4.4 Article

Industry Funding of Oncology Randomised Controlled Trials: Implications for Design, Results and Interpretation

Journal

CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 34, Issue 1, Pages 28-35

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE LONDON
DOI: 10.1016/j.clon.2021.08.003

Keywords

Clinical trials as topic; drug industry; health care economics; health services; quality of health care

Categories

Funding

  1. UK Research and Innovation GCRF grant Research for Health in Conflict (R4HC-MENA) [ES/P010962/1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The majority of oncology RCTs are now funded by the pharmaceutical industry, with industry-funded trials being larger, more likely to be positive, predominantly testing systemic therapies in the palliative setting, and published in higher impact journals compared to non-industry-funded trials.
Aims: Most randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology are now funded by the pharmaceutical industry. We explore the extent to which RCT design, results and interpretation differ between industry-funded and non-industry-funded RCTs. Materials and methods: In this cross-sectional analysis, a structured literature search was used to identify all oncology RCTs published globally during 2014-2017. Industry funding was identified based on explicit statements in the publication. Descriptive statistics were used to compare elements of trial methodology and output between industry- and non-industry-funded RCTs. Results: The study sample included 694 RCTs; 71% were funded by industry. Industry-funded trials were more likely to test systemic therapy (97% versus 62%; P < 0.001), palliative-intent therapy (71% versus 41%; P < 0.001) and study breast cancer (20% versus 12%; P < 0.001). Industry-funded trials were larger (median sample size 474 versus 375; P < 0.001) and more likely to meet their primary end point (49% versus 41%; P < 0.001). Among positive trials, there were no differences in the magnitude of benefit between industry- and non-industry-funded RCTs. Trials funded by industry were published in journals that had a significantly higher median impact factor (21, interquartile range 7, 28) than non-industry-funded trials (impact factor 12, interquartile range 5, 24; P = 0.005); this persisted when adjusted for whether a trial was positive or negative. Conclusions: The vast majority of oncology RCTs are now funded by industry. Industry-funded trials are larger, more likely to be positive, predominantly test systemic therapies in the palliative setting and are published in higher impact journals than trials without industry support. (C) 2021 The Royal College of Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available