Those who have the gold make the evidence: how the pharmaceutical industry biases the outcomes of clinical trials of medications

General practitioners' role in safeguarding patients with dementia in their use of dietary supplements. A qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

The use of dietary supplements (DS) may cause harm through direct and indirect effects. Patients with dementia may be particularly vulnerable. This study aims to explore general practitioners' (GPs') experiences with DS use by these patients, the GPs perceived responsibilities, obstacles in taking on this responsibility, their attitudes toward DS, and suggestions for improvements to safeguard the use of DS in this patient group.

DESIGN

Qualitative individual interview study conducted February - December 2019. Data were analysed using systematic text condensation.

SETTING

Primary healthcare clinics in Norway.

SUBJECTS

Fourteen Norwegian GPs.

FINDINGS

None of the informants were dismissive of patients using DS. They were aware of the possible direct risks and had observed them in patients. Most GPs showed little awareness of potential indirect risks to patients with dementia who use DS. They acknowledged the need for caretaking of these patients. Although there were differences in practice styles, most of the GPs wished to help their patients safeguarding DS use but found it difficult due to the lack of quality assurance of product information. Furthermore, there were no effective ways for the GPs to document DS use in the patients' records. Several suggestions for improvement were given by the GPs, such as increased attention from GPs, inclusion of DS in the prescription software, and stricter regulatory systems for DS from the authorities.

CONCLUSION

The GPs had initially little awareness of this safety risk, but there were differences in practice style and attitudes towards DS. The GPs did not perceive themselves as main responsible for safe use of DS in patient with dementia. The most important reason to disclaim responsibility was lack of information about the products. One suggestion for improvement was better integration of DS in patients' medical record.

Women's experiences with non-invasive prenatal testing in Switzerland: a qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Prenatal genetic testing, in particular non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT), as well as screening for risks associated with pregnancy, and counseling, play pivotal roles in reproductive healthcare, offering valuable information about the health of the fetus to expectant parents. This study aims to delve into the perspectives and experiences of women considering genetic testing and screening during pregnancy, focusing on their decision-making processes and the implications for informed consent.

METHODS

A nationwide qualitative study was conducted in Switzerland, involving in-depth interviews with women who were 1 to 2 years post-partum, covered by basic compulsory Swiss insurance, including women with a migration background. Thematic analysis was employed to identify key themes and patterns in the data.

RESULTS

The findings underscore the significance of effective communication during prenatal counseling, suggesting that healthcare providers could not only convey technical information but also support women in their decision-making processes. Women need comprehensive information about genetic testing and its implications, as well as the reasons for screening during pregnancy, as there might be a need to bridge knowledge gaps and clarify misconceptions. Furthermore, the study highlights the multifaceted nature of decision-making, with women considering factors such as uncertainty, values, emotional responses, and societal support systems. The concept of acceptance emerged as a crucial theme, with some women expressing their readiness to love and accept their child, regardless of genetic anomalies or disabilities.

CONCLUSION

This study offers valuable insights into the perspectives and needs of women regarding prenatal genetic testing, screening, and counseling in Switzerland. It underscores the importance of enhancing the clinical interaction and informed consent process by providing comprehensive information, addressing misconceptions, and supporting women in decision-making about pregnancy management and the management of the child's health, following prenatal genetic testing, including NIPT. These findings can inform healthcare providers and policymakers in improving the quality of prenatal counseling, ensuring informed consent, and supporting women in making well-informed and meaningful decisions about genetic testing, and on the use of screening during pregnancy.

Conflicting perspectives during guidelines development are an important source of implementation failure

In recent years many countries have created national bodies that provide evidence-based guidance and policy relating to the commissioning and provision of healthcare services. However, such guidance often fails to be consistently implemented. The differing perspectives from which guidance is developed is suggested as a significant contributor to these failures. A societal perspective is, necessarily, taken by policy makers, while patients and their healthcare professionals are primarily concerned with an individual perspective. This is particularly likely to impair implementation where national policy objectives, such as cost effectiveness, equity, or the promotion of innovation, are embodied in the guidance, while patients and healthcare professionals may consider it appropriate to over-ride these, based upon individual circumstances and preferences. This paper examines these conflicts with reference to guidance issued by the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence in England. Conflicts are identified between the objectives, values, and preferences of those who develop and those who implement such guidance, with consequent difficulties in providing helpful personalised recommendations. The implications of this for the development and implementation of guidance are discussed and recommendations are made regarding the ways in which such guidance is framed and disseminated.

For the "good of the lab": Insights from three focus groups concerning the ethics of managing a laboratory or research group

To obtain some exploratory, qualitative data on ethical issues and values in managing a research laboratory, we conducted three focus groups with experienced investigators and laboratory managers. After validating the focus group transcripts for accuracy, two coders used deductive and inductive coding to develop themes from the text. Participants regarded ethics as important in managing a laboratory (or research group) for various reasons, ranging from conducting research with integrity to exhibiting leadership and promoting an ethical research climate. Participants identified many different types of ethical issues that arise in managing a research laboratory, including issues involving the management people, financial and material resources, projects, and data. An overarching ethical dilemma identified by participants was balancing the desire for productivity against apparently competing values, such as treating people fairly and promoting the wellbeing of individuals. Participants also indicated that graduate and post-graduate education and training did not prepare them to deal with the ethical, financial, interpersonal, and other issues related to managing a research laboratory, and that communication and leadership are crucial to managing a research laboratory ethically.

Disclosing and Managing Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Scientific Publications

In the last decade, there has been increased recognition of the importance of disclosing and managing non-financial conflicts of interests to safeguard the objectivity, integrity, and trustworthiness of scientific research. While funding agencies and academic institutions have had policies for addressing non-financial interests in grant peer review and research oversight since the 1990s, scientific journals have been only recently begun to develop such policies. An impediment to the formulation of effective journal policies is that non-financial interests can be difficult to recognize and define. Journals can overcome this problem by providing guidance concerning the types of non-financial interests that should be disclosed, including direct research interests, direct professional interests, expert testimony, involvement in litigation, holding a leadership position in a non-governmental organization, providing technical or scientific advice to a non-governmental organization, and personal or professional relationships. The guidance should apply to authors, editors, and reviewers.

