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

Social media engagement of supportive care publications in oncology

IMPORTANCE

There is an increasing number of cancer 'survivors' and increasing research into supportive care. However, it is unknown how patterns of attention and citation differ between supportive and non-supportive cancer care research. We sought to estimate the engagement of high-impact studies of supportive compared to non-supportive cancer care papers.

METHODS

In a cross-sectional review of top oncology journals (2016-2023), we reviewed studies examining supportive care strategies and a frequency-matched random sampling of studies on non-supportive interventions. We compared data on social engagement metrics, as represented by Altmetric scores and citations and funding status, by supportive care or non-supportive care articles.

RESULTS

We found overall Altmetric scores were no different between articles that did not test supportive care and those that did, with a numerically higher score for supportive care articles (86.0 vs 102; p=0.416). Other bibliometric statistics (such as the number of blogs, number of X users, and the number of X posts) obtained from Altmetric did not differ significantly between the two groups. Non-supportive cancer care papers had a significantly higher number of citations than supportive cancer care papers (45.6 in supportive care vs 141 in non-supportive care papers; p<0.001). A greater proportion of non-supportive cancer care papers were also supported by pharmaceutical companies compared to supportive cancer care papers (54.2 % vs 15.3 %; p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Though social media engagement is similar between supportive and non-supportive cancer care papers in high-impact journals, there is a significant difference in support from pharmaceutical companies and the number of citations.

Academia and society should join forces to make anti-cancer treatments more affordable

Discovery research is the starting point for the development of more effective anti-cancer treatments. It requires an interdisciplinary research environment with first-class infrastructural support in which curiosity-driven research can lead to new concepts for treating cancer. Translating such research findings to clinical practice requires complementary skills and infrastructures, including high-quality clinical facilities, access to patient cohorts and participation of pharma. This complex ecosystem has yielded many new but also "me too" treatment regimens, especially in immuno-oncology resulting in an extremely high pricing of anti-cancer agents. The costs of antibodies, vaccines, and cell therapies charged by pharma stand out although the concepts and methodologies have been largely developed in academia, financed from public funds. Comprehensive Cancer Centres (CCCs) covering a coherent stretch of the cancer research continuum are well-positioned to make these personalized treatments more affordable, but this will require restructuring of the way the translational cancer research continuum is funded.

Are measures and related symptoms of cachexia recorded as outcomes in gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy clinical trials?

BACKGROUND

Cachexia is prevalent in gastrointestinal cancers and worsens patient outcomes and chemotherapy compliance. We examined to what extent registered gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy clinical trials record measures and related symptoms of cachexia as outcomes, and whether these were associated with trial characteristics.

METHODS

Four public trial registries (2012-2022) were accessed for Phase II and/or III randomized controlled pancreatic, gastric, and colorectal cancer chemotherapy trial protocols. Trial outcome measures of overall survival and toxicity/side effects, and those related to cachexia [physical activity, weight/body mass index (BMI), dietary limitations, caloric intake, lean muscle mass] and symptoms (appetite loss, diarrhoea, pain, fatigue/insomnia, constipation, nausea, vomiting, and oral mucositis) were extracted, along with the number and types of performance status and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) tools. Data were summarized descriptively. Chi-square tests examined associations between outcomes and trial characteristics (cancer type, trial location, funding source, PROs tools, and commencement year). Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

RESULTS

We included 540 trial protocols (pancreatic (35.2%), colorectal (33.3%) and gastric (31.5%)), with most trials from Europe (44.1%). Trial lead investigator was from academia (28.3%), industry (27.6%) and government (26.3%). Allied health professional involvement (26.9%) occurred at eligibility. Adjuvant therapy in trials was mainly treatment-related (68.1%). Additional medication included anti-nausea (2.2%) and analgesia (0.9%). Trial protocols mostly recorded overall survival (90.4%) and toxicity (78.9%), and the symptoms appetite loss (26.1%) and diarrhoea (19.1%), with the other symptoms recorded in <10% of the trials. Reporting of physical activity (P = 0.001), dietary limitations (P = 0.002), lean muscle mass (P = 0.027), appetite loss (P < 0.001), pain (P = 0.001), nausea (P = 0.012), and oral mucositis (P = 0.049) varied depending cancer type. Toxicity/side effects (P = 0.022), physical activity (P < 0.001), appetite loss, nausea, and vomiting (all P < 0.001), diarrhoea (P = 0.010), pain (P = 0.001), fatigue/insomnia (P = 0.001) varied depending on the trial location. Trial funding was predominantly from private/industry (34.3%) and influenced the reporting of overall survival (P = 0.049), weight/BMI (P = 0.005), caloric intake (P = 0.015), and pain (P = 0.031). Performance status and PROs tools were mentioned in 91.2% and 46.3% of the trials, respectively. Trials that incorporated PROs tools were more likely to report cachexia related outcomes, except for overall survival, lean muscle mass, and oral mucositis. The proportion of trials measuring weight/BMI increased with trial commencement year (P = 0.04).

