Dataset Information

Is there evidence for biased reporting of published adverse effects data in pharmaceutical industry-funded studies?

ABSTRACT: To investigate whether adverse effects data for the sponsor's product are presented more favourably in pharmaceutical industry-funded studies than in non-industry-funded studies.We conducted a systematic review of methodological evaluations that had assessed the relationship between industry funding and the reported risk of adverse effects. Searches were undertaken in 10 databases and supplemented with other sources of information such as handsearching, citation searching, checking conference proceedings and discussion with experts. Two reviewers independently screened the records and carried out data extraction for potentially relevant papers. We included studies that compared the results and interpretation of the adverse effects data according to funding source (e.g. adverse effects data in pharmaceutical industry research vs. data from nonprofit organizations, or from one manufacturer vs. another). Methodological evaluations were excluded if categories of funding source were not explicitly specified by the researchers, and if we were uncertain that industry-funded studies were present in the evaluation.The search strategy yielded 4,069 hits, of which six methodological evaluations met our inclusion criteria. One survey of 370 trials covering a wide range of topics found that trials with industry sponsors had more complete reporting of adverse effects compared with non-industry-funded trials, whereas another survey of 504 inhaled corticosteroid studies showed no apparent difference after confounding factors were adjusted for. In contrast, we found evidence from post hoc subgroup analyses involving two products where the likelihood of harm was of a lower magnitude in manufacturer-funded studies compared with nonmanufacturer-funded studies. There is also evidence from four methodological evaluations that authors with industry funding were more likely than authors without pharmaceutical funding to interpret and conclude that a drug was safe, even among studies that did find a statistically significant increase in adverse effects for the sponsored product.Our review indicates that industry funding may not be a major threat to bias in the reporting of the raw adverse effects data. However, we are concerned about potential bias in the interpretation and conclusions of industry-funded authors and studies.

SUBMITTER: Golder S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2675760 | biostudies-literature | 2008 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Is there evidence for biased reporting of published adverse effects data in pharmaceutical industry-funded studies?

Golder Su S Loke Yoon K YK

British journal of clinical pharmacology 20080731 6

<h4>Aim</h4>To investigate whether adverse effects data for the sponsor's product are presented more favourably in pharmaceutical industry-funded studies than in non-industry-funded studies.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted a systematic review of methodological evaluations that had assessed the relationship between industry funding and the reported risk of adverse effects. Searches were undertaken in 10 databases and supplemented with other sources of information such as handsearching, citation searc ...[more]

PMID: 18754841

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate whether published results of industry funded trials of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP-2) in spinal fusion match underlying trial data by comparing three different data sources: individual participant data, internal industry reports, and publicly available journal publications and conference abstracts.Data collection and synthesisThe manufacturer of rhBMP-2 products (Medtronic; Minneapolis, MN) provided complete individual participant data and internal reports for all its studies of rhMBP-2 in spinal fusion. We identified publications and conference abstracts through comprehensive literature searches. We compared outcomes provided in the individual participant data against outcomes reported in publications. For effectiveness outcomes, we compared meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials based on each of the three data sources. For adverse events, meta-analysis of the published aggregate data was not possible and we compared the number and type of adverse events reported between data sources.Results32 publications reported outcomes from 11 of the 17 existing manufacturer sponsored studies. For individual randomised controlled trials, 56% (9/16) to 88% (15/17) of effectiveness outcomes known to have been collected were reported in the published literature. Meta-analyses of effectiveness data were almost identical for pain outcomes and similar for fusion across the three data sources. A minority of adverse event data known to have been collected were reported in the published literature. Several journal articles reported only "serious," "related," or "unanticipated" adverse events, without defining these terms. Others reported a small proportion of the collected adverse event categories. Around 23% (533/2302) of the total adverse events collected in published randomised controlled trials have been reported in the literature, with randomised controlled trials evaluating the licensed preparation (Infuse) reporting around 11% (122/1108) of collected adverse events.ConclusionsThe published literature only partially represents the total data known to have been collected on the effects of rhBMP-2. This did not lead to substantially different results for meta-analysis of effectiveness outcomes. In contrast, reporting of adverse event data in trial publications was inadequate and inconsistent to the extent that any systematic review based solely on the publicly available data would not be able to properly evaluate the safety of rhBMP-2. Analysis of individual participant data enabled the most complete, detailed, and in-depth analysis and was not more resource intensive than extracting, collating, and analysing aggregate data from multiple trial publications and conference abstracts. Confidential internal reports presented considerably more adverse event data than publications, and in the absence of individual participant data access to these reports would support more accurate and reliable investigation, with less time and effort than relying on incomplete published data.

Project description:BackgroundClinical trial transparency is important to participants, trialists, publishers, and regulators, and there have been recent major policy changes by the pharmaceutical industry regarding clinical study data sharing. However, it is unknown if these changes are enabling independent researchers to access participant-level data from prominent contemporary clinical trials sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry 2 years after publication of the primary results.Main textPubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched to identify clinical trials of medicines sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry and first published between 1 July 2015 and 31 December 2015 in the top 10 general and internal medical journals by impact factor. For each clinical trial, the eligibility of independent researchers to request participant-level data was identified via the sponsor having a data sharing policy/process and a positive response to an enquiry. Fifty-six publications reporting on 61 industry-sponsored clinical trials were identified, of which 32 (52%) had a public data sharing policy/process and 9 (15%) were confirmed eligible for data sharing. Industry sponsors within the top 25 by global sales were more likely to have a data sharing policy (93% vs 10%), and there was a trend towards increased data sharing eligibility (23% vs 4%). Twenty-six studies were explicitly confirmed as ineligible for data sharing. The two most common data sharing policy conditions that prevented sharing of data for published results were the exclusion of studies that had ongoing follow-up of the published results and the exclusion of studies of medicines that have not yet achieved regulatory approval in the USA and the European Union.ConclusionsFifteen percent of the sampled clinical trials were available for data sharing 2 years after publication of primary results of the trial. Key issues limiting data sharing include a large proportion of industry sponsors who do not have a data sharing policy/process, and data sharing policy conditions that exclude access on the basis of ongoing follow-up and regulatory activity.

