Friday, 15 Feb 2019

You are here

Ties to Pharma Influences Clinical Trial Results

A study published in The BMJ shows that financial ties between researchers and companies that make the drugs they are studying are independently associated with positive trial results; thereby questioning the bias in these objective trials. (Citation source: http://buff.ly/2jUnA3q)

Relationships with industry are common among investigators of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) - raising concerns about the effect that financial ties may have on the evidence base. But studies investigating these relationships have been conflicting.

US researchers studied this association by examining a random sample of 195 drug trials published in 2013.

They focused on trials that examined the effectiveness of drugs, because these studies have a high impact on both clinical practice and healthcare costs.

More than half (58%) of principal investigators had financial ties to the drug industry - of 397 principal investigators, 231 (58%) had financial ties, 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 results show that trials authored by principal investigators with financial ties to drug manufacturers were more likely than other trials to report favourable results. The prevalence of financial ties of principal investigators was 76% among positive studies and 49% among negative studies.

Thus the presence of a financial tie was associated with a greater than 3 fold odds of positive study outcome 

The authors point to possible mechanisms linking industry funding, financial ties, and trial results such as bias by selective outcome reporting, lack of publication, and inappropriate analyses.  They suggested that  trials with industry funding or authors with financial ties should be interpreted with caution until all relevant information is fully disclosed.

 

Disclosures: 
The author has no conflicts of interest to disclose related to this subject

Add new comment

More Like This

No Difference in Oral or IV Antibiotics for Bone & Joint Infections

Research from the NEJM shows that oral antibiotic therapy was noninferior to intravenous antibiotic therapy when used during the first six weeks for complex orthopedic infections.

There is considerable discussion whether complex bone and joint infections must be managed with prolonged intravenous antibiotics or if oral antibiotic therapy may suffice. 

2019: the Year of Price Hikes

In 2019 there have been numerous reports of higher drug pricing for many drugs.  Yesterday it was reported that the price of insulin drugs have more than doubled from 2012 to 2016.

Reuters reports that in the United States, the pricing on more than 250 prescription drugs have gone up.

Does Methotrexate Work in Giant Cell Arteritis?

There seems to be both hope and uncertainty regarding the use of weekly methotrexate (MTX) in giant cell arteritis (GCA) patients whom need to limit their glucocorticoid use. While well done clinical trials have shown no certain efficacy, data suggesting MTX benefits comes from small trials, anecdotes and clinical experience. 

Price of Drug Promotion Skyrockets

JAMA reports that health care advertising costs in the U.S. have almost doubled over the past two decades, surging from $17.7 billion in 1997 to at least $29.9 billion in 2016. (Citation source: https://buff.ly/2Rk8a9Q)

2018 Rheumatology Year In Review

This annual appraisal of hallmark moments, news and research articles from 2018 are gleaned from that published in RheumNow during the last year and filtered by other news sources and literature review.  The top 10 list herein is rooted in what rheumatologists should know and what will likely change their standards and practice in the future, if not 2019.