CONCLUSIONS

Cachexia-related outcomes were under-recorded in gastrointestinal cancer chemotherapy trials. As trial patients experience a high symptom burden, cachexia-relevant measures and symptoms should be assessed throughout the trial, and integrated with primary endpoints to support their progress.

More Drugs Versus More Data: The Tug of War on Cancer in Low- and Middle-Income Countries

Although current value frameworks and economic models have allowed us to better quantify the net benefit associated with cancer therapy, holistic cancer care must consider patient time, family and social values, and overall life expectancy. Training programs must include training in health services research, difficult conversations, and shared decision-making strategies that are developed in social and cultural frameworks for their settings.

Evaluation of Reporting Quality of Glaucoma Randomized Controlled Trial Abstracts: Current Status and Future Perspectives

The aim of this study was to explore adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) reporting standards in abstracts of randomized controlled trials on glaucoma. A cross-sectional observational study was conducted on the aforementioned abstracts, indexed in MEDLINE/PubMed between the years 2017 and 2021. In total, 302 abstracts met the inclusion criteria and were further analyzed. The median score of CONSORT-A items was 8 (interquartile range, 7-10) out of 17 (47.0%). Most analyzed studies were conducted in a single center (80.5%) and the abstracts were predominantly structured (95.0%). Only 20.5% of the abstracts adequately described the trial design, while randomization and funding were described by 6.0% of the abstracts. Higher overall scores were associated with structured abstracts, a multicenter setting, statistically significant results, funding by industry, a higher number of participants, and having been published in journals with impact factors above four (p < 0.001, respectively). The results of this study indicate a suboptimal adherence to CONSORT-A reporting standards, especially in particular items such as randomization and funding. Since these factors could contribute to the overall quality of the trials and further translation of trial results into clinical practice, an improvement in glaucoma research reporting transparency is needed.

Projecting complete redaction of clinical trial protocols (RAPTURE): redacted cross sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To characterise redactions in clinical trials and estimate a time when all protocols are fully removed (RAPTURE).

DESIGN

Redacted cross sectional study.

SETTING

Published phase 3 randomised controlled trials from 1 January 2010 to ██████████████.

PARTICIPANTS

New England Journal of Medicine, ██████████, and Journal of the American Medical Association.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

█████ ████████ ██████████████ ██████ ██████████ ████████ ████████ ██████████ ███████████ ████████████ ████████████ ████████████████████████ ██████████████████ RESULTS: ████████████████████ met the inclusion criteria, with 268 (56.7%) research protocols available and accessible. The rate of redactions in protocols has increased from 0 in 2010 to 60.8% in 2021 (P<0.001). The degree of data redaction has also increased, with the average cumulative redactions among industry funded trials rising from 0 in 2010 to 3.5 pages in 2021 (P<0.001). Modelling predicts that RAPTURE is expected to occur between 2073 and 2136. Redactions featured predominantly in ████████ sponsored trials and mostly occurred in the statistical design.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the rise in protocol redactions and predicts that, ██████████████████████████████████████████ will be entirely redacted between 2073 and 2136. A legitimate rationale for the redactions could ███ be found. A multipronged strategy against protocol redactions is required to maintain the integrity of science.

AVAILABILITY

This paper is partially redacted, but for the sake of ███████████, a version without any redactions can be found in the supplementary material.

Selective Publication within Vascular Surgery: Characteristics of Discontinued and Unpublished Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Discontinued and unpublished randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are common resulting in biased publication and loss of potential knowledge. The magnitude of selective publication within vascular surgery remains unknown.

METHODS

RCT relevant to vascular surgery registered (01/01/2010-10/31/2019) on ClinicalTrials.gov were included. Trials ending normally with conclusion of participant treatment and examination were considered completed whereas discontinued trials stopped early. Publications were identified through automatically indexed PubMed citations on ClinicalTrials.gov or manually identified on PubMed or Google Scholar >30 months after the completion date, the date the final participant was examined, allowing time for publication.

