Science and Engineering Ethics

, Volume 18, Issue 2, pp 247–261 | Cite as

Those Who Have the Gold Make the Evidence: How the Pharmaceutical Industry Biases the Outcomes of Clinical Trials of Medications

Article

Abstract

Pharmaceutical companies fund the bulk of clinical research that is carried out on medications. Poor outcomes from these studies can have negative effects on sales of medicines. Previous research has shown that company funded research is much more likely to yield positive outcomes than research with any other sponsorship. The aim of this article is to investigate the possible ways in which bias can be introduced into research outcomes by drawing on concrete examples from the published literature. Poorer methodology in industry-funded research is not likely to account for the biases seen. Biases are introduced through a variety of measures including the choice of comparator agents, multiple publication of positive trials and non-publication of negative trials, reinterpreting data submitted to regulatory agencies, discordance between results and conclusions, conflict-of-interest leading to more positive conclusions, ghostwriting and the use of “seeding” trials. Thus far, efforts to contain bias have largely focused on more stringent rules regarding conflict-of-interest (COI) and clinical trial registries. There is no evidence that any measures that have been taken so far have stopped the biasing of clinical research and it’s not clear that they have even slowed down the process. Economic theory predicts that firms will try to bias the evidence base wherever its benefits exceed its costs. The examples given here confirm what theory predicts. What will be needed to curb and ultimately stop the bias that we have seen is a paradigm change in the way that we treat the relationship between pharmaceutical companies and the conduct and reporting of clinical trials.

