Sponsorship bias in clinical trials: growing menace or dawning realisation?

Exploring the presence of DFG-funded publications in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology

The primary objective of this study is to analyze the number of Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)-sponsored papers published in Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology (NSAP), the oldest pharmacology journal in the world. This is the first systematic investigation of DFG-sponsored research in NSAP. Using the Scopus database, which provides comprehensive citation data from 1969 onward (for NSAP), the study identifies DFG-sponsored publications in the fields of pharmacology, toxicology, and pharmaceutics. The analysis includes only peer-reviewed articles and reviews, excluding other document types such as conference proceedings or editorials etc. The results show that, out of 453,047 total DFG-sponsored publications from 1969 to the present, only 3.05% (13,847) are in the specialized fields of pharmacology, toxicology, and pharmaceutics. This is relatively low compared to other research areas such as biochemistry, genetics, and molecular biology (24.69%), and physics and astronomy (23.37%). The study further analyzes the yearly publication dynamics of DFG-sponsored papers in NSAP, revealing a concerning trend: between 2015 and 2023, fewer than 10 DFG-sponsored papers were published in each of these years, with the lowest being 2 publications in 2022. These findings raise questions regarding the visibility and contribution of DFG-funded research in NSAP and suggest that strategies could be developed to enhance the presence of DFG-sponsored research in this historically significant journal. The study does not aim to interfere with funding policies but encourages a discussion on ways to improve publication outcomes for DFG-sponsored projects, particularly in well-established journals like NSAP. Collaboration between researchers, universities, and funding bodies may be key to promoting the visibility and impact of DFG-funded research in relevant academic journals.

Glucagon-like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonists: Exciting Avenues Beyond Weight Loss

The last two decades have proffered many remarkable choices in managing type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus. Leading the list are glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP1RAs), the first of which, exenatide, was approved by the FDA in 2005. Two other major classes of drugs have also entered the market: dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, commonly known as gliptins and approved in 2006, and sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 (SGLT-2) inhibitors, with the first approval occurring in 2013. These drugs have revolutionized the treatment of diabetes. Additionally, on the horizon, the once-weekly basal insulin analog insulin icodec and the once-weekly combination of insulin icodec and semaglutide are expected to be available in the future. Beyond glycemic control, GLP1RAs have exhibited benefits in conditions associated with diabetes, including hypertension, dyslipidemia, non-alcoholic steatohepatitis, as well as in neurodegenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's disease. Additionally, emerging research suggests potential roles in certain types of cancer, infertility, and associative learning. Major cardiovascular events seem to be lower in patients on GLP1RAs. While some evidence is robust, other findings remain tenuous. It is important that clinicians are familiar with current research in order to provide optimal evidence-based care to patients. In the not-too-distant future, there may be a case to prescribe these drugs for benefits outside diabetes.

Evaluation of adherence to the Preferred Reporting of CasE Series in Surgery (PROCESS) 2020 guideline in case series describing endovascular management of vein of Galen malformation demonstrates suboptimal reporting practices

BACKGROUND

Interventional neuroradiology is a dynamic field with technological advancements constantly driving evolution in clinical practice. Case series provide interventional neuroradiologists the opportunity to describe the clinical implications of novel equipment and techniques almost in real-time, informing broader adoption and directing future research. Complete reporting in case series is vital in enabling readers to detect bias, determine the generalizability of results and replicate study methodology. The aim of this study was to assess the quality of reporting in case series describing endovascular management of vein of Galen malformations.

METHODS

A systematic search for case series describing endovascular management of vein of Galen malformations in paediatric patients was conducted using a previously published search strategy in Medline, Embase and Web of Science in February 2024. Screening and data extraction were performed by two independent reviewers with disagreements resolved by consensus discussion. Quality of reporting was assessed using adherence to the Preferred Reporting of CasE Series in Surgery (PROCESS) 2020 checklist.

RESULTS

We included 19 case series representing a broad range of approaches and endovascular techniques for management of vein of Galen malformations. Overall adherence to the PROCESS 2020 guideline was moderate with a mean of 7.0/13 (54%; range 5.2 - 9.7/13; SD 1.1) items reported. The most consistently reported items related to characteristics of the clinical cohort and details regarding the specific image-guided intervention(s) provided. Items relating to study design, source of funding, pre-intervention patient optimisation, clinical follow-up and potential complications and alternatives for novel techniques/devices were less frequently reported.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of reporting in case series describing endovascular management of vein of Galen malformation is suboptimal. Measures to improve the quality of reporting in neurointerventional case series include mandating adherence to reporting guidelines in journal instructions for authors and requiring submission of completed copies of relevant reporting guidelines alongside manuscripts.