RESULTS

Of 108 RCT (n = 37, 837), 22.2% (24/108) were discontinued, including 16.7% (4/24) stopped prior to and 83.3% (20/24) after starting enrollment. Only 28.4% of estimated enrollment was achieved for all discontinued RCT. Nineteen (79.2%) investigators provided a reason for discontinuation, which most commonly included poor enrollment (45.8%), inadequate supplies or funding (12.5%), and trial design concerns (8.3%). Of the 20 trials terminated following enrollment, 20.0% (4/20) were published in peer-reviewed journals and 80.0% (16/20) failed to reach publication. Of the 77.8% trials completed, 75.0% (63/84) were published and 25.0% (21/84) remain unpublished. In a multivariate regression of completed trials, industry funding was significantly associated with decreased likelihood of peer-reviewed publication (OR = 0.18, (95% CI 0.05-0.71), P = 0.01). Of the discontinued and completed trials remaining unpublished, 62.5% and 61.9% failed to report results on ClinicalTrials.gov, respectively, encompassing a total of 4,788 enrollees without publicly available results.

CONCLUSIONS

Nearly 25% of registered vascular RCT were discontinued. Of completed RCT, 25% remain unpublished with industry funding associated with decreased likelihood of publication. This study identifies opportunities to report all findings for completed and discontinued vascular surgery RCT, whether industry sponsored, or investigator initiated.

Consent document translation expense hinders inclusive clinical trial enrolment

Patients from historically under-represented racial and ethnic groups are enrolled in cancer clinical trials at disproportionately low rates in the USA1-3. As these patients often have limited English proficiency4-7, we hypothesized that one barrier to their inclusion is the cost to investigators of translating consent documents. To test this hypothesis, we evaluated more than 12,000 consent events at a large cancer centre and assessed whether patients requiring translated consent documents would sign consent documents less frequently in studies lacking industry sponsorship (for which the principal investigator pays the translation costs) than for industry-sponsored studies (for which the translation costs are covered by the sponsor). Here we show that the proportion of consent events for patients with limited English proficiency in studies not sponsored by industry was approximately half of that seen in industry-sponsored studies. We also show that among those signing consent documents, the proportion of consent documents translated into the patient's primary language in studies without industry sponsorship was approximately half of that seen in industry-sponsored studies. The results suggest that the cost of consent document translation in trials not sponsored by industry could be a potentially modifiable barrier to the inclusion of patients with limited English proficiency.

Failure to disclose industry funding impacts outcomes in randomized controlled trials of platelet-rich plasma

PURPOSE

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) represents a highly profitable biological therapy. Platelet-rich plasma is widely used to treat musculoskeletal disorders despite mixed evidence of its efficacy. As evidenced by literature from other domains, industry funding may influence the results of clinical trials. The objective of the current study was to determine the association between industry funding and positive results for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of PRP in musculoskeletal disorders.

METHODS

A search of four databases was conducted. Included studies were RCTs comparing PRP to any non-PRP comparator in adults (18 years old or over) with musculoskeletal disorders and had full text available in English. Studies were excluded if they were published before 2016 or were non-human trials. A multivariate binomial logistic regression model was created to explore predictors of statistically significant findings. Covariates included the presence of industry funding, sample size, and length of study follow-up. 1440 records were screened with 87 trials included in the final analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 87 studies, 61 (70%) reported a statistically significant primary outcome. The presence of industry funding was not predictive of a statistically significant primary outcome [OR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.096-1.36, (n.s.)]. Studies that did not state whether industry funding was present had a higher chance of reporting a statistically significant primary outcome (OR = 3.61, 95% CI 1.1-11.9, p = 0.035). Sample size and length of follow-up were not predictive of a statistically significant primary outcome.

CONCLUSION

The results of the current study conclude that industry funding had no impact on the reporting of positive results for RCTs investigating PRP in musculoskeletal disorders. However, not disclosing sources of funding was associated with a higher likelihood of reporting positive results. The results of trials that fail to disclose funding sources should be interpreted with caution in the PRP literature.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Weight loss efficiency and safety of tirzepatide: A Systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Tirzeptide is a novel glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor (GLP-1) and glucose-dependent insulinotropic polypeptide (GIP) drug, which shows good efficiency for weight loss. Therefore, we aim to investigate the efficacy and safety of tirzepatide for weight loss in type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and obesity patients in this meta-analysis study.

METHODS

Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Clinical Trials, and Web of Science were searched from inception to October 5, 2022. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated using fixed-effects or random-effects models by Review Manager 5.3 software.