Science, Values, and the New Demarcation Problem

In recent years, many philosophers of science have rejected the "value-free ideal" for science, arguing that non-epistemic values have a legitimate role to play in scientific inquiry. However, this philosophical position raises the question of how to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate influences of values in science. In this paper, we argue that those seeking to address this "new" demarcation problem can benefit by drawing lessons from the "old" demarcation problem, in which philosophers tried to find a way of distinguishing between science and non-science. Many of those who worked on this problem ultimately found that efforts to provide necessary and sufficient conditions for defining science failed, and most concluded that the best solution to the problem was to characterize scientific hypotheses, theories, and research programs in terms of some common norms. We suggest that those seeking to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate value influences on science would do well to adopt a similar approach. Rather than attempting to establish necessary and sufficient conditions for identifying appropriate value influences, it will be more fruitful to evaluate scientific activities based on their adherence to a set of epistemic and ethical norms that can be implemented in scientific practice by means of rules, conventions, policies, and procedures.

Duration of treatment in oncology clinical trials: does the duration change when the same drug moves from the experimental arm to the control arm?

Background

When a new drug comes to the market, the incentive for the sponsoring company is to maximize the treatment duration in order for the patient to reap the full therapeutic benefit of the product and achieve a positive trial result. We sought to enumerate instances when an already-approved oncology drug was used as a comparator for a newer drug seeking approval and compare the duration of treatment when it is used in the intervention arm to when it is used as a comparator.

Patients and methods

In a cross-sectional analysis, we searched drug approval announcements for advanced, metastatic, or unresectable cancers between 2009 and 2020. We included studies reporting on an approved drug and studies reporting on when the same drug was used as a comparator for other drugs seeking Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. We examined median progression-free survival and duration of treatment for when the drug was initially approved and for when the drug was used as a comparator for other drugs that were seeking approval.

Results

Of the 23 instances when an approved drug was later used as a comparator against a newer drug seeking FDA approval, we found 11 instances (47.8%) where the drug, when used as a comparator arm, had a shorter duration of treatment than when it was used in the intervention arm. The median duration of treatment in the study initially testing the drug was 6.0 months (range: 2.2-12.7 months), whereas the median duration of treatment when the same drug was used as a comparator was 4.9 months (range: 1.7-12.0 months).

Conclusions

These results suggest that there is bias in how long a patient receives a given therapy, and this bias favors the newer therapy. Clinical trialists should seek to utilize methodology that reduces bias so that the relative efficacy of newer drugs can be objectively assessed.

•

We found 23 instances when an approved drug was later used as a comparator against a newer drug seeking FDA approval.

•

Drugs, as a comparator, had a shorter duration of treatment than when used in the intervention arm in 48% of instances.

•

The median durations of treatment for drugs seeking approval and then as comparators were 6 and 5 months, respectively.

A Proposal to Increase Value and Equity in the Development and Distribution of New Pharmaceuticals

The process of developing and marketing new pharmaceuticals in the United States is driven by a need to maximize returns to shareholders. This results all too often in the production of new medications that are expensive and of marginal value to patients and society. In line with our heightened awareness of the importance of social justice and public health—and in light of our government‘s alliance with private companies in bringing us COVID-19 vaccines—we need to reconsider how new pharmaceuticals are developed and distributed. Accordingly, we propose the creation of a new agency of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that would direct the whole process. This agency would fund the research and development of high-value medications, closely monitor the clinical studies of these new drugs, and manage their distribution at prices that are value-based, fair, and equitable.

How aging of the global population is changing oncology

Population aging is causing a demographic redistribution with implications for the future of healthcare. How will this affect oncology? First, there will be an overall rise in cancer affecting older adults, even though age-specific cancer incidences continue to fall due to better prevention. Second, there will be a wider spectrum of health functionality in this expanding cohort of older adults, with differences between “physiologically older” and “physiologically younger” patients becoming more important for optimal treatment selection. Third, greater teamwork with supportive care, geriatric, mental health and rehabilitation experts will come to enrich oncologic decision-making by making it less formulaic than it is at present. Success in this transition to a more nuanced professional mindset will depend in part on the development of user-friendly computational tools that can integrate a complex mix of quantitative and qualitative inputs from evidence-based medicine, functional and cognitive assessments, and the personal priorities of older adults.

Methodological assessment and overall confidence in the results of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses in Endodontics

AIM

The aims of the study were to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews with network meta-analyses (NMAs) in Endodontics using the "A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews" (AMSTAR 2) tool, and to evaluate the overall confidence in the results of the individual reviews included in the analysis.

METHODOLOGY

Systematic reviews with NMAs within the specialty of Endodontics published in English were identified from the PubMed, EbBSCOhost and SCOPUS databases from inception to July 2021. Two reviewers were involved independently in the selection of the reviews, data extraction, methodological quality assessment and overall confidence rating. Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the reviewers to achieve consensus; if disagreements persisted, a third reviewer made the final decision. The methodological quality of the included NMAs was appraised using the AMSTAR 2 checklist, which contains 16 items. The reviewers scored each item - 'Yes' - when the item was fully addressed, 'Partial Yes' - when the item was not fully addressed, or 'No' - when the item was not addressed. The overall confidence in the results of each review was classified as 'High', 'Moderate', 'Low' or 'Critically low' based on the criteria reported by the AMSTAR 2 developers.

RESULTS

Twelve systematic reviews with NMAs were included. All the NMAs adequately reported Item 1 ("Did the research questions and inclusion criteria for the review include the components of PICO?"), Item 8 ("Did the review authors describe the included studies in adequate detail?"), Item 9 ("Did the review authors use a satisfactory technique for assessing the risk of bias (RoB) in individual studies that were included in the review?") and Item 16 ("Did the review authors report any potential sources of conflict of interest, including any funding they received for conducting the review?") , whereas only one NMA reported Item 10 adequately ("Did the review authors report on the sources of funding for the studies included in the review?"). The overall confidence in the results of eight reviews was categorised as "Critically low", one review was "Low", two reviews were "Moderate" and one review was "High".

CONCLUSION

The overall confidence in the results for the majority of systematic reviews with NMAs in Endodontics was judged to be 'Critically low' as their methodological quality was below the necessary standard. AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA for NMA guidelines are available to guide authors to produce high quality systematic reviews with NMAs and for Editors and peer-reviewers when assessing submissions to journals.