Pharmacological Interventions for Negative Symptoms in Schizophrenia: A Systematic Review of Randomised Control Trials

Background/Objectives: While positive symptoms of schizophrenia are often satisfactorily controlled, negative symptoms are difficult to treat, persisting despite treatment. Different strategies have been devised to deal with this problem. We aimed to review drug treatment for negative symptoms of schizophrenia in controlled trials of marketed drugs. Methods: We searched the PubMed database and the resulting records' reference lists to identify eligible trials using schizophrenia[ti] AND "negative symptom*"[ti] as a search strategy. We determined eligibility through Delphi rounds among all authors. Results: On 11 February 2025, we identified 1485 records on PubMed and 3 more from reference lists. Eligible were 95 records. Most studies were double-blind, randomized controlled trials, carried-out in add-on in patients stabilized with antipsychotics. Other antipsychotics were the most frequent comparators, followed by antidepressants, and recently, antioxidants are gaining importance in trials. Many trials, especially those conducted in the Western world, found no significant effects compared to placebo, while most Iranian studies were positive, although not with a strong effect size. Conclusions: Current research has contributed little to progress in the treatment of the negative symptoms of schizophrenia. The reason might reside in the absence of knowledge of the mechanisms whereby these symptoms are generated, which prevents us from designing possibly effective treatment strategies, and/or to the chronicity of negative symptoms, as they are the first to be established even when they do not become fully apparent.

Implementation of the EU's Health Technology Assessment regulation: where does existing methods guidance require concretization and what are the relevant methodological options?

OBJECTIVES

The EUnetHTA Core Model® is well-established in the HTA community. Some recommendations of corresponding guidance documents leave room for alternative methodological choices. Considering the new HTA regulation (HTAR), we aimed to identify needs for concretization (NCs) in EUnetHTA guidance and provide indicative methodological options.

METHODS

We carried out a qualitative document analysis and structured group discussion. Twenty-two EUnetHTA documents were screened using transparent criteria. Identified NCs were classified into topics according to the PRISMA statement and presented to Austrian HTA practitioners (n = 11) during a structured group discussion. Participants rated NC's importance. To identify potential solutions, selected key handbooks for generic (Cochrane) and HTA-specific (IQWIG/NICE) evidence synthesis were systematically reviewed and matching content was charted against the NCs.

RESULTS

Thirty-two topics with varying numbers of NCs were identified, twenty-six during the screening process, and six from the group discussion. Most of the topics related to evidence synthesis methods (nine topics), evidence eligibility criteria (nine topics), risk of bias (three topics), and certainty assessment (three topics). Other topics related to information sources, search strategy, data collection process, data items, effect measures, and reporting bias. One or more methodological approaches and recommendations could be identified for each identified topic from the included methodological handbooks.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis identified a need for concretization in some EUnetHTA guidelines. The structured overview of methodological options may support HTA doers in adapting and applying the guidelines to the national and local practical context.

Direct factor Xa inhibitors versus low molecular weight heparins or vitamin K antagonists for prevention of venous thromboembolism in elective primary hip or knee replacement or hip fracture repair