RESULTS

In total, ten studies (12 reports) involving 9,873 patients were identified. A significant loss body weight in the tirzepatide group versus the placebo by -9.81 kg (95% CI (-12.09, -7.52), GLP-1 RAs by -1.05 kg (95% CI (-1.48, -0.63), and insulin by -1.93 kg (95% CI (-2.81, -1.05), respectively. In sub-analysis, the body weight of patients was significantly reduced in three tirzepatide doses (5 mg, 10 mg, and 15 mg) when compared with those of the placebo/GLP-1 RA/insulin. In terms of safety, the incidence of any adverse events and adverse events leading to study drug discontinuation was higher in the tirzepatide group, but the incidence of serious adverse events and hypoglycaemia was lower. Additionally, the gastrointestinal adverse events (including diarrhea, nausea, vomiting and decreased appetite) of tirzepatide were higher than those of placebo/basal insulin, but similar to GLP-1 RAs.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, tirzeptide can significantly reduce the weight of T2DM and patient with obesity, and it is a potential therapeutic regimen for weight-loss, but we need to be vigilant about its gastrointestinal reaction.

The association between research funding status and clinical research papers’ citation impact in Japan: A cross-sectional bibliometric study

Introduction

Studies have not sufficiently clarified the differences in citation impact between funded and non-funded clinical research papers. Hence, this study seeks to evaluate the relation between research funding status and clinical research papers’ citation impact in different research fields using multiple evaluation indices.

Methods

In this cross-sectional bibliometric study, clinical research papers published by core clinical research hospitals in Japan were compared retrospectively in terms of times cited (TC), category normalized citation impact (CNCI), citation percentile (CP), journal impact factor (JIF), the Software to Identify, Manage, and Analyze Scientific Publications (SIGAPS) category, and whether they were the funded clinical research. The association between research funding status or the SIGAPS category and CNCI ≥ 2 was analyzed using logistic regression analysis.

Results

11 core clinical research hospitals published 553 clinical research papers, of which 120 were non-funded and 433 were funded (public institution-funded and industry-funded). The study found that funded clinical research papers (public institution-funded and industry-funded) had significantly higher TC, CNCI, CP, and JIF than non-funded ones [TC: 8 (3–17) vs. 14 (8–31), p < 0.001; CNCI: 0.53 (0.19–0.97) vs. 0.87 (0.45–1.85), p < 0.001; CP: 51.9 (24.48–70.42) vs. 66.7 (40.53–88.01), p < 0.001; JIF: 2.59 (1.90–3.84) vs. 2.93 (2.09–4.20) p = 0.008], while the proportion of A or B rank clinical research papers of the SIGAPS category was not significantly different between the two groups (30.0 vs. 34.9%, p = 0.318). In the logistic regression analysis, having a CNCI ≥ 2 was significantly associated with research funding (public institution-funded and industry-funded) and publication in A or B rank journals of the SIGAPS category [research funding: Estimate 2.169, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.153–4.083, p = 0.016; SIGAPS category A/B: Estimate 6.126, 95% CI 3.889–9.651, p < 0.001].

Conclusion

Analysis via multiple indicators including CNCI and the SIGAPS category, which allows for a comparison of the papers’ citation impact in different research fields, found a positive relation between research funding status and the citation impact of clinical research papers.

Methodological Quality and Risk of Bias Assessment of Cardiovascular Disease Research: Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in 2017

Background

All randomized-controlled trials (RCTs) are required to follow high methodological standards. In this study, we aimed to assess the methodological quality of published cardiovascular clinical research trials in a representative sample of RCTs published in 2017.

Methods

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was used to identify cardiovascular clinical research trials with adult participants published in 2017. Overall, 250 (10%) RCTs were randomly selected from a total of 2,419 studies. Data on general trial characteristics were extracted and the risk of bias (RoB) was determined.

Results

Overall, 86% of RCTs have reported at least one statistically significant result, with the primary outcome significant in 69%, treatment favored in 55%, and adverse events reported in 68%. Less than one-third (29%) of trials were overall low RoB, while the other two-thirds were rated unclear (40%) or with high RoB (31%). Sequence generation, allocation concealment, and selective reporting were the domains most often rated with high RoB. Drug trials were more likely to have low RoB than non-drug trials. Significant differences were found in RoB for the allocation concealment and blinding of participants and personnel between industry-funded and non-industry-funded trials, with industry-funded trials more often rated at low RoB.

Conclusion

Almost two-thirds of RCTs in the field of cardiovascular disease (CVD) research, were at high or unclear RoB, indicating a need for more rigorous trial planning and conduct. Prospective trial registration is a factor predicting a lower risk of bias.