Project description:BackgroundWe performed a systematic review to assess whether we can quantify the underreporting of adverse events (AEs) in the published medical literature documenting the results of clinical trials as compared with other nonpublished sources, and whether we can measure the impact this underreporting has on systematic reviews of adverse events.Methods and findingsStudies were identified from 15 databases (including MEDLINE and Embase) and by handsearching, reference checking, internet searches, and contacting experts. The last database searches were conducted in July 2016. There were 28 methodological evaluations that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 9 studies compared the proportion of trials reporting adverse events by publication status. The median percentage of published documents with adverse events information was 46% compared to 95% in the corresponding unpublished documents. There was a similar pattern with unmatched studies, for which 43% of published studies contained adverse events information compared to 83% of unpublished studies. A total of 11 studies compared the numbers of adverse events in matched published and unpublished documents. The percentage of adverse events that would have been missed had each analysis relied only on the published versions varied between 43% and 100%, with a median of 64%. Within these 11 studies, 24 comparisons of named adverse events such as death, suicide, or respiratory adverse events were undertaken. In 18 of the 24 comparisons, the number of named adverse events was higher in unpublished than published documents. Additionally, 2 other studies demonstrated that there are substantially more types of adverse events reported in matched unpublished than published documents. There were 20 meta-analyses that reported the odds ratios (ORs) and/or risk ratios (RRs) for adverse events with and without unpublished data. Inclusion of unpublished data increased the precision of the pooled estimates (narrower 95% confidence intervals) in 15 of the 20 pooled analyses, but did not markedly change the direction or statistical significance of the risk in most cases. The main limitations of this review are that the included case examples represent only a small number amongst thousands of meta-analyses of harms and that the included studies may suffer from publication bias, whereby substantial differences between published and unpublished data are more likely to be published.ConclusionsThere is strong evidence that much of the information on adverse events remains unpublished and that the number and range of adverse events is higher in unpublished than in published versions of the same study. The inclusion of unpublished data can also reduce the imprecision of pooled effect estimates during meta-analysis of adverse events.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Unabridged access to drug industry and regulatory trial registers and data reduces reporting bias in systematic reviews and may provide a complete index of a drug's clinical study programme. Currently, there is no public index of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine industry study programmes or a public index of non-industry funded studies. METHODS:By cross-verification via study programme enquiries to the HPV vaccine manufacturers and regulators and searches of trial registers and journal publication databases, we indexed clinical HPV vaccine studies as a basis to address reporting bias in a systematic review of clinical study reports. RESULTS:We indexed 206 clinical studies: 145 industry and 61 non-industry funded studies. One of the four HPV vaccine manufacturers (GlaxoSmithKline) provided information on its study programme. Most studies were cross-verified from two or more sources (160/206, 78%) and listed on regulatory or industry trial registers or journal publication databases (195/206, 95%)-in particular, on ClinicalTrials.gov (176/195, 90%). However, study results were only posted for about half of the completed studies on ClinicalTrials.gov (71/147, 48%). Two thirds of the industry studies had a study programme ID, manufacturer specific ID, and national clinical trial (NCT) ID (91/145, 63%). Journal publications were available in journal publication databases (the Cochrane Collaboration's Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar and PubMed) for two thirds of the completed studies (92/149, 62%). CONCLUSION:We believe we came close to indexing complete HPV vaccine study programmes, but only one of the four manufacturers provided information for our index and a fifth of the index could not be cross-verified. However, we indexed larger study programmes than those listed by major regulators (i.e., the EMA and FDA that based their HPV vaccine approvals on only half of the available trials). To reduce reporting bias in systematic reviews, we advocate the registration and publication of all studies and data in the public domain.

Project description:BackgroundThere has been increased demand for greater public accountability and transparency of private sector-led global health partnership programs. This study critically reviews and pilot tests the World Health Organization (WHO) medicine program checklist as a framework for public reporting and assessing of programs.MethodsWe reviewed each question on the WHO checklist for clarity and usability. Next, we pilot tested the subset of checklist questions focused on program assessment. We extracted and analyzed publicly available information on one randomly selected program from each of the 20 largest research-based biopharmaceutical companies. For each program, we assessed whether publicly available information allowed for an assessment of each relevant question in the checklist.ResultsChecklist questions fit in four main categories: [1] national health and development plans, needs, capacity, laws and policies; [2] financial, performance, and public accountability; [3] risk management and mitigation strategies; and [4] long-term sustainability. Nearly all (21 of 22) questions in the checklist require information best provided by companies; one question requires information best provided by governments.Programs frequently reported on the public health needs of their programs (100%), program objectives and activities (100%) and the actual or expected program outputs (95%). There was less information on program alignment with country plans and capacity (50%), detailed program monitoring and evaluation plan (20%), risks mitigation strategies (5%), program needs assessment (5%), and additional resources required from or contributed by government (0%).ConclusionThe WHO checklist of key considerations for evaluating proposals for access to medicine programs could be a useful framework for public reporting of program information as most of checklist questions ask for data that should be available to those leading the program. Further revisions of the WHO checklist will help refine it to improve clarity and content validity.

Dataset Information

Is there evidence for biased reporting of published adverse effects data in pharmaceutical industry-funded studies?

Publications

Is there evidence for biased reporting of published adverse effects data in pharmaceutical industry-funded studies?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets