Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review

This article is based on a study that aimed to shed light on the “cultures of action” of Irish health advocacy organizations, and particularly their modes of engagement with pharmaceutical corporations. Debates about what some interpret as the “corporate colonization” of health activism provide the backdrop for the analysis. The empirical dimension of the study involved a survey of 112 organizations and in-depth study of a small number of organizations that manifest diverse modes of engagement with the pharmaceutical industry. The varying modes of interaction are plotted along a continuum and characterized as corporatist, cautious cooperation, and confrontational. Evidence is presented of a strong and growing cultural tendency in Irish health advocacy organizations to frame pharmaceutical corporations as allies in their quests for better health. The analysis of four constitutive dimensions of organizations' cultures of action can reveal the legitimating logics underlying their diverging positions around pharmaceutical industry sponsorship. While the research shows that pharmaceutical corporations have largely succeeded in defining themselves as a philanthropic force and rightful players in Irish health activism, it cautions against a simplistic conclusion that this is evidence of corporate colonization.

Download Full-text

Editorial: Risky business? Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship of health consumer groups

Australian Prescriber ◽

10.18773/austprescr.2021.017 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 44 (3) ◽

pp. 74-76

Author(s):

Lisa A Bero ◽

Lisa Parker

Keyword(s):

Pharmaceutical Industry ◽

Industry Sponsorship ◽

Health Consumer ◽

Risky Business

Download Full-text

In Reply: Pharmaceutical Industry Sponsorship of Journal Supplements

CHEST Journal ◽

10.1016/s0012-3692(15)50723-x ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 129 (5) ◽

pp. 1387-1388

Author(s):

Daniel R. Ouellette

Keyword(s):

Pharmaceutical Industry ◽

Industry Sponsorship

Download Full-text

Methodological and Reporting Quality of Noninferiority Randomized Controlled Trials Comparing Antibiotic Therapies: A Systematic Review

Clinical Infectious Diseases ◽

10.1093/cid/ciaa1353 ◽

2020 ◽

Author(s):

Anthony D Bai ◽

Adam S Komorowski ◽

Carson K L Lo ◽

Pranav Tandon ◽

Xena X Li ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Pharmaceutical Industry ◽

Randomized Controlled Trials ◽

Reporting Quality ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Intention To Treat ◽

Randomized Controlled ◽

Noninferiority Trials ◽

Noninferiority Margin

Abstract Background Antibiotic noninferiority randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are used for approval of new antibiotics and making changes to antibiotic prescribing in clinical practice. We conducted a systematic review to assess the methodological and reporting quality of antibiotic noninferiority RCTs. Methods We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and the Food and Drug Administration drug database from inception until November 22, 2019, for noninferiority RCTs comparing different systemic antibiotic therapies. Comparisons between antibiotic types, doses, administration routes, or durations were included. Methodological and reporting quality indicators were based on the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials reporting guidelines. Two independent reviewers extracted the data. Results The systematic review included 227 studies. Of these, 135 (59.5%) studies were supported by pharmaceutical industry. Only 83 (36.6%) studies provided a justification for the noninferiority margin. Reporting of both intention-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) analyses were done in 165 (72.7%) studies. The conclusion was misleading in 34 (15.0%) studies. The studies funded by pharmaceutical industry were less likely to be stopped early because of logistical reasons (3.0% vs 19.1%; odds ratio [OR] = 0.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], .04–.37) and to show inconclusive results (11.1% vs 42.9%; OR = 0.17; 95% CI, .08–.33). The quality of studies decreased over time with respect to blinding, early stopping, reporting of ITT with PP analysis, and having misleading conclusions. Conclusions There is room for improvement in the methodology and reporting of antibiotic noninferiority trials. Quality can be improved across the entire spectrum from investigators, funding agencies, as well as during the peer-review process. There is room for improvement in the methodology and reporting of antibiotic noninferiority trials including justification of noninferiority margin, reporting of intention-to-treat analysis with per-protocol analysis, and having conclusions that are concordant with study results. PROSPERO registration number CRD42020165040.

Download Full-text

Industry sponsorship bias in clinical trials in implant dentistry: Systematic review and meta‐regression

Journal Of Clinical Periodontology ◽

10.1111/jcpe.13100 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 46 (4) ◽

pp. 510-519 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Mateus Bertolini Fernandes dos Santos ◽

Bernardo Antônio Agostini ◽

Rafael Ratto Moraes ◽

Falk Schwendicke ◽

Rafael Sarkis‐Onofre

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Clinical Trials ◽

Industry Sponsorship ◽

Meta Regression ◽

Implant Dentistry

Download Full-text

A systematic review of curricula on relationships between residents and the pharmaceutical industry

Medical Education ◽

10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02998.x ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 42 (3) ◽

pp. 301-308 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Brian T Montague ◽

Auguste H Fortin VI ◽

Julie Rosenbaum

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Pharmaceutical Industry

Download Full-text

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

BMJ Open ◽

10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022912 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 9 (5) ◽

pp. e022912 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Nicholas Chartres ◽

Alice Fabbri ◽

Sally McDonald ◽

Jessica Turton ◽

Margaret Allman-Farinelli ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Cardiovascular Disease ◽

Observational Studies ◽

Food Industry ◽

Conflicts Of Interest ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Risk Of Bias ◽

Case Control Studies ◽

Industry Sponsorship ◽

Nutrition Research

ObjectiveTo 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.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.Data sourcesWe searched eight databases from 1997 to 2017 and hand searched the reference lists of included studies.Eligibility criteria for selecting studiesCohort and case–control studies that quantitatively examined the association of wholegrains or wholegrain foods with CVD outcomes in healthy adults or children.Results21 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) I20%. 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) I20%.ConclusionsWe 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 numberCRD42017055841.

Download Full-text