Examining the sources of evidence in e-cigarette policy recommendations: A citation network analysis of international public health recommendations

BACKGROUND

Public health policies and recommendations aim to be informed by the best available evidence. Evidence underpinning e-cigarettes policy recommendations has been necessarily limited due to the novelty of the technology and the lack of long-term epidemiological studies and trials. Some public health bodies have actively encouraged e-cigarette use whilst others have raised concerns over introducing new health risks and renormalising tobacco smoking. Using citation network analysis we investigated the author conflicts of interest and study funding statements within sources of evidence used by public health bodies when making recommendations about e-cigarette policy.

METHODS

We conducted citation network analysis of public health recommendation documents across four purposively selected diverse jurisdictions: WHO, UK, Australia, and USA. We extracted all citations from 15 public health recommendation documents, with more detailed data collected for influential citations (used in 3+ recommendation documents). We analysed the relationships between the sources of evidence used across jurisdictions using block modelling to determine if similar groups of documents were used across different jurisdictions. We assessed the frequency and nature of conflicts of interest.

RESULTS

1700 unique citations were included across the 15 public health recommendation documents, with zero to 923 citations per document (median = 63, IQR = 7.5-132). The evidence base underpinning public health recommendations did not systematically differ across jurisdictions. Of the 1700 citations included, the majority were journal articles (n = 1179). Across 1081 journal articles published between 1998-2018, 200 declared a conflict of interest, 288 contained no mention of conflicts of interest, and 593 declared none. Conflicts of interest were reported with tobacco (3%; n = 37 journal articles of 1081), e-cigarette (7%; n = 72), and pharmaceutical companies (12%; n = 127), with such conflicts present even in the most recent years. There were 53 influential citations, the most common study type was basic science research without human subjects (e.g. examination of aerosols and e-liquids) (n = 18) followed by systematic review (n = 10); with randomised control trial being least common (n = 4). Network analysis identified clusters of highly-cited articles with a higher prevalence of conflicts of interest.

CONCLUSION

Public health bodies across different jurisdictions drew upon similar sources of evidence, despite articulating different policy approaches to e-cigarettes. The evidence drawn upon, including the most influential evidence, contained substantial conflicts of interest (including relationships with e-cigarette and tobacco industries). Processes to explicitly manage conflicts of interest arising from the underlying evidence base may be required when developing public health recommendations.

Do we really know how many clinical trials are conducted ethically? Why research ethics committee review practices need to be strengthened and initial steps we could take to strengthen them

Research Ethics Committees (RECs) play a critical gatekeeping role in clinical trials. This role is meant to ensure that only those trials that meet certain ethical thresholds proceed through their gate. Two of these thresholds are that the potential benefits of trials are reasonable in relation to risks and that trials are capable of producing a requisite amount of social value. While one ought not expect perfect execution by RECs of their gatekeeping role, one should expect routine success in it. This article reviews a range of evidence showing that substantial numbers of ethically tainted trials are receiving REC approvals. Many of the trials are early phase trials that evidence shows have benefits that may not be reasonable compared with their risks and many others are later trials that evidence shows may lack sufficient social value. The evidence pertains to such matters as methodologically inadequate preclinical studies incapable of supporting the inferences that REC members must make about the prospects for potential benefit needed to offset the risks in early phase trials and sponsorship bias that can cause improperly designed, conducted, analysed and reported later phase trials. The analysis of the evidence makes clear that REC practices need to be strengthened if they are to adequately fulfil their gatekeeping role. The article also explores options that RECs could use in order to improve their gatekeeping function.

Association of food industry ties with findings of studies examining the effect of dairy food intake on cardiovascular disease and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine if the association of dairy foods with cardiovascular disease (CVD) outcomes differs between studies with food industry ties versus those without industry ties. To determine whether studies with or without industry ties differ in their risk of bias.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included cohort and case-control studies that estimated the association of dairy foods with CVD outcomes in healthy adults.

INFORMATION SOURCES

We searched eight databases on 1 February 2019 from 2000 to 2019 and hand searched reference lists.

RISK OF BIAS

We used the Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies-of Exposure tool.

INCLUDED STUDIES

43 studies (3 case-controls, 40 cohorts).

SYNTHESIS OF RESULTS

There was no clear evidence of an association between studies with industry ties (1/14) versus no industry ties (8/29) and the reporting of favourable results, risk ratio (RR)=0.26 (95% CI 0.04 to 1.87; n=43 studies) and studies with industry ties (4/14) versus no industry ties (11/29) and favourable conclusions, RR=0.75 (95% CI 0.29 to 1.95; n=43). Studies with industry sponsorship, (HR=0.78; n=3 studies) showed a decreased magnitude of risk of CVD outcomes compared with studies with no industry sponsorship (HR=0.97; n=18) (ratio of HRs 0.80 (95% CI 0.66 to 0.97); p=0.03).

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF EVIDENCE

Every study had an overall high risk of bias rating; this was primarily due to confounding.

INTERPRETATION

There was no clear evidence of an association between studies with food industry ties and the reporting of favourable results and conclusions compared with studies without industry ties. The statistically significant difference in the magnitude of effects identified in industry-sponsored studies compared with non-industry-sponsored studies, however, is important in quantifying industry influence on studies included in dietary guidelines.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019129659.

Disclosing conflict of interest does not mitigate healthcare bias and harm: It is time to sever industry ties

Disclosing conflict of interest is widely believed to mitigate bias and harm from industry entanglement in healthcare research, education and practice. However, evidence is lacking of disclosure-related mitigation. Radical and extensive severing of industry ties to health care is necessary to curtail industry-related bias and harm.

The Globalization of Biological Psychiatry and the Rise of Bipolar Spectrum Disorder in Iran

In recent years, psychiatry in Iran witnessed a dramatic increase in the use of the diagnosis of bipolar spectrum disorder (BSD). This qualitative study maps the journey of the BSD diagnosis from the West to Iran, examines the controversy surrounding the diagnosis and its treatment, and explores some of the structural factors that facilitate and maintain the widespread use of the BSD diagnosis in Iran and related practices of prescribing neuroleptic and mood stabilizers. The study methods include archival research and semi-structured interviews with 25 prominent Iranian psychiatrists in the field of mood disorders. Results show the importance of factors in addition to economics in driving changes in diagnostic fashion. Most psychiatrists interviewed reported what they viewed as an over-diagnosis of bipolar disorder and over-prescription of mood stabilizers and atypical antipsychotics among Iranian psychiatrists over the past decade. In addition to the influence of leading figures of American psychiatry, the dominance of Western psychiatric classifications and textbooks in Iran's psychiatry, and indirect intervention by pharmaceutical companies, local structural and political factors have played a significant role in the Iranian psychiatric system's embrace of the new concept of bipolarity. In Iran, the medicalization of social conflict has been embraced by government, families, and psychiatrists for cross-cutting purposes. These challenges and the continued controversy over the adoption of American psychiatric fads in a non-Western country like Iran point to the importance of elaborating a more ecosocial and cultural view of psychiatric practice to disentangle some of the complex trade-offs involved in adopting particular modes of diagnostic practice.

