Study examines reported outcomes of trials funded by for-profits vs. not-for-profits

May 16, 2006

Cardiovascular clinical trials published between 2000 and 2005 were significantly more likely to report positive findings if they were funded by for-profit organizations than those funded by not-for-profit organizations, according to a study in the May 17 issue of JAMA.

Surveys of randomized trials published between 1990 and 2000 raised awareness in the medical community that trials funded by for-profit (FP) organizations were more likely to report positive findings than those funded by not-for-profit (NFP) organizations. These surveys raised questions regarding the design and conduct of industry funded clinical trials as well as certain ethical concerns, according to background information in the article. Whether recognition of these concerns has affected contemporary clinical trials was unknown.

Paul M. Ridker, M.D., of Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Jose Torres, B.A., of Harvard Medical School, Boston, analyzed outcomes of 324 cardiovascular clinical trials published between 2000 and 2005 in JAMA, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine, stratifying the results on whether the trial was funded by for-profit or not-for-profit organizations and if the trial outcome favored newer treatments over the standard of care. Of the 324 trials, 21 cited no funding source.

Overall, 58.6 percent of the 324 trials reported evidence significantly favoring newer treatments, while 34.6 percent reported no significant difference between therapies, and 6.8 percent reported evidence significantly favoring standard of care. Among not-for-profit trials, 49 percent of 104 reported evidence significantly favoring newer treatments, whereas 51 percent either significantly favored standard of care or showed no difference.

Among for-profit trials, 67.2 percent of 137 reported evidence significantly favoring newer treatments with 32.8 percent reporting data favoring standard of care or no difference. The proportion of trials significantly favoring new treatments for studies jointly funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations was approximately midway between these 2 values (56.5 percent).

For 202 randomized trials evaluating drugs, the proportions favoring newer agents were 39.5 percent for not-for-profit, 54.4 percent for jointly sponsored, and 65.5 percent for for-profit trials. For the 38 randomized trials evaluating cardiovascular devices, the proportions favoring newer treatments were 50.0 percent, not-for-profit; 69.2 percent, jointly funded; and 82.4 percent, for-profit trials.

Regardless of funding source, clinical trials using surrogate end points, such as intravascular ultrasound, quantitative angiography, plasma biomarkers, and functional measures were more likely to report positive findings (67.0 percent) than were clinical trials using clinical end points (54.1 percent).

"As suggested in surveys of randomized trials published prior to 2000, these contemporary data appear to show that incentives surrounding for-profit organizations have the potential to influence clinical trial outcomes. Previous attempts to explain this phenomenon have focused largely on design bias, interpretation bias, data suppression, and differential data quality," the authors write.

" ... we believe there are additional issues that help to explain, in part, the observed results. For example, when the first trial report of a truly novel therapy is null or negative, it becomes less likely that any funding source will support subsequent studies. On the other hand, when the first trial of a truly novel therapy is positive, the likelihood of further trials is increased. These subsequent trials understandably and perhaps appropriately are more likely to be funded by for-profit organizations," the researchers write.
-end-
(JAMA. 2006;295:2270-2274. Available pre-embargo to the media at www.jamamedia.org)

The JAMA Network Journals

Related Clinical Trials Articles from Brightsurf:

Nearly 1 in 5 cancer patients less likely to enroll in clinical trials during pandemic
A significant portion of cancer patients may be less likely to enroll in a clinical trial due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic.

COVID-19 clinical trials lack diversity
Despite disproportionately higher rates of COVID-19 infection, hospitalization and death among people of color, minority groups are significantly underrepresented in COVID-19 clinical trials.

Why we should trust registered clinical trials
In a time when we have to rely on clinical trials for COVID-19 drugs and vaccines, a new study brings good news about the credibility of registered clinical trials.

Inclusion of children in clinical trials of treatments for COVID-19
This Viewpoint discusses the exclusion of children from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) clinical trials and why that could harm treatment options for children.

Review evaluates how AI could boost the success of clinical trials
In a review publishing July 17, 2019 in the journal Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, researchers examined how artificial intelligence (AI) could affect drug development in the coming decade.

Kidney patients are neglected in clinical trials
The exclusion of patients with kidney diseases from clinical trials remains an unsolved problem that hinders optimal care of these patients.

Clinical trials beginning for possible preeclampsia treatment
For over 20 years, a team of researchers at Lund University has worked on developing a drug against preeclampsia -- a serious disorder which annually affects around 9 million pregnant women worldwide and is one of the main causes of death in both mothers and unborn babies.

Underenrollment in clinical trials: Patients not the problem
The authors of the study published this month in the Journal of Clinical Oncology investigated why many cancer clinical trials fail to enroll enough patients.

When designing clinical trials for huntington's disease, first ask the experts
Progress in understanding the genetic mutation responsible for Huntington's disease (HD) and at least some molecular underpinnings of the disease has resulted in a new era of clinical testing of potential treatments.

New ALS therapy in clinical trials
New research led by Washington University School of Medicine in St.

Read More: Clinical Trials News and Clinical Trials Current Events
Brightsurf.com is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.