BACKGROUND

People undergoing major orthopaedic surgery are at increased risk of postoperative thromboembolic events. Low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are recommended for thromboprophylaxis in this population. New oral anticoagulants, including direct factor Xa inhibitors, are recommended as alternatives. They may have more advantages than disadvantages compared to LMWHs and vitamin K antagonists (VKAs, another type of anticoagulant).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of prophylactic anticoagulation with direct factor Xa inhibitors compared with low molecular weight heparins and vitamin K antagonists in people undergoing major orthopaedic surgery for elective total hip or knee replacement or hip fracture surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Vascular Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases, and two trial registers to 11 November 2023. We conducted reference checks to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of direct factor Xa inhibitors to LMWHs or VKAs in people undergoing major orthopaedic surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, major venous thromboembolism (VTE), symptomatic VTE, major bleeding, and serious hepatic and non-hepatic adverse events. We evaluated the risk of bias in the included studies using Cochrane's risk of bias 1 tool. We calculated estimates of treatment effects using risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 53 RCTs (44,371 participants). Participants' average age was 64 years (range: 18 to 93 years). Only one RCT compared a VKA with direct factor Xa inhibitors. All 53 RCTs compared direct factor Xa inhibitors with LMWHs. Twenty-three studies included participants undergoing total hip replacement; 21 studies, total knee replacement; and three studies included people having hip fracture surgery. The studies' average duration was approximately 42 days (range: two to 720 days). Compared to LMWHs, direct factor Xa inhibitors may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.52 to 1.31; I2 = 0%; 28 studies, 29,698 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Direct factor Xa inhibitors may make little to no difference to major venous thromboembolic events compared to LMWHs, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.71; absolute risk difference: 12 fewer major VTE events per 1000 participants, 95% CI 16 fewer to 7 fewer; I2 = 48%; 28 studies, 24,574 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to LMWHs, direct factor Xa inhibitors may reduce symptomatic VTE (RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.83; I2 = 0%; 33 studies, 31,670 participants; low-certainty evidence). The absolute benefit of substituting factor Xa inhibitors for LMWHs may be between two and five fewer symptomatic VTE episodes per 1000 patients. In the meta-analysis with all studies pooled, direct factor Xa inhibitors appeared to make little or no difference to major bleeding compared to LMWHs, but the evidence was very uncertain (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.30; I2 = 15%; 36 studies, 39,778 participants; very low certainty-evidence). • In a subgroup analysis limited to studies comparing rivaroxaban to LMWHs, people given rivaroxaban may have had more major bleeding events (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.26 to 2.98; I2 = 0%; 17 studies, 17,630 participants; low-certainty evidence). The absolute risk of substituting rivaroxaban for LMWH may be between one and seven more major bleeding events per 1000 patients. • In a subgroup analysis limited to studies comparing direct factor Xa inhibitors other than rivaroxaban to LMWHs, people given these other direct factor Xa inhibitors may have had fewer major bleeding events, but the evidence was very uncertain (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.63 to 1.02; absolute risk difference: 3 fewer major bleeding events per 1000 participants, 95% CI 5 fewer to 0 fewer; I2 = 0%; 19 studies, 22,148 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Direct factor Xa inhibitors may make little to no difference in serious hepatic adverse events compared to LMWHs, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 3.01, 95% CI 0.12 to 73.93; 2 studies, 3169 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Only two studies reported this outcome, with one death in the intervention group due to hepatitis reported in one study, and no events reported in the other study. People given direct factor Xa inhibitors may have a lower risk of serious non-hepatic adverse events than those given LMWHs (RR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97; I2 = 18%; 15 studies, 26,246 participants; low-certainty evidence). The absolute benefit of substituting factor Xa inhibitors for LMWH may be between three and 14 fewer serious non-hepatic adverse events per 1000 patients. Only one study compared a direct factor Xa inhibitor with a VKA. It reported outcome data with imprecise results due to the small number of events. It showed no difference in the effects of the study drugs.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Oral direct factor Xa inhibitors may have little to no effect on all-cause mortality, but the evidence is very uncertain. Oral direct factor Xa inhibitors may slightly reduce symptomatic VTE events when compared with LMWH. They may make little or no difference to major VTE events, but the evidence is very uncertain. In the evaluation of major bleeding, the evidence suggests rivaroxaban results in a slight increase in major bleeding events compared to LMWHs. The remaining oral direct factor Xa inhibitors may have little to no effect on major bleeding, but the evidence is very uncertain. Oral direct factor Xa inhibitors may reduce serious non-hepatic adverse events slightly compared to LMWHs. They may have little to no effect on serious hepatic adverse events, but the evidence is very uncertain. Due to the high rates of missing participants and selective outcome reporting, the effect estimates may be biased.

Conclusions of clinical trials assessing monoclonal antibodies and sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: a meta-research study

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to describe and critically appraise the conclusions of randomized clinical trials assessing monoclonal antibodies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.

METHODS

This is a meta-research study on conclusions' characteristics of randomized clinical trials with monoclonal antibodies as interventions sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry.

RESULTS

A total of 82 publications were considered. Notably, 79.3% (65/82) of the trials were fully funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and sponsors had data and publishing rights in 70.7% (58/82). Among the fully sponsored studies, 78.5% (51/65) presented conclusions with a drug-favorable direction of the effect, and 30.8% (20/65) made some recommendations for clinical practice, of which 95% (19/20) were favorable to the drug. In relation to the partially funded studies, drug-favorable direction of effect was present in 68.8% (11/16) of conclusions, and 18.8% (3/16) recommended the drug for the practice, in which 66.7% (2/3) favored the drug. Positive direction of effect was more present in trials in which the sponsor owned data and publication (81.0%; 47/58), compared to trials where the funder did not (63.3%; 14/22). Only 13.4% (11/82) of included studies recognize the uncertainty in the estimates in the conclusions, and 37.4% (31/82) had a statement regarding the need for future studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the included randomized clinical trials on monoclonal antibodies funded by the industry concluded a drug-favorable direction of effect. Recommendations for practice were common, while recognition of uncertainty and statements regarding the need for future studies were less frequently present in the conclusion.

International Collaboration and Commercial Involvement in Randomized Controlled Trials From 10 Leading Countries, 1997 Through 2019

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) affect clinical decisions and their number is increasing. However, trends in international collaboration on RCTs and involvement of healthcare-related industries, the latter of which may contribute to bias, are not known. The objectives were to identify concerns surrounding RCTs, and to quantify changes in (1) the numbers of RCT articles in journals of high clinical importance, (2) international collaboration, and (3) commercial involvement in RCTs by authors in countries that contribute the most to the scientific literature. This was not a systematic review of the medical literature. It is a descriptive study of trends during the past two decades. We extracted RCT articles from MEDLINE data (1997-2019). When grouped by authors' country, the analyses were limited to the 10 leading countries in the natural sciences, as defined by the Nature Index 2019 Annual Tables. The Core Clinical Journals (CCJ) filter in PubMed was used to identify journals that were likely to be highly relevant to clinical practice. RCT articles that included authors from multiple countries were used as examples of international collaboration, and RCTs in which at least one author's affiliation was corporate were considered to have commercial involvement. The annual number of RCT articles more than doubled (from 10,360 to 22,384), but the number published in the CCJ was essentially unchanged (from 2,245 to 2,346). The vast majority of RCT articles had US-based authors. International collaboration increased in nine of the 10 countries studied, and it was particularly common among researchers in Europe, Canada, and Australia. In contrast, international collaboration decreased in China. Regarding commercial involvement, between 1997 and 2019 the proportion of single-country RCTs with commercial involvement decreased (from 12.4% to 3.8% for the United States, and from 2.5% to 0.0% for Europe-Canada-Australia). In contrast, the proportion of international-collaborative RCTs with commercial involvement increased (from 9.2% to 17.6% for the United States, and from 17.9% to 21.3% for Europe-Canada-Australia). The largest change in commercial involvement was the 12-fold increase in Japan: from 3% to 36% (1997-2019). Japan was also noteworthy for its 28-percentage-point decrease in first-authorship of RCT articles from 2012 to 2019. In conclusion, recent increases in the number of RCT articles have occurred almost exclusively outside the CCJ. Thus, many newer RCT articles might have relatively low clinical relevance or impact. International collaboration has generally increased, along with commercial involvement. The latter has become particularly common in Japan, increasing the potential for sponsorship bias. The effects of ongoing attempts to reverse that trend should be evaluated.

Industry Sponsorship Bias in Collagenase Clinical Trials for Dupuytren Disease: A Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Collagenase clostridium histolyticum (collagenase) was introduced in 2010 creating a nonoperative treatment option for Dupuytren disease with promising results in sponsored clinical trials. A meta-analysis was performed to investigate industry sponsorship bias.

METHODS

A systematic review of collagenase treatment of Dupuytren contracture was conducted. Articles containing mesh terms including "microbial collagenase" and "Dupuytren's contracture" were searched and limited to only clinical trials with similar protocols for inclusion. Meta-analysis of treatment endpoints of correction of contracture to 0-5 degrees after first and last injection was conducted comparing sponsored versus nonsponsored studies.

RESULTS

Sixteen of the 29 identified articles met criteria for inclusion. Nonsponsored studies reported a significantly higher rate of meeting the primary treatment endpoint compared to sponsored studies after single injection for all joints (69.6% vs 56% P < 0.01), metacarpophalangeal joint (96% vs 64% P < 0.01), and proximal interphalangeal joint (67% vs 36% P = 0.011). The correction in contracture rates was similar between groups with studies evaluating more than one injection.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonsponsored studies published higher success rates in meeting the primary endpoint of full correction after single injection than sponsored studies; however, similar results with multiple injections. This study demonstrated that sponsored studies of collagenase produced highly powered studies that may be reliably depended on for evidence-based clinical application.

Global Equity in Clinical Trials: An ASCO Policy Statement

ASCO is a global professional society representing more than 50,000 physicians, other health care professionals, and advocates in over 100 countries specializing in cancer treatment, diagnosis, prevention, and advocacy. ASCO strives, through research, education, and promotion of the highest quality of patient care, to create a world where cancer is prevented or cured, and every survivor is healthy. In this pursuit, health equity remains the guiding institutional principle that applies to all its activities across the cancer care continuum. This ASCO policy statement emphasizes the urgent need for global equity in clinical trials, aiming to enhance access and representation in cancer research as it not only improves cancer outcomes but also upholds principles of fairness and justice in health care.

Overcoming publication and dissemination bias in infectious diseases clinical trials

Non-timely reporting, selective reporting, or non-reporting of clinical trial results are prevalent and serious issues. WHO mandates that summary results be available in registries within 12 months of study completion and published in full text within 24 months. However, only a limited number of clinical trials in infectious diseases, including those done during the COVID-19 pandemic, have their results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov. An analysis of 50 trials of eight antiviral drugs tested against COVID-19 with a completion date of at least 2 years ago revealed that only 18% had their results published in the registry, with 40% not publishing any results. Non-timely and non-reporting practices undermine patient participation and are ethically unacceptable. Strategies should include obligatory reporting of summary results within 12 months in clinical trial registries, with progress towards peer-reviewed publication within 24 months indicated. Timely publication of research papers should be encouraged through an automated flagging mechanism in clinical trial registries that draws attention to the status of results reporting, such as a green tick for trials that have reported summary results within 12 months and a red tick in case of failure to do so. We propose the inclusion of mandatory clinical trial reporting standards in the International Conference on Harmonization Good Clinical Practice guidelines, which should prohibit sponsor contract clauses that restrict reporting (referred to as gag clauses) and require timely reporting of results as part of the ethics committees' clearance process for clinical trial protocols.

Assessment of Conflicts of Interest in the Transcarotid Artery Revascularization Literature

INTRODUCTION

To systematically review the accuracy of self-reported conflicts of interest (COIs) among transcarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) studies and evaluate factors associated with increased discrepancies.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A literature search identified all TCAR-related studies with at least one American author published between January 2017 and December 2020. Industry payments from Silk Road Medical, Inc. were collected using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Open Payments database. COI discrepancies were identified by comparing author declaration statements with payments found for the year of publication and year prior (24-mo period). Risk factors for COI discrepancy were evaluated at both the study and author level.

RESULTS

A total of 79 studies (472 authors) were identified. Sixty four studies (81%) had at least one author who received payments from Silk Road Medical, Inc. Fifty eight (73%) studies had at least one author who received an undeclared payment. Consulting fees represented the majority of general payment subtype (60%). Authors who accurately disclosed payments received significantly higher median payments compared to authors who did not accurately disclose payments ($37,222 [interquartile range: $28,203-$132,589] versus $1748 [interquartile range $257-$35,041], P < 0.0001). Senior authors were significantly more likely to have a COI discrepancy compared to first authors (P = 0.0219).

CONCLUSIONS

The majority of TCAR-related studies did not accurately declare COI. A multivariate analysis demonstrated no effect of sponsorship on study recommendations or impact factor. This study highlights the need for increased efforts in accountability to improve the transparency of industry sponsorship, especially when consulting authors are reporting their results on patient outcomes.

The quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses assessing the effects of ankle-foot orthosis on clinical outcomes in stroke patients: A methodological systematic review

Background and Aims

Given the importance of systematic reviews (SRs) for practitioners, researchers, and policymakers, it is essential to assess them to ensure robust methodology and reliable results before applying them. The purpose of this methodological study was to assess the methodological and reporting quality of recently published SRs and/or meta-analyses (MAs) evaluating the effects of ankle-foot orthoses (AFOs) on clinical outcomes in stroke survivors.

Methods

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, ProQuest, CENTRAL, REHABDATA, and PEDro were searched. The research team applied A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) tool and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist for evaluating the reporting and methodological quality, respectively, and the ROBIS tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias (RoB) in the included reviews. The quality of the evidence was also judged using the (Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) GRADE method.

Results

In final, 14 SRs/MAs met inclusion criteria. Evaluation of methodological quality using the AMSTAR-2 tool demonstrated that the overall quality of included reviews was mostly "critically low" or "low," except for two studies that were "high." In addition, the findings showed that the mean score of the reporting quality of the included reviews based on the PRISMA criteria was 24.9, down from 42. In accordance with the overall evaluation applying the ROBIS tool, 14.3% of the review studies were evaluated as high RoB, 64.3% were evaluated as unclear RoB, and 21.4% were evaluated as low RoB. Regarding the level of evidence quality, the GRADE results indicated that the evidence quality of the included reviews was unsatisfactory.

Conclusion

This study showed that although the reporting quality of recently published SR/MAs evaluating the clinical effects of AFOs in stroke survivors was moderate, the methodological quality of almost all reviews was suboptimal. Therefore, reviewers must consider a number of criteria in designing, conducting, and reporting their studies to move toward transparent and conclusive results.

Deferring Risk: Limitations to the Evidence in Product Labels for Vaccine Use in Pregnancy

Background: The gaps in clinical trial evidence about vaccination in pregnancy have serious implications for health care worker and public misunderstandings. Contradictions between National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG) recommendations and regulatory product labeling information contribute to misinformation about vaccine safety and effectiveness. Methods: A mixed methods approach that included a stakeholder consensus decision-making workshop and a national survey of Canadian health care providers (HCPs). Results: We identified knowledge gaps and serious limitations concerning the information in vaccine product labels. Stakeholders were troubled that some HCPs rely on regulatory product labels to inform their decisions without knowing their limitations in content. Our survey showed that HCPs were uncertain about the purpose of product labels and the evidence contained in them. Over a third of respondents incorrectly thought that product labels and NITAG recommendations are based on the same evidence and that the information they contain is regularly updated. Conclusions: Applying social risk theories, we show how such gaps in information defer responsibility for decisions about disease risk and vaccine safety from regulatory agencies and vaccine manufacturers onto HCPs and their clients. This may be especially relevant for COVID-19 and other emerging vaccines that are initially authorized for conditional or emergency use, and especially in understudied populations such as pregnant people. More frequent updating and alignment of robust, unbiased, and independently reviewed clinical trial and postmarket safety and effectiveness evidence with NITAG recommendations would allay HCP and public misunderstandings.

Industry influence in healthcare harms patients: myth or maxim?

Healthcare is a major global industry accounting for a significant proportion of government spending. Drug and medical device manufacturers are publicly traded companies with a responsibility to their shareholders to maximise profits by increasing sales. In order to achieve this, industry exerts influence over every part of healthcare including academic research, medical education, clinical guideline development, physician prescribing and through direct interactions with patients. In contrast, healthcare services seek to provide effective, safe and evidence-based treatments. This article examines interactions with industry across these domains and seeks to identify mutually beneficial relationships and potential conflict leading to patient harms. Case studies are used to illustrate these interactions. There is no single solution for improving healthcare's relationship with industry, although increased transparency has raised awareness of this issue. We briefly discuss some successful interventions that have been tried at national and regulatory level. While industry influence is widespread in healthcare and this has benefits for shareholders, healthcare practitioners have an ethical obligation to prioritise their patients' best interests. Industry interactions with healthcare professionals have a valid role in product development and distribution, but industry sponsorship of healthcare education and practice, guideline development or regulatory decision-making can have harmful consequences for patients. Healthcare practitioners need to carefully consider these issues when deciding whether to collaborate with industry.

Educational aims

To explore the many areas where industry influences healthcare and the subsequent effects on patient care. Case studies are used to illustrate examples of beneficial and harmful effects of this influence.To raise awareness of the effects of industry influence and for readers to consider their own potential conflicts of interest.To suggest potential ways to improve the current system with a focus on solutions which have successfully been trialled already.

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.