Relationships among commercial practices and author conflicts of interest in biomedical publishing

Recently, concerns have been raised over the potential impacts of commercial relationships on editorial practices in biomedical publishing. Specifically, it has been suggested that certain commercial relationships may make editors more open to publishing articles with author conflicts of interest (aCOI). Using a data set of 128,781 articles published in 159 journals, we evaluated the relationships among commercial publishing practices and reported author conflicts of interest. The 159 journals were grouped according to commercial biases (reprint services, advertising revenue, and ownership by a large commercial publishing firm). 30.6% (39,440) of articles were published in journals showing no evidence of evaluated commercial publishing relationships. 33.9% (43,630) were published in journals accepting advertising and reprint fees; 31.7% (40,887) in journals owned by large publishing firms; 1.2% (1,589) in journals accepting reprint fees only; and 2.5% (3,235) in journals accepting only advertising fees. Journals with commercial relationships were more likely to publish articles with aCOI (9.2% (92/1000) vs. 6.4% (64/1000), p = 0.024). In the multivariate analysis, only a journal’s acceptance of reprint fees served as a significant predictor (OR = 2.81 at 95% CI, 1.5 to 8.6). Shared control estimation was used to evaluate the relationships between commercial publishing practices and aCOI frequency in total and by type. BCa-corrected mean difference effect sizes ranged from -1.0 to 6.1, and confirm findings indicating that accepting reprint fees may constitute the most significant commercial bias. The findings indicate that concerns over the influence of industry advertising in medical journals may be overstated, and that accepting fees for reprints may constitute the largest risk of bias for editorial decision-making.

Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To (1) investigate the extent to which recently published meta-analyses report trial funding, author-industry financial ties and author-industry employment from included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses; (2) examine characteristics of meta-analyses independently associated with reporting funding sources of included RCTs; and (3) compare reporting among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses to Cochrane reviews published in 2010.

DESIGN

Review of consecutive sample of recently published meta-analyses.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE database via PubMed searched on 19 October 2018.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING ARTICLES

We selected the 250 most recent meta-analyses listed in PubMed that included a documented search of at least one database, statistically combined results from ≥2 RCTs and evaluated the effects of a drug or class of drugs.

RESULTS

90 of 107 (84%) Cochrane meta-analyses reported funding sources for some or all included trials compared with 21 of 143 (15%) non-Cochrane meta-analyses, a difference of 69% (95% CI 59% to 77%). Percent reporting was also higher for Cochrane meta-analyses compared with non-Cochrane meta-analyses for trial author-industry financial ties (44% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 33% to 52%) and employment (17% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 9% to 24%). In multivariable analysis, compared with Cochrane meta-analyses, the odds ratio (OR) for reporting trial funding was ≤0.11 for all other journal category and impact factor combinations. Compared with Cochrane reviews from 2010, reporting of funding sources of included RCTs among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses improved by 54% (95% CI 42% to 63%), and reporting of trial author-industry financial ties and employment improved by 37% (95% CI 26% to 47%) and 10% (95% CI 2% to 19%).

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting of trial funding sources, trial author-industry financial ties and trial author-industry employment in Cochrane meta-analyses has improved since 2010 and is higher than in non-Cochrane meta-analyses.

Addressing Health Care Disparities: A Radical Perspective and Proposal

This paper begins by rethinking the sociological theory that social conditions are fundamental causes of health disparities and that controlling disease ironically increases or creates them. While usually true, the radical proposal of non-profit health care and pharmaceutical development could ameliorate health disparities if a nation like Canada or a region like the EU looked to radically different but successful models such as the Drugs for Neglected Diseases initiative. It uses what could be called entrepreneurial collaboration for public health markets and inverts intellectual property to public health IP to maximize health gain instead of profits.

Deploying the Precautionary Principle to Protect Vulnerable Populations in Canadian Post-Market Drug Surveillance

Drug regulatory bodies aim to ensure that patients have access to safe and effective drugs; however, no matter the quality of pre-licensure studies, uncertainty will remain regarding the safety and effectiveness of newly approved drugs until a large and diverse population uses those drugs. Recent analyses of Canada’s post-market drug surveillance (PMDS) system have found that Canada’s PMDS system requires strengthening and that efforts must be improved to monitor and address the safety and effectiveness of approved drugs among vulnerable populations. Given the uncertainty that exists when drugs enter the market, some have suggested that the precautionary principle is relevant to guiding decision-making in this context. This paper responds to recommendations that the Canadian PMDS system should be responsive to the health needs of vulnerable populations by assessing the utility of deploying the precautionary principle to guide a post-market strategy for vulnerable populations.

Public-private knowledge transfer and access to medicines: a systematic review and qualitative study of perceptions and roles of scientists involved in HPV vaccine research

Background

Public research organizations and their interactions with industry partners play a crucial role for public health and access to medicines. The development and commercialization of the Human Papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines illustrate how licensing practices of public research organizations can contribute to high prices of the resulting product and affect accessibility to vulnerable populations. Efforts by the international community to improve access to medicines have recognised this issue and promote the public health-sensitive management of research conducted by public research organizations. This paper explores: how medical knowledge is exchanged between public and private actors; what role inventor scientists play in this process; and how they view the implementation of public health-sensitive knowledge exchange strategies.

Methods

We conducted a systematic qualitative literature review on medical knowledge exchange and qualitative interviews with a purposive sample of public sector scientists working on HPV vaccines. We explored the strategies by which knowledge is exchanged across institutional boundaries, how these strategies are negotiated, and the views of scientists regarding public health-sensitive knowledge exchange.

Results

We included 13 studies in the systematic review and conducted seven semi-structured interviews with high-ranking scientists. The main avenues of public-private medical knowledge exchange were publications, formal transfer of patented knowledge, problem-specific exchanges such as service agreements, informal exchanges and collaborative research. Scientists played a crucial role in these processes but appeared to be sceptical of public health-sensitive knowledge exchange strategies, as these were believed to deter corporate interest in the development of new medicines and thus risk the translation of the scientists’ research.

Conclusion

Medical scientists at public research institutions play a key role in the exchange of knowledge they generate and are concerned about the accessibility of medicines resulting from their research. Their scepticism towards implementing public health-sensitive knowledge management strategies appears to be based on a biased understanding of the costs and risks involved in drug development and a perceived lack of alternatives to private engagement. Scientists could be encouraged to exchange knowledge in a public health-sensitive manner through not-for-profit drug development mechanisms, education on industry engagement, and stronger institutional and legal backing.

Views of European Drug Development Stakeholders on Treatment Optimization and Its Potential for Use in Decision-Making

Background

The current drug development paradigm has been criticized for being too drug-centered and for not adequately focusing on the patients who will eventually be administered the therapeutic interventions it generates. The drug-driven nature of the present framework has led to the emergence of a research gap between the pre-approval development of anticancer medicines and their post-registration use in real-life clinical practice. This gap could potentially be bridged by transitioning toward a patient-centered paradigm that places a strong emphasis on treatment optimization, which strives to optimize the way health technologies are applied in a real-world environment. However, questions remain concerning the ideal features of treatment optimization studies and their acceptability among key stakeholders.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to explore the views of key stakeholders in the drug development process regarding the concept of treatment optimization.

Methods

Semi-structured interviews were conducted between December 2018 and May 2019 with 26 participants across ten EU Member States and six different stakeholder groups, including academic clinicians as well as representatives of patient organizations, regulatory authorities, health technology assessment agencies, payers, and industry.

Results

Based on the input of the experts interviewed, clarification was obtained regarding the optimal features of treatment optimization studies in terms of their conduct, funding, timing, design, and setting. Moreover, a number of opportunities and challenges of undertaking such trials were identified. Inter-stakeholder discussion during their design was seen as desirable. There was also broad support among the participants for regulatory measures to facilitate treatment optimization, although there was no agreement on the optimal scale and nature of these initiatives. Furthermore, the interviewees believed that the evidence strength of well-designed treatment optimization studies performed according to rigorous quality standards is greater than or at least equal to that of classical clinical trials. In addition, there was a strong consensus that the results of treatment optimization studies should be taken into account during the decision-making of regulators, payers, and/or clinicians.

Conclusions

Stakeholders involved in drug development consider treatment optimization studies to be valuable tools to address current evidence gaps and support their implementation into the existing research framework.

Why does the NHS struggle to adopt eHealth innovations? A review of macro, meso and micro factors

BACKGROUND

Having a tax-funded and supposedly 'National' Health Service (NHS), one might assume that the UK is well-positioned to roll out eHealth innovations at scale. Yet, despite a strong policy push, the English NHS has been limited in the extent to which it has exploited the potential of eHealth.

MAIN BODY

This paper considers a range of macro, meso and micro factors influencing eHealth innovation in the English NHS.

CONCLUSIONS

While barriers to eHealth innovation exist at all scales, the fragmentation of the NHS is the most significant factor limiting adoption and diffusion. Rather than addressing problems of fragmentation, national policy seems to have intensified the digital divide. As the recently published NHS Long Term Plan places great emphasis on the role of digital transformation in helping health and care professionals communicate better and enabling people to access the care they need quickly and easily, the implications for the digital divide are likely to be significant for effectiveness, efficiency and equity.

Institutional Conflicts of Interest in Academic Research

Financial relationships in academic research can create institutional conflicts of interest (COIs) because the financial interests of the institution or institutional officials may inappropriately influence decision-making. Strategies for dealing with institutional COIs include establishing institutional COI committees that involve the board of trustees in conflict review and management, developing policies that shield institutional decisions from inappropriate influences, and establishing private foundations that are independent of the institution to own stock and intellectual property and to provide capital to start-up companies.

Knowledge in the dark: scientific challenges and ways forward

A key dimension of our current era is Big Data, the rapid rise in produced data and information; a key frustration is that we are nonetheless living in an age of ignorance, as the real knowledge and understanding of people does not seem to be substantially increasing. This development has critical consequences, for example it limits the ability to find and apply effective solutions to pressing environmental and socioeconomic challenges. Here, we propose the concept of “knowledge in the dark”—or short: dark knowledge—and outline how it can help clarify key reasons for this development: ( i) production of biased, erroneous, or fabricated data and information; ( ii) inaccessibility and ( iii) incomprehensibility of data and information; and ( iv) loss of previous knowledge. Even in the academic realm, where financial interests are less pronounced than in the private sector, several factors lead to dark knowledge, that is they inhibit a more substantial increase in knowledge and understanding. We highlight four of these factors—loss of academic freedom, research biases, lack of reproducibility, and the Scientific tower of Babel—and offer ways to tackle them, for example establishing an international court of arbitration for research and developing advanced tools for research synthesis.

Association of industry ties with outcomes of studies examining the effect of wholegrain foods on cardiovascular disease and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To determine if observational studies examining the association of wholegrain foods with cardiovascular disease (CVD) with food industry sponsorship and/or authors with conflicts of interest (COI) with the food industry are more likely to have results and/or conclusions that are favourable to industry than those with no industry ties, and to determine whether studies with industry ties differ in their risk of bias compared with studies with no industry ties.

DESIGN

Systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

DATA SOURCES

We searched eight databases from 1997 to 2017 and hand searched the reference lists of included studies.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES

Cohort and case-control studies that quantitatively examined the association of wholegrains or wholegrain foods with CVD outcomes in healthy adults or children.