Keywords

Bias Clinical trials Conflict-of-interest Ghostwriting Pharmaceutical industry 

References

  1. AMSA PharmFree Scorecard 2009. (2009). Executive summary updated. http://amsascorecard.org/executive-summary. Accessed 26 Sept 2010.
  2. Andersen, M., Ktragstrup, J., & Søndergaard, J. (2006). How conducting a clinical trial affects physicians’ guideline adherence and drug preferences. JAMA, 295, 2759–2764.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Angell, M. (2004). The truth about the drug companies: How they deceive us and what to do about it. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
  4. Austin, P. C., Mamdani, M. M., Tu, K., & Jaakkimainen, L. (2003). Prescriptions for estrogen replacement therapy in Ontario before and after publication of the Women’s Health Initiative Study. JAMA, 289, 3241–3242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baker, D. (2008). The benefits and savings from publicly funded clinical trials of prescription drugs. International Journal of Health Services, 38, 731–750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bell, C. M., Urbach, D. R., Ray, J. G., Bayoumi, A., Rosen, A. B., Greenberg, D., et al. (2006). Bias in published cost effectiveness studies: Systematic review. BMJ, 332, 699–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bero, L., Oostvogel, F., Bacchetti, P., & Lee, K. (2007). Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug–drug comparisons: Why some statins appear more efficacious than others. PLoS Medicine, 4, e184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bero, L. A., & Rennie, D. (1996). Influences on the quality of published drug studies. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 12, 209–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, E. G., Weissman, J. S., Ehringhaus, S., Rao, S. R., Moy, B., Feibelmann, S., et al. (2007). Institutional academic–industry relationships. JAMA, 298, 1779–1786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cooper, R. J., Gupta, M., Wilkes, M. S., & Hoffman, J. R. (2006). Conflict of interest disclosure policies and practices in peer-reviewed biomedical journals. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 21, 1248–1252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dembner, A. (2002). Report raps drug firms' 'post-approval studies. Boston Globe.Google Scholar
  12. DiMasi, J. A., Feldman, L., Seckler, A., & Wilson, A. (2010). Trends in risks associated with new drug development: Success rates for investigational drugs. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 87, 272–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Djulbegovic, B., Cantor, A., & Clarke, M. (2003). The importance of preservation of the ethical principle of equipoise in the design of clinical trials: Relative impact of the methodological quality domains on the treatment effect in randomized controlled trials. Accountability in Research, 10, 301–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Drazen, J. M., de Leeuw, P. W., Laine, C., Mulrow, C., DeAngelis, C. D., Frizelle, F. A., et al. (2010). Toward more uniform conflict disclosures—the updated ICJME conflict of interest reporting forms. New England Journal of Medicine, 363, 188–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dunbar, C. E., & Tallman, M. S. (2009). ‘Ghostbusting’ at blood. Blood, 113, 502–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Finkelstein, S., & Temin, P. (2008). Reasonable Rx: Solving the drug price crisis. Upper Saddle River: FT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Franco, O. H., Peeters, A., Looman, C. W. N., & Bonneux, L. (2005). Cost effectiveness of statins in coronary heart disease. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 59, 927–933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Friedman, L. S., & Richter, E. D. (2004). Relationship between conflicts of interest and research results. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19, 51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Fries, J. F., & Krishnan, E. (2004). Equipoise, design bias, and randomized controlled trials: The elusive ethics of new drug development. Arthritis Research and Therapy, 6, R250–R255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fugh-Berman, A. (2005). The corporate coauthor. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 20, 546–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fugh-Berman, A. (2010). The haunting of medical journals: How ghostwriting sold “HRT”. PLoS Medicine, 7(9), e1000335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Goozner, M. (2004). Unrevealed: Non-disclosure of conflicts of interest in four medical and scientific journals. Washington, DC: Center for Science in the Public Interest.Google Scholar
  23. Gøtzsche, P. C. (1989). Multiple publication of reports of drug trials. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 36, 429–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Hartmann, M., Knoth, H., Schulz, D., & Knoth, S. (2003). Industry-sponsored economic studies in oncology vs. studies sponsored by nonprofit organisations. British Journal of Cancer, 89, 1405–1408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Healy, D., & Cattell, D. (2003). Interface between authorship, industry and science in the domain of therapeutics. British Journal of Psychiatry, 183, 22–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heres, S., Davis, J., Maino, K., Jetzinger, E., Kissling, W., & Leucht, S. (2006). Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: An exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. American Journal of Psychiatry, 163, 185–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hersh, A. L., Stefanick, M. L., & Stafford, R. S. (2004). National use of postmenopausal hormone therapy: Annual trends and response to recent evidence. JAMA, 291, 47–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hill, K. P., Ross, J. S., Egilman, D. S., & Krumholz, H. M. (2008). The ADVANTAGE seeding trial: A review of internal documents. Annals of Internal Medicine, 149, 251–258.Google Scholar
  29. Hirsch, L. J. (2009). Conflicts of interest, authorship, and disclosures in industry-related scientific publications: The tort bar and editorial oversight of medical journals. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 84, 811–821.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hole, O. P., Winther, F. Ø., & Straume, B. (2001). Clinical research: The influence of the pharmaceutical industry. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 56, 851–853.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hulley, S., Grady, D., Bush, T., Furberg, C., Herrington, D., Riggs, B., et al. (1998). Randomized trial of estrogen plus progestin for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease in postmenopausal women. Heart and Estrogen/progestin Replacement Study (HERS) Research Group. JAMA, 280, 605–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huston, P., & Moher, D. (1996). Redundancy, disaggregation, and the integrity of medical research. Lancet, 347, 1024–1026.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jagsi, R., Sheets, N., Jankovic, A., Motomura, A. R., Amarnath, S., & Ubel, P. A. (2009). Frequency, nature, effects, and correlates of conflicts of interest in published clinical cancer research. Cancer, 115, 2783–2791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Johansen, H. K., & Gotzsche, P. C. (1999). Problems in the design and reporting of trials of antifungal agents encountered during meta-analyses. JAMA, 282, 1752–1759.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Jørgensen, A. W., Maric, K. L., Tendal, B., Faurschou, A., & Gøtzsche, P. C. (2008). Industry-supported meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses with non-profit or no support: Differences in methodological quality and conclusions. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 8, 60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Katz, D., Caplan, A. L., & Merz, J. F. (2003). All gifts large and small: Toward an understanding of the ethics of pharmaceutical industry gift-giving. American Journal of Bioethics, 3, 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kjaergard, L. L., & Als-Nielsen, B. (2002). Association between competing interests and authors’ conclusions: Epidemiological study of randomised clinical trials published in the BMJ. BMJ, 325, 249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lacasse, J. R., & Leo, J. (2010). Ghostwriting at elite academic medical centers in the United States. PLoS Medicine, 7, e1000230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lewis, T., Reichman, J., & So, A. (2007). The case for public funding and public oversight of clinical trials. Economists’ Voice, 4(1), 1–4.Google Scholar
