Influence and management of conflicts of interest in randomised clinical trials: qualitative interview study

Hidden influence? Unmasking conflicts of interest from randomized clinical trials on spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are considered the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy of healthcare interventions. However, conflicts of interest (COIs) can compromise the scientific integrity in these trials. This study characterized COIs in RCTs on spinal cord stimulation for chronic pain, focusing on the prevalence, disclosure, and monetary value of COIs.

METHODS

This cross-sectional study analyzed RCTs published from January 1, 2013 to July 27, 2023. Primary outcomes included the presence, disclosure, and monetary value of COIs, while secondary outcomes assessed the presence of direct/indirect COIs, sponsor access to data, and associations between COIs and select variables, including journal impact factor, publication year, and study outcomes.

RESULTS

Of 38 RCTs, 30 (78.9%) reported COIs. On average, 35.6% of authors per RCT had at least one COI, with a mean of 0.7 COIs per author. The mean annual monetary value of COIs was US$41,157.83 per author per RCT. 29 RCTs (76.3%) had undisclosed COIs, with an average of 24.2% of authors per RCT having undisclosed COIs. Sponsor access to data was reported in 67.6% of RCTs. No associations were observed between the mean percentage of authors with COIs and the monetary value of COIs and select dependent variables (impact factor, publication year, and study outcomes).

CONCLUSIONS

A substantial majority of RCTs reported COIs with many authors having undisclosed conflicts, highlighting the need for stringent COI disclosure guidelines to maintain research integrity. Expanding COI registry systems globally and increasing non-industry funding are crucial steps toward enhancing transparency and reducing biases in medical research.

Identifying and Minimizing Incentives for Competing Interests in Sports Medicine Publications

Academics in sports medicine as well as other medical fields are generally expected to publish research and opinions in peer-reviewed journals. The peer-review process is intended to protect against the publication of flawed research and unsubstantiated claims. However, both financial and non-financial competing interests may result in sub-optimal results by affecting investigators, editors, peer reviewers, academic institutions, and publishers. In this article, we focus on the non-financial competing interests created in our current academic system. Because these competing interests are embedded in our current scholastic framework, the potential biases are difficult to quantify. To minimize the effect of these competing interests, we review and highlight some underlying incentives for each stakeholder and some potential solutions to mitigate their effects.

Perspectives on non-financial conflicts of interest in health-related journals: A scoping review

The objective of this scoping review was to systematically review the literature on how non-financial conflicts of interest (nfCOI) are defined and evaluated, and the strategies suggested for their management in health-related and biomedical journals. PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science were searched for peer reviewed studies published in English between 1970 and December 2023 that addressed at least one of the following: the definition, evaluation, or management of non-financial conflicts of interest. From 658 studies, 190 studies were included in the review. nfCOI were discussed most commonly in empirical (22%; 42/190), theoretical (15%; 29/190) and "other" studies (18%; 34/190) - including commentary, perspective, and opinion articles. nfCOI were addressed frequently in the research domain (36%; 68/190), publication domain (29%; 55/190) and clinical practice domain (17%; 32/190). Attitudes toward nfCOI and their management were divided into two distinct groups. The first larger group claimed that nfCOI were problematic and required some form of management, whereas the second group argued that nfCOI were not problematic, and therefore, did not require management. Despite ongoing debates about the nature, definition, and management of nfCOI, many articles included in this review agreed that serious consideration needs to be given to the prevalence, impact and optimal mitigation of non-financial COI.

Best practices in phase III clinical trials on DMTs for multiple sclerosis: a systematic analysis and appraisal of published trials

BACKGROUND

Great advances have been made in the field of multiple sclerosis (MS) therapy due to the publication of numerous randomised clinical trials (RCTs). In this study, we carried out a critical appraisal of phase III RCTs of disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) for MS published after 2010, intending to identify critical areas of improvement.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of published RCTs on MS from January 2010 until December 2021. RCTs were assessed using an ad-hoc tool. This tool was developed based on existing generic methodological instruments and MS-specific guidelines and methodological papers. It included 14 items grouped in 5 domains: methodological quality, adequacy and measurement of outcomes, adverse event reporting, applicability and relevance of results, and transparency and conflict of interest.

RESULTS

We identified 31 phase III RCTs. Most of them were fully compliant in terms of sample size (87%), randomisation (68%), blinding (61%), participant selection (68%), adverse event reporting (84%) and clinical relevance (52%). Only a few were compliant in terms of participant description (6%), comparison (42%), attrition bias (26%), adequacy of outcome measures (26%), applicability (23%), transparency (36%) and conflict of interest (6%). None were compliant in terms of analysis and reporting of outcomes. The most common limitations related to the absence of comorbidity data, unjustified use of placebo, inadequacy of outcomes design and absence of protocol and/or prospective registration.

CONCLUSIONS

RCTs for DMTs in MS have relevant and frequent limitations. These should be addressed to enhance their quality, transparency and external validity.

[A Study on the Scientific Reliability of Notification Data in the Foods with Function Claims]

We conducted a comprehensive survey of Foods with Function Claims (FFC) submitted from April to August 2022 to examine the scientific reliability of the systematic review (SR), which is the basis for functional claims. The results of the review of 611 functional claims for 398 products showed that there were 121 functionally active substances and 87 health claims (Hc) that were labeled, with some functionally active substances having multiple functions. SRs, meta-analyses, and clinical studies were submitted as the basis of functionality for 87%, 10%, and 3% of the reports, respectively. Of these SRs, 39% of the SRs included a single paper. In 67% of the SRs with a single paper included, some of the authors of the included paper and the person who conducted the SR had the same affiliation, which raises concerns about conflicts of interest. The median of clinical trial participants in papers included for SR was relatively small, 38, and the smallest total number of SRs was 6. Thus, it was shown that there are many SRs for FFC that are based on only a single paper or a small-scale clinical trial and that lack reliability as scientific evidence.

Conflicted and confused? Health harming industries and research funding in leading UK universities

Jeff Collin and colleagues review how the UK’s leading universities deal with research funding from health harming industries and call for more effective governance of conflicts of interest