RESULTS

21 of the 22 studies had a serious or critical risk of bias. Studies with industry ties more often had favourable results compared with those with no industry ties, but the Confidence Interval (CI) was wide, Risk Ratio (RR)=1.44 (95% CI 0.88 to 2.35). The same association was found for study conclusions. We did not find a difference in effect size (magnitude of RRs) between studies with industry ties, RR=0.77 (95% CI 0.58 to 1.01) and studies with no industry ties, RR=0.85 (95% CI 0.73 to 1.00) (p=0.50) I² 0%. These results were comparable for studies that measured the magnitude using Hazard Ratios (HR); industry ties HR=0.82 (95% CI 0.76 to 0.88) versus no industry ties HR=0.86 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.91) (p=0.34) I² 0%.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not establish that the presence of food industry sponsorship or authors with a COI with the food industry was associated with results or conclusions that favour industry sponsors. The association of food industry sponsorship or authors with a COI with the food industry and favourable results or conclusions is uncertain. However, our analysis was hindered by the low level of COI disclosure in the included studies. Our findings support international reforms to improve the disclosure and management of COI in nutrition research. Without such disclosures, it will not be possible to determine if the results of nutrition research are free of food industry influences and potential biases.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42017055841.

Industry funding effect on positive results of probiotic use in the management of acute diarrhea: a systematized review

Several investigations have found that industry-funded studies tend to inform results favoring the sponsored products. The pressure to demonstrate that a drug or a product causes a favorable outcome may result in investigation biases from industry-funded research. One example of this could be found in the probiotic research funded by the industry. The aim of this study was to assess the effect of industry funding on positive outcomes of the use of probiotics in the management of acute diarrhea. A systematized review of clinical trials on the use of probiotics in the management of acute diarrhea was performed. The associations between the source of funding, clinical outcomes, probiotic genus, and quality of the study were assessed using the χ-test and Fisher's exact test. Sixty-six clinical trials were included; 27 were industry funded, 18 were nonindustry funded, and 21 did not disclose their funding source. There were 48 positive and 30 negative clinical outcomes. There was no significant association between the source of funding and clinical outcomes (P=0.491). No association between the rest of the studied variables and outcomes was observed either (P>0.05). In clinical trials on the use of probiotics in the management of acute diarrhea, the source of funding has no influence on positive clinical outcomes.

Can self-regulation deliver an ethical commercial literature? A critical reading of the "Good Publication Practice" (GPP3) guidelines for industry-financed medical journal articles

Much medical journal literature is developed by the pharmaceutical and device industries, sometimes with assistance from marketing agencies, writers, and academics. This literature is vulnerable to commercial bias. The publications trade issues self-regulatory ethical guidelines for its production, called "Good Publication Practice" (GPP). I evaluated the most recent iteration, GPP3. The most progressive recommendations in GPP3 call for complete publication of all clinical trials, and full data sharing. GPP3 makes numerous further recommendations more directly concerning the publications trade. Many of these repeat existing editorial requirements, chiefly those of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, but readers are not adequately advised of this. Despite its emphasis on ethical and transparent reporting, the detail of GPP3 enables continued use of academic medical literature for drug marketing, on the basis of commercial steerage of content, coupled with the attribution of published articles to collaborating academic authors. As such, GPP3 provides a de facto manual for how marketing through academic journal content can be conducted in compliance with contemporary editorial standards. Consequently, the self-regulatory GPP3 guidelines are not a sound basis for the production of unbiased industry-financed medical journal literature. I suggest improvements for future iterations of these influential guidelines.

Closed Financial Loops: When They Happen in Government, They're Called Corruption; in Medicine, They're Just a Footnote

Many physicians are involved in relationships that create tension between a physician's duty to work in her patients' best interest at all times and her financial arrangement with a third party, most often a pharmaceutical manufacturer, whose primary goal is maximizing sales or profit. Despite the prevalence of this threat, in the United States and globally, the most common reaction to conflicts of interest in medicine is timid acceptance. There are few calls for conflicts of interest to be banned, and, to our knowledge, no one calls for conflicted practitioners to be reprimanded. Contrast our attitudes in medicine with public attitudes toward financial conflicts among government employees. When enforcement of rules against conflict of interest slackens in the public sector, news organizations investigate and publish their criticism. Yet even when doctors are quoted in the media promoting specific drugs, their personal financial ties to the drug maker are rarely mentioned. Policies for governmental employees are strict, condemnation is strong, and criminal statutes exist (allowing for corruption charges). Yet the evidence that conflict is problematic is, if anything, stronger in medicine than in the public sector. Policies against conflicts of interest in medicine should be at least as strong as those already existing in the public sector.

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

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.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s00134-018-5325-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The discordance between evidence and health policy in the United States: the science of translational research and the critical role of diverse stakeholders

Background

There is often a discordance between health research evidence and public health policies implemented by the United States federal government. In the process of developing health policy, discordance can arise through subjective and objective factors that are unrelated to the value of the evidence itself, and can inhibit the use of research evidence. We explore two common types of discordance through four illustrative examples and then propose a potential means of addressing discordance.

Discussion

In Discordance 1, public health authorities make recommendations for policy action, yet these are not based on high quality, rigorously synthesised research evidence. In Discordance 2, evidence-based public health recommendations are ignored or discounted in developing United States federal government policy. Both types could lead to serious risks of public health and clinical patient harms.

We suggest that, to mitigate risks associated with these discordances, public health practitioners, health policy-makers, health advocates and other key stakeholders should take the opportunity to learn or expand their knowledge regarding current research methods, as well as improve their skills for appropriately considering the strengths and limitations of research evidence. This could help stakeholders to adopt a more nuanced approach to developing health policy. Stakeholders should also have a more insightful contextual awareness of these discordances and understand their potential harms. In Discordance 1, public health organisations and authorities need to acknowledge their own historical roles in making public health recommendations with insufficient evidence for improving health outcomes. In Discordance 2, policy-makers should recognise the larger impact of their decision-making based on minimal or flawed evidence, including the potential for poor health outcomes at population level and the waste of huge sums. In both types of discordance, stakeholders need to consider the impact of their own unconscious biases in championing evidence that may not be valid or conclusive.

Conclusion

Public health policy needs to provide evidence-based solutions to public health problems, but this is not always done. We discuss some of the factors inhibiting evidence-based decision-making in United States federal government public health policy and suggest ways these could be addressed.

Conflicts of Interest in Emergency Medicine

Conflicts of interest (COIs) are common in the practice of emergency medicine and may be present in the areas of clinical practice, relations with industry, expert witness testimony, medical education, research, and organizations. A COI occurs when there is dissonance between a primary interest and another interest. The concept of professionalism in medicine places the patient as the primary interest in any interaction with a physician. We contend that patient welfare is the ultimate interest in the entire enterprise of medicine. Recognition and management of potential, real, and perceived COIs is essential to the ethical practice of emergency medicine. This paper discusses how to recognize, address, and manage them.

How Did Erectile Dysfunction Become "Natural"? A Review of the Critical Social Scientific Literature on Medical Treatment for Male Sexual Dysfunction

This article reviews the multidisciplinary social science literature assessing the social consequences of medical treatment for male sexual dysfunction. This literature applies medicalization theory and social constructionist approaches to gender to assert that Euro-American cultural ideals of masculinity and sexuality, as well as ageism and ableism, determine which sexual changes and experiences get defined as "dysfunction" and shape the marketing and use of medical treatments for those changes. These medical responses assuage the suffering of men who become unable to meet cultural ideals for sexuality but in the process make reductive norms for male sexuality seem biologically natural. In addition, the critical social science research suggests that an economic logic underlies the process of redefining diversity and change in men's sexual function as medical pathology. However, comparative qualitative data on men's and their sexual partners' experiences of sexuality and aging across world regions suggest that people do not universally accept the narrow ideals of male sexuality embedded in medical discourse regarding men's sexual dysfunction. The diversity in people's sexual desires across the life course and their responses to sexual function change highlight the cultural nature of medical definitions of sexual dysfunction.

Marketing trials, marketing tricks - how to spot them and how to stop them

Background

Last this year in this journal, Barbour and colleagues reported a study of “marketing trials” in leading medical journals (Trials 2016;17:31). In this commentary I discuss their research, describe new analyses of the study cohort and consider measures to address marketing within academic medical literature.

Discussion

Barbour et al. sought to identify a subgroup of “marketing trials” within leading medical journals, but in reality, nearly all industry-financed trials serve marketing functions, and many exhibit marketing-related features, including biases, in their framing, methodology or reporting. I conducted new analyses of the cohort of Barbour et al., showing that most trials funded exclusively by drug manufacturers had direct involvement of the manufacturer in design, analysis and reporting, and features supportive of product seeding. However, these commercial enterprises were without exception presented to journal readers as academic-led projects, using attributional spin, which should itself be considered an important form of marketing bias. Barbour et al. correctly conclude that commercial bias in industry clinical trials articles often requires expertise to recognize, and in many cases cannot be identified from the published journal report. Several potential remedies are discussed, including independent clinical research, data sharing, improved reporting guidance, improved tools for assessing research quality, reforms to article attribution, submission checklists and new editorial standards.

Conclusion

Medicine’s journals have a responsibility to uphold rigorous scientific and reporting standards, require ready trials data access and ensure the commercial dimensions of research are brought prominently to their readers’ attention. Failure to meet these responsibilities constitutes an enduring threat to the integrity of biomedical literature.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-1827-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cooperate! A paradigm shift for health equity

The role of competition and cooperation in relation to the goal of health equity is examined in this paper. The authors explain why the win-lose mentality associated with avoidable competition is ethically questionable and less effective than cooperation in achieving positive outcomes, particularly as it relates to health and health equity. Competition, which differentiates winners from losers, often with the winner-takes-all reward system, inevitably leads to a few winners and many losers, resulting in social inequality, which, in turn, engenders and perpetuates health inequity.Competitive market-driven approaches to healthcare-brought about by capitalism, neo-liberalization, and globalization, based primarily on a competitive framework-are shown to have contributed to growing inequities with respect to the social determinants of health, and have undermined equal opportunity to access health care and achieve health equity. It is possible to redistribute income and wealth to reduce social inequality, but globalization poses increasing challenges to policy makers. John Stuart Mill provided a passionate, philosophical defense of cooperatives, followed by Karl Polanyi who offered an insightful critique of both state socialism and especially the self-regulating market, thereby opening up the cooperative way of shaping the future. We cite Hannah Arendt's "the banality of evil" to characterize the tragic concept of "ethical fading" witnessed in business and everyday life all over the world, often committed (without thinking and reflecting) by ordinary people under competitive pressures.To promote equity in health for all, we recommend the adoption of a radically new cooperation paradigm, applied whenever possible, to everything in our daily lives.

Industry sponsorship and research outcome

BACKGROUND

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. A similar association between sponsorship and outcomes have been found for device studies, but the body of evidence is not as strong as for sponsorship of drug studies. This review is an update of a previous Cochrane review and includes empirical studies on the association between sponsorship and research outcome.

OBJECTIVES

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.

SEARCH METHODS

In this update we searched MEDLINE (2010 to February 2015), Embase (2010 to February 2015), the Cochrane Methodology Register (2015, Issue 2) and Web of Science (June 2015). In addition, we searched reference lists of included papers, previous systematic reviews and author files.

SELECTION CRITERIA

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.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two assessors screened abstracts and identified and included relevant papers. 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 (CIs)).

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-seven new papers were included in this update and in total the review contains 75 included papers. Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, RR: 1.27 (95% CI: 1.17 to 1.37) (25 papers) (moderate quality evidence), similar harms results RR: 1.37 (95% CI: 0.64 to 2.93) (four papers) (very low quality evidence) and more often favorable conclusions RR: 1.34 (95% CI: 1.19 to 1.51) (29 papers) (low quality evidence) compared with non-industry sponsored studies. Nineteen papers reported on sponsorship and efficacy effect size, but could not be pooled due to differences in their reporting of data and the results were heterogeneous. We did not find a difference between drug and device studies in the association between sponsorship and conclusions (test for interaction, P = 0.98) (four papers). 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 to 1.50) (13 papers), 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: 0.83 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.98) (six papers).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable efficacy 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.

Cost-effectiveness research in cancer therapy: a systematic review of literature trends, methods and the influence of funding

OBJECTIVE

To perform a first-time analysis of the cost-effectiveness (CE) literature on chemotherapies, of all types, in cancer, in terms of trends and change over time, including the influence of industry funding.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

SETTING

A wide range of cancer-related research settings within healthcare, including health systems, hospitals and medical centres.

PARTICIPANTS

All literature comparative CE research of drug-based cancer therapies in the period 1986 to 2015.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Primary outcomes are the literature trends in relation to journal subject category, authorship, research design, data sources, funds and consultation involvement. An additional outcome measure is the association between industry funding and study outcomes.

