Authors of clinical trials seldom reported details when declaring their individual and institutional financial conflicts of interest: a cross-sectional survey

Accuracy of Financial Disclosures in US-Based Rheumatology Journals

OBJECTIVE

Transparency of disclosure in publication is necessary for readers to be aware of any potential conflicts of interest (PCOIs). Past studies of accuracy of disclosure in rheumatology journals have focused exclusively on clinical practice guidelines and not research works. We assessed discrepancy in reporting PCOIs in clinically oriented manuscripts published in the three top-ranked (by impact factor) US-based general rheumatology journals.

METHODS

We reviewed disclosures provided by first, second, and last authors of 50 published clinically oriented articles in each of the three top-ranked general US rheumatology journals. For each author, we extracted payment reports from the Open Payments Database (OPD) related to consulting fees, honoraria, and speaker or faculty compensation. We defined a PCOI as a payment received from a company with an ongoing clinical trial or a medication on the market related to the manuscript's subject matter within the 36 months before the online publication date. We additionally analyzed each author individually to determine whether their reported disclosures matched PCOIs from the OPD.

RESULTS

Of 150 articles analyzed, 101 included authors with PCOIs. Ninety-two of these 101 publications (92%) contained inaccurate (non- or under-) disclosures. Among 135 authors with PCOIs, 118 reported inaccurately (87%). All 14 articles that published clinical trial results (and all 23 of their qualifying authors) had disclosure inaccuracies.

CONCLUSION

Inaccurate financial disclosure by authors remains an issue in clinically oriented research studies reported in top rheumatology journals. Improved community education and firmer expectations would permit readers to better assess any possible impact of PCOIs on publications.

Financial relationships between industry and principal investigators of US cooperative group randomized cancer clinical trials

Financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) could bias the potentially practice-changing oncologic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of tomorrow. This investigation characterized the FCOIs of the principal investigators (PIs) of all currently accruing trials of the four (adult) cooperative groups of the National Clinical Trials Network. For our study, the PI list was first compiled, and each name was then searched in the CMS Open Payments database. For each transaction (general payments (GPs) or research funding (RF)), the amount/number/source of payments was recorded. Results showed that from 2014 to 2019, the 91 PIs collectively accepted nearly one-third of a billion dollars ($10 477 023 GPs and $320 096 233 RF). The mean and median GP was $6505 and $945, respectively, and $301 693 and $49 824 RF, respectively. Multivariable Gamma regression analysis revealed that higher GP sums were associated with RCTs involving any type of systemic therapy, and higher RF sums with medical oncologist PIs, trials with phase III components, and RCTs involving radiotherapy (P < .05 for all). Both higher-volume GPs and RF were predicted by PIs having accepted payment(s) from the manufacturer of the drug utilized in their RCT (P < .001 GP, P = .008 RF). Taken together, the main message of this investigation is that FCOIs may be particularly high in PIs of phase III systemic therapy trials, especially if the PI accepted payments from the manufacturer of the drug utilized in their trial. Such RCTs should be thoroughly scrutinized by medical journals, the FDA, and insurance companies for potential "industry bias" that could influence the integrity of their conclusions.