 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|||||||||||
PharmD Student, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Professor, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of British Columbia; Clinical Director, Pharm Sciences CSU, Vancouver Hospital, Vancouver
Reprints: Peter J Jewesson PhD FCSHP, Vancouver Hospital, 855 W. 12th Ave., Vancouver, BC V5Z 1M9, Canada, fax 604/875-5267, pjj{at}interchange.ubc.ca
BACKGROUND: The pharmaceutical industry has become a major source of funding for biomedical research. Our general observation is that pharmaceutical industry employees are appearing with increasing frequency as coauthors of clinical trial publications.
OBJECTIVE: To characterize clinical trial funding, reporting, and sources; investigate author–industry affiliation; and describe clinical outcome trends over time.
METHODS: We reviewed 500 randomly selected clinical trials published in 5 influential medical journals over a 20-year period (1981–2000).
RESULTS: Of the 500 clinical trials reviewed, 181 (36%) involved pharmaceutical industry as an independent (n = 104) or joint (n = 77) sponsor and 180 (36%) involved a peer-review funding source; the balance (139; 28%) lacked any declared sponsorship. The percentage of industry-sponsored clinical trials increased to 62% during 1997–2000. The percentage of nonprofit sponsored clinical trials remained constant over time, while the percentage of those without funding declaration declined. Reported author affiliation with industry increased to 66% of clinical trials sponsored only by industry. An increase in the percentage of clinical trials with reported author–industry affiliation was observed for all journals. Regardless of funding source, the majority of clinical trials reported clinical outcomes that favored the study drug.
CONCLUSIONS: Pharmaceutical industry–sponsored and mixed-funding clinical trials are common, and the relative incidence of published trials with these declared funding sources in the 5 journals reviewed has increased. Industry employees are appearing as coauthors of clinical trial publications with increasing frequency.
Key Words: authors, clinical trials, industry, publication, sponsors
Published Online, February 24, 2004. www.theannals.com, DOI 10.1345/aph.1D267
Related articles in The Annals:
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  T. E. Macaulay, A. M. Cook, J. L. Fink III, R. P. Rapp, and W. R. Vincent III Pharmacists' role in facilitating evidence-based prescribing for unlabeled use of medications Am. J. Health Syst. Pharm., October 1, 2009; 66(19): 1735 - 1739. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 I. Omori, N Watanabe, A Nakagawa, T Akechi, A Cipriani, C Barbui, H McGuire, R Churchill, and T. Furukawa Efficacy, tolerability and side-effect profile of fluvoxamine for major depression: meta-analysis J Psychopharmacol, July 1, 2009; 23(5): 539 - 550. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. P. Riechelmann, L. Wang, A. O'Carroll, and M. K. Krzyzanowska Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest by Authors of Clinical Trials and Editorials in Oncology J. Clin. Oncol., October 10, 2007; 25(29): 4642 - 4647. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. Bastian 'They would say that, wouldn't they?' A reader's guide to author and sponsor biases in clinical research J R Soc Med, December 1, 2006; 99(12): 611 - 614. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Hilbrich and P. Sleight Progress and problems for randomized clinical trials: from streptomycin to the era of megatrials Eur. Heart J., September 2, 2006; 27(18): 2158 - 2164. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. W Amsden Industry Sponsorship in Research and Publishing: Who Is Really to Blame for Perceived Bias? Ann. Pharmacother., April 1, 2004; 38(4): 714 - 716. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
