This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Correction  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (58)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related letters  • Similar articles in JAMA  Topic Collections  • Cardiovascular System  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Randomized Controlled Trial  • Prognosis/ Outcomes  • Cardiovascular Disease/ Myocardial Infarction  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Paul M Ridker, MD; Jose Torres, BA

JAMA. 2006;295:2270-2274.

Context  In surveys based on data available prior to 2000, clinical trials funded by for-profit organizations appeared more likely to report positive findings than those funded by not-for-profit organizations. Whether this situation has changed over the past 5 years or whether similar effects are present among jointly funded trials is unknown.

Objective  To determine in contemporary randomized cardiovascular trials the association between funding source and the likelihood of reporting positive findings.

Design  We reviewed 324 consecutive superiority trials of cardiovascular medicine published between January 1, 2000, and July 30, 2005, in JAMA, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Main Outcome Measure  The proportion of trials favoring newer treatments over the standard of care was evaluated by funding source.

Results  Of the 324 superiority trials, 21 cited no funding source. Of the 104 trials funded solely by not-for-profit organizations, 51 (49%) reported evidence significantly favoring newer treatments over the standard of care, whereas 53 (51%) did not (P = .80). By contrast, 92 (67.2%) of 137 trials funded solely by for-profit organizations favored newer treatments over standard of care (P<.001). Among 62 jointly funded trials, 35 (56.5%), an intermediate proportion, favored newer treatments. For 205 randomized trials evaluating drugs, the proportions favoring newer treatments were 39.5%, not-for-profit; 54.4%, jointly funded; and 65.5%, for-profit trials (P for trend across groups = .002). For the 39 randomized trials evaluating cardiovascular devices, the proportions favoring newer treatments were 50.0%, not-for-profit; 69.2%, jointly funded; and 82.4%, for-profit trials (P for trend across groups = .07). Regardless of funding source, trials using surrogate end points, such as quantitative angiography, intravascular ultrasound, plasma biomarkers, and functional measures were more likely to report positive findings (67%) than trials using clinical end points (54.1%; P = .02).

Conclusions  Recent cardiovascular trials funded by for-profit organizations are more likely to report positive findings than trials funded by not-for-profit organizations, as are trials using surrogate rather than clinical end points. Trials jointly funded by not-for-profit and for-profit organizations appear to report positive findings at a rate approximately midway between rates observed in trials supported solely by one or the other of these entities.

Author Affiliations: Center for Cardiovascular Disease Prevention and the Divisions of Preventive Medicine and Cardiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital (Dr Ridker), and the Harvard Medical School (Dr Ridker and Mr Torres), Boston, Mass.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED LETTERS

Incomplete Financial Disclosure for Study of Funding and Outcomes in Major Cardiovascular Trials
Paul M Ridker
JAMA. 2006;295(23):2725-2726.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Funding of Clinical Trials
Steven Borzak
JAMA. 2006;296(16):1969.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Accuracy of Conflict-of-Interest Disclosures Reported by Physicians
Okike et al.
NEJM 2009;361:1466-1474.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Global drug development in cancer: a cross-sectional study of clinical trial registries
Seruga et al.
Ann Oncol 2009;0:mdp403v1-mdp403.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Better regulation of industry-sponsored clinical trials is long overdue.
Wynia and Boren
J Law Med Ethics 2009;37:410-419.
 

Presentation of Nonfinal Results of Randomized Controlled Trials at Major Oncology Meetings
Booth et al.
JCO 2009;27:3938-3944.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

The Role of Conflict of Interest in Reporting of Scientific Information
Irwin
Chest 2009;136:253-259.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Leapfrogging Data: No Shortcuts for Safety or Efficacy Information
Pfeffer and Sacks
Circulation 2008;118:2491-2494.
FULL TEXT  

Evolution of the Randomized Controlled Trial in Oncology Over Three Decades
Booth et al.
JCO 2008;26:5458-5464.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evaluating the Evidence: Is There a Rigid Hierarchy?
Ho et al.
Circulation 2008;118:1675-1684.
FULL TEXT  

News Media Coverage of Medication Research: Reporting Pharmaceutical Company Funding and Use of Generic Medication Names
Hochman et al.
JAMA 2008;300:1544-1550.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Differential Citation Rates of Major Cardiovascular Clinical Trials According to Source of Funding: A Survey From 2000 to 2005
Conen et al.
Circulation 2008;118:1321-1327.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Use of Antiemetic Agents in Acute Gastroenteritis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
DeCamp et al.
Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2008;162:858-865.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Evaluating solutions to sponsorship bias
Doucet and Sismondo
J. Med. Ethics 2008;34:627-630.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Pharmaceutical Promotion and First Amendment Rights
Troy et al.
NEJM 2008;359:536-537.
FULL TEXT  

The Year in Epidemiology, Health Services Research, and Outcomes Research
Krumholz and Masoudi
J Am Coll Cardiol 2007;50:2254-2262.
FULL TEXT  

Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest by Authors of Clinical Trials and Editorials in Oncology
Riechelmann et al.
JCO 2007;25:4642-4647.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Cognitive Improvement After Treatment With Second-Generation Antipsychotic Medications in First-Episode Schizophrenia: Is It a Practice Effect?
Goldberg et al.
Arch Gen Psychiatry 2007;64:1115-1122.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Quality of Prospective Controlled Randomized Trials. Analysis of Trials of Treatment for Lateral Epicondylitis as an Example
Cowan et al.
JBJS 2007;89:1693-1699.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Update in Critical Care 2006
Milbrandt et al.
Am. J. Respir. Crit. Care Med. 2007;175:638-648.
FULL TEXT  

The Legal and Ethical Issues Surrounding Financial Conflict of Interest in Orthopaedic Research
Okike and Kocher
JBJS 2007;89:910-913.
FULL TEXT  

Clinical Trial Registration Promotes Patient Protection and Benefit, Advances the Trust of Everyone, and Is Required
Irwin
Chest 2007;131:639-641.
FULL TEXT  

Interactions Between Physicians and Industry: A Guide for Clinicians
Jibson
Focus 2007;5:398-406.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Funding of clinical trials.
Borzak
JAMA 2006;296:1969-1969.
FULL TEXT  

Abstract Acceptance and Blinded Peer Review--Reply
Ross and Krumholz
JAMA 2006;296:1230-1231.
FULL TEXT  

Incomplete Financial Disclosure for Study of Funding and Outcomes in Major Cardiovascular Trials
Ridker
JAMA 2006;295:2725-2726.
FULL TEXT  

For-Profit vs. Not-for-Profit Funding of Cardiovascular Trials
Journal Watch Cardiology 2006;2006:2-2.
FULL TEXT