  40. Lexchin, J., Bero, L., Djubegovic, B., & Clark, O. (2003). Pharmaceutical industry sponsored research: Evidence for a systematic bias. BMJ, 326, 1167–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lexchin, J., Sekeres, M., Gold, J., Ferris, L. E., Kalkar, S. R., Wu, W., et al. (2008). National evaluation of policies on individual financial conflicts of interest in Canadian academic health science centers. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 23, 1896–1903.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Light, D. W. (2006). Basic research funds to discover important new drugs: Who contributes how much? In M. A. Burke & A. de Francisco (Eds.), Monitoring financial flows for health research 2005: Behind the global numbers (pp. 29–43). Geneva: Global Fund for Health Research.Google Scholar
  43. Melander, H., Ahlqvist-Rastad, J., Meijer, G., & Beermann, B. (2003). Evidence b(i)ased medicine—selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: Review of studies in new drug applications. BMJ, 326, 1171–1173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Miners, A. H., Garau, M., Fidan, D., & Fischer, A. J. (2005). Comparing estimates of cost effectiveness submitted to the National Institute for Cliinical Excellence (NICE) by different organisations: retrospective study. BMJ, 330, 65–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Montgomery, J. H., Byerly, M., Carmody, T., Li, B., Miller, D. R., Varghese, F., et al. (2004). An analysis of the effect of funding source in randomized clinical trials of second generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia. Controlled Clinical Trials, 25, 598–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Moses, H. I., Dorsey, E. R., Matheson, D. H. M., & Thier, S. O. (2005). Financial anatomy of biomedical research. JAMA, 294, 1333–1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nieto, A., Mazon, A., Pamies, R., Linana, J. J., Lanuza, A., Jiménez, F. O., et al. (2007). Adverse effects of inhaled corticosteroids in funded and nonfunded studies. Archives of Internal Medicine, 167, 2047–2053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ninan, P. T., Poole, R. M., & Stiles, G. L. (2008). Selective publication of antidepressant trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 2180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Patsopoulos, N. A., Ioannidis, J. P. A., & Analatos, A. A. (2006). Origin and funding of the most frequently cited papers in medicine: database analysis. BMJ, 332, 1061–1064.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Perlis, C. S., Harwood, M., & Perlis, R. H. (2005a). Extent and impact of industry sponsorship conflicts of interest in dermatology research. Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology, 52, 967–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Perlis, R. H., Perlis, C. S., Wu, Y., Hwang, C., Joseph, M., & Nierenberg, A. A. (2005b). Industry sponsorship and financial conflict of interest in the reporting of clinical trials in psychiatry. American Journal of Psychiatry, 162, 1957–1960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Psaty, B. M., & Rennie, D. (2006). Clinical trial investigators and their prescribing patterns: Another dimension to the relationship between physician investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA, 295, 2787–2789.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rasmussen, M., Lee, K., & Bero, L. (2009). Association of trial registration with the results and conclusions of published trials of new oncology drugs. Trials, 10, 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rising, K., Bacchetti, P., & Bero, L. (2008). Reporting bias in drug trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: Review of publication and presentation. PLoS Medicine, 5, e217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Rochon, P. A., Gurwitz, J. H., Simms, R. W., Fortin, P. R., Felson, D. T., Minaker, K. L., et al. (1994). A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs in the treatment of arthritis. Archives of Internal Medicine, 154, 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Rochon, P. A., Sekeres, M., Lexchin, J., Moher, D., Wu, W., Kalkar, S. R., et al. (2010). Institutional financial conflicts of interest policies at Canadian academic health science centres: A national survey. Open Medicine, 4, E134–E138.Google Scholar
  57. Ross, J. S., Hill, K. P., Egilman, D. S., & Krumholz, H. M. (2008). Guest authorship and ghostwriting in publications related to rofecoxib: A case study of industry documents from rofecoxib ligitation. JAMA, 299, 1800–1812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Safer, D. J. (2002). Design and reporting modifications in industry-sponsored comparative psychopharmacology trials. Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 190, 583–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schafer, A. (2004). Biomedical conflicts of interest: A defence of the sequestration thesis—learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy. Journal of Medical Ethics, 30, 8–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sekeres, M., Gold, J. L., Chan, A.-W., Lexchin, J., Moher, D., Van Laethem, M. L. P., et al. (2008). Poor reporting of scientific leadership information in clinical trial registers. PLoS One, 3, e1610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sismondo, S. (2008a). How pharmaceutical industry funding affects trial outcomes: Causal structures and responses. Social Science and Medicine, 66, 1909–1914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sismondo, S. (2008b). Pharmaceutical company funding and its consequences: A qualitative systematic review. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 29, 109–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Spielmans, G. I., Biehn, T. L., & Sawrey, D. L. (2010). A case study of salami slicing: Pooled analyses of duloxetine for depression. Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics, 79, 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stossel, T. P. (2005). Regulating academic–industrial research relationships—solving problems or stifling progress? New England Journal of Medicine, 353, 1060–1065.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tramèr, M. R., Reynolds, D. J. M., Moore, R. A., & McQuay, H. J. (1997). Impact of covert duplicate publication on meta-analysis: A case study. BMJ, 315, 635–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Turner, E. H., Matthews, A. M., Linardatos, E., Tell, R. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2008). Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 252–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. van McCrary, S., Anderson, C. B., Jakovljevic, J., Khan, T., McCullough, L. B., Wray, N. P., et al. (2000). A national survey of policies on disclosure of conflicts of interest in biomedical research. New England Journal of Medicine, 343, 1621–1626.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Whittington, C. J., Kendall, T., Fonagy, P., Cottrell, D., Cotgrove, A., & Boddington, E. (2004). Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors in childhood depression: Systematic review of published versus unpublished data. Lancet, 363, 1341–1345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wood, A. J. J. (2009). Progress and deficiencies in the registration of clinical trials. New England Journal of Medicine, 360, 824–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Writing Group for the Women’s Health Initiative Investigators. (2002). Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: Principal results from the Women’s Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA, 288, 321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Wyatt, J. (1991). Use and sources of medical knowledge. Lancet, 338, 1368–1373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Yank, V., Rennie, D., & Bero, L. A. (2007). Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: Retrospective cohort study. BMJ, 335, 1202–1205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zarin, D. A., Tse, T., & Ide, N. C. (2005). Trial registration at ClinicalTrials.gov between May and October 2005. New England Journal of Medicine, 353, 2779–2787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Health Policy and ManagementYork UniversityTorontoCanada
  2. 2.University Health NetworkTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Department of Family and Community MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations