Drug trials funded by industry are more likely to publish favorable results

Aug 02, 2010

When published results are systematically tracked for drug trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, those from industry-funded trials are the likeliest to be favorable to the drug in question, report researchers at Children's Hospital Boston. Publishing in the August 3 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine, the researchers call for more public disclosure about clinical drug trials at their outset to reduce the possibility of bias in the findings.

The research team, led by Florence Bourgeois, MD, MPH, of Children's Division of , and Kenneth Mandl, MD, MPH, Laboratory Director in the Children's Hospital Informatics Program, reviewed 546 conducted between 2000 and 2006 and listed with ClinicalTrials.gov, a comprehensive, web-based federal registry of clinical trials. The analysis focused on five classes of drugs: cholesterol-lowering drugs, antidepressants, antipsychotics, proton-pump inhibitors and vasodilators. The researchers scanned the medical literature for publications associated with each trial, checking four separate databases and contacting trial investigators directly if necessary.

Overall, allowing for a three-year lag time from the completion of the trial, two-thirds of the trials had published results. The industry-funded trials reported positive outcomes 85 percent of the time, as compared with 50 percent for government-funded trials and 72 percent for trials funded by nonprofits or non-federal organizations. In addition, among the nonprofit/nonfederal trials, those that had industry contributions (nearly half) were more likely than those without to report positive outcomes (85 vs. 61 percent). These differences were all statistically significant.

The researchers acknowledge that the was probably more selective in which trials it funded, helping to account for their greater proportion of favorable outcomes. "Industry is very good at knowing what they want to study, and industry-sponsored studies are more efficient and well funded," says Bourgeois, the study's first author. "But despite these potential biases, this is a stunning result."

The industry-funded trials were in more advanced phases of study; 89 percent were Phase 3 or Phase 4, versus just 51 percent of government-funded trials and 65 percent of nonprofit/nonfederally-funded trials. However, even Phase 1 and 2 trials funded by industry reported the highest percentage of favorable outcomes.

In addition, industry-funded trials were the least likely to have published results within two years of study completion (32 percent) as compared with trials with no industry contributions (54 percent for government trials, and 56 percent for purely nonprofit/nonfederal trials).

As the researchers discuss in the paper, clinical trials can be manipulated in various ways to make the results appear more favorable. Publication bias - a tendency to selectively publish only positive results of a trial, or delay publication of negative results - is one factor that has received much attention, as in a well-publicized 2008 study of antidepressants in The New England Journal of Medicine.

"While we cannot specifically point to which factors contribute to the association between funding source and positive result reporting, our findings speak to the need for more disclosure of all elements of a study," says Bourgeois. "Publication bias is likely a contributing factor, but there may be many more, including biases in study design, patient selection, data analysis and results reporting."

The use of registries like ClinicalTrials.gov, launched in 1999, was hoped to reduce publication bias by creating a record for all clinical trials. In addition, in 2005, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors began requiring that a trial be registered before enrolling patients in order to be considered for publication, thus creating a record of the planned study outcomes before the study's initiation. In 2007, the FDA expanded the scope of Clinical Trials.gov, requiring the sponsors of all drug, biologic and device trials to register their studies upon launch (phase I trials excepted).

If trial protocols are made public in advance, a trial sponsor is less able to manipulate or selectively publish the findings, the researchers argue. "Our main call is for transparency, to enable better understanding of the impact of funding source on the study outcomes, and for all study results - good or bad - to be made available," says Mandl, the study's senior investigator, also an Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School.

Explore further: New research demonstrates benefits of national and international device registries

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Half of trials supporting FDA applications go unpublished

Sep 23, 2008

Over half of all supporting trials for FDA-approved drugs remained unpublished 5 years after approval, says new research published in this week's PLoS Medicine. The most important trials determining efficacy, and those with s ...

Extensive publication bias for Phase I drug trials

Feb 18, 2009

A study published in this week's issue of the open-access journal PLoS Medicine suggests that, in comparison to other types of trials, the results of Phase I drug trials are far less likely to be published.

Recommended for you

New approach to particle therapy dosimetry

Dec 19, 2014

Researchers at the National Physical Laboratory (NPL), in collaboration with EMRP partners, are working towards a universal approach to particle beam therapy dosimetry.

Supplement maker admits lying about ingredients

Dec 17, 2014

Federal prosecutors say the owner and president of a dietary supplement company has admitted his role in the sale of diluted and adulterated dietary ingredients and supplements sold by his company.

User comments : 2

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

fixer
5 / 5 (1) Aug 02, 2010
Good idea!
Everyone reccomends there own products, even when they don't work well!
Bear in mind, the drugs aren't sold for your benifit, It's a business and in business you have no friends!
VOR
not rated yet Aug 11, 2010
our entire drug industry model is fundamentally flawed. Its based on profit, not health. Its is concerned with health, but second to profits.
This is such a huge issue but so entrenched and underdiscussed it may never get corrected.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.