ANALYSIS

Descriptive statistics and the χ2, Fisher exact or Somer's D tests were used to perform non-parametric statistics, with a p value of <0.05 as the statistical significance measure.

RESULTS

Total 574 publications were analysed. The drug-related CE literature expands over time, with increased publishing in the healthcare sciences and services journal subject category (p<0.001). The retrospective data collection in studies increased over time (p<0.001). The usage of prospective data, however, has been decreasing (p<0.001) in relation to randomised clinical trials (RCTs), but is unchanging for non-RCT studies. The industry-sponsored CE studies have especially been increasing (p<0.001), in contrast to those sponsored by other sources. While paid consultation involvement grew throughout the years, the declaration of funding for this is relatively limited. Importantly, there is evidence that industry funding is associated with favourable result to the sponsor (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

This analysis demonstrates clear trends in how the CE cancer research is presented to the practicing community, including in relation to journals, study designs, authorship and consultation, together with increased financial sponsorship by pharmaceutical industries, which may be more influencing study outcomes than other funding sources.

Financial ties of principal investigators and randomized controlled trial outcomes: cross sectional study

OBJECTIVE

 To examine the association between the presence of individual principal investigators' financial ties to the manufacturer of the study drug and the trial's outcomes after accounting for source of research funding.

DESIGN

 Cross sectional study of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

SETTING

 Studies published in "core clinical" journals, as identified by Medline, between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013.

PARTICIPANTS

 Random sample of RCTs focused on drug efficacy.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

 Association between financial ties of principal investigators and study outcome.

RESULTS

 A total of 190 papers describing 195 studies met inclusion criteria. Financial ties between principal investigators and the pharmaceutical industry were present in 132 (67.7%) studies. Of 397 principal investigators, 231 (58%) had financial ties and 166 (42%) did not. Of all principal investigators, 156 (39%) reported advisor/consultancy payments, 81 (20%) reported speakers' fees, 81 (20%) reported unspecified financial ties, 52 (13%) reported honorariums, 52 (13%) reported employee relationships, 52 (13%) reported travel fees, 41 (10%) reported stock ownership, and 20 (5%) reported having a patent related to the study drug. The prevalence of financial ties of principal investigators was 76% (103/136) among positive studies and 49% (29/59) among negative studies. In unadjusted analyses, the presence of a financial tie was associated with a positive study outcome (odds ratio 3.23, 95% confidence interval 1.7 to 6.1). In the primary multivariate analysis, a financial tie was significantly associated with positive RCT outcome after adjustment for the study funding source (odds ratio 3.57 (1.7 to 7.7). The secondary analysis controlled for additional RCT characteristics such as study phase, sample size, country of first authors, specialty, trial registration, study design, type of analysis, comparator, and outcome measure. These characteristics did not appreciably affect the relation between financial ties and study outcomes (odds ratio 3.37, 1.4 to 7.9).

CONCLUSIONS

 Financial ties of principal investigators were independently associated with positive clinical trial results. These findings may be suggestive of bias in the evidence base.

Methodological Flaws, Conflicts of Interest, and Scientific Fallacies: Implications for the Evaluation of Antidepressants' Efficacy and Harm

BACKGROUND

In current psychiatric practice, antidepressants are widely and with ever-increasing frequency prescribed to patients. However, several scientific biases obfuscate estimates of antidepressants' efficacy and harm, and these are barely recognized in treatment guidelines. The aim of this mini-review is to critically evaluate the efficacy and harm of antidepressants for acute and maintenance treatment with respect to systematic biases related to industry funding and trial methodology.

METHODS

Narrative review based on a comprehensive search of the literature.

RESULTS

It is shown that the pooled efficacy of antidepressants is weak and below the threshold of a minimally clinically important change once publication and reporting biases are considered. Moreover, the small mean difference in symptom reductions relative to placebo is possibly attributable to observer effects in unblinded assessors and patient expectancies. With respect to trial dropout rates, a hard outcome not subjected to observer bias, no difference was observed between antidepressants and placebo. The discontinuation trials on the efficacy of antidepressants in maintenance therapy are systematically flawed, because in these studies, spontaneous remitters are excluded, whereas half of all patients who remitted on antidepressants are abruptly switched to placebo. This can cause a severe withdrawal syndrome that is easily misdiagnosed as a relapse when assessed on subjective symptom rating scales. In accordance, the findings of naturalistic long-term studies suggest that maintenance therapy has no clear benefit, and non-drug users do not show increased recurrence rates. Moreover, a growing body of evidence from hundreds of randomized controlled trials suggests that antidepressants cause suicidality, but this risk is underestimated because data from industry-funded trials are systematically flawed. Unselected, population-wide observational studies indicate that depressive patients who use antidepressants are at an increased risk of suicide and that they have a higher rate of all-cause mortality than matched controls.

CONCLUSION

The strong reliance on industry-funded research results in an uncritical approval of antidepressants. Due to several flaws such as publication and reporting bias, unblinding of outcome assessors, concealment and recoding of serious adverse events, the efficacy of antidepressants is systematically overestimated, and harm is systematically underestimated. Therefore, I conclude that antidepressants are largely ineffective and potentially harmful.

Association Between Financial Conflicts of Interests and Supportive Opinions for Erectile Dysfunction Treatment

A conflict of interest (COI) is a situation in which a person has competing loyalties or interests that make it difficult to fulfil his or her duties impartially. Conflict of interest is not categorically improper in itself but requires proper management. A SCOPUS literature search was performed for publications on the efficacy/safety of Phospho-Di-Esterase Inhibitors (PDEIs) for treating erectile dysfunction. A categorization tool (CoOpCaT) was used to review and classify the publications as supportive/not-supportive for the discussed active ingredient and reporting or not reporting a COI for that specific drug or for the remaining PDEIs (i.e. competitors). Multivariable binary logistic regression was performed. In the 419 selected records the prevalence of supportive opinions was higher when a COI for the index label was declared. The CoOpCaT showed good internal consistency, discriminative validity and intra/inter-rater agreement. The strongest predictor for a supportive opinion was the total number of financial COIs for the index label. A mild protective effect of the total number of financial COIs for any competitor label was noted. Financial COIs have frequently been associated with bias, and the measures currently adopted to restrain it lack effectiveness. Some evidence for monitoring and/or compensating this bias is reported here, but the ultimate solution remains distant.