results and the conclusions than in non-industry sponsored studies, RR: 0.84 (95% CI: 0.70 to 1.01). Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments.
    Cochrane database of systematic reviews (Online) 01/2012; 12(12):MR000033. DOI:10.1002/14651858.MR000033.pub2 · 5.94 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Discussions regarding disclosure of funding sources and conflicts of interest (COI) in published peer-reviewed journal articles are becoming increasingly more common and intense. The aim of the present study was to examine whether randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in leading surgery journals report funding sources and COI. All articles reporting randomized controlled phase III trials published January 2005 through December 2010 were chosen for review from ten international journals. We evaluated the number of disclosed funding sources and COI, and the factors associated with such disclosures. From a review of 657 RCT from the ten journals, we discovered that presence or absence of a funding source and COI was disclosed by 47 % (309) and 25.1 % (165), respectively. Most articles in "International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE)-affiliated journals" did not disclose COI. Disclosure of funding was associated with a journal impact factor >3 (51.7 vs 41.6 %; p < 0.01), statistician/epidemiologist involvement (64.2 vs 43.7 %; p < 0.001), publication after 2008 (52.9 vs 41.1 %; p < 0.01), and the journal being ICMJE-affiliated (49.3 vs 40 %; p < 0.05). Conflict of interest disclosure was associated with publication after 2008 (38.7 vs 11.3 %; p < 0.001), and with the journal not being affiliated with ICMJE (36.9 vs 21.3 %; p < 0.001). Of the published studies we investigated, over half did not disclose funding sources (i.e., whether or not there was a funding source), and almost three quarters did not disclose whether COI existed. Our findings suggest the need to adopt best current practices regarding disclosure of competing interests to fulfill responsibilities to readers and, ultimately, to patients.
    World Journal of Surgery 05/2014; 38(10). DOI:10.1007/s00268-014-2580-5 · 2.35 Impact Factor