Is There an Association Between Authors' Conflicts of Interest and Outcomes in Clinical Studies Involving Autologous Chondrocyte Implantation?

Studies With Direct Industry Affiliation Are More Likely to Report Positive Results in Randomized Controlled Trials for Platelet-Rich Plasma Use in Rotator Cuff Tears: A Systematic Review

PURPOSE

To perform a systematic review to evaluate the effect of industry affiliation on the outcomes of randomized controlled trials for platelet-rich plasma (PRP) injections in rotator cuff tears METHODS: The PubMed, SPORTDiscus, and Scopus databases were searched from 2010 to the present for the terms "rotator cuff" and "platelet-rich plasma." The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials comparing PRP with controls for the treatment of rotator cuff tears, and the exclusion criteria were systematic reviews, meta-analyses, case reports, cohort studies, basic science studies, studies of Level III or below, and studies not in English. Degree of industry affiliation was categorized into 3 groups: directly, indirectly, and not affiliated. Direct affiliation required the study or its authors to receive financial support from the company manufacturing the devices used in the study to prepare or administer PRP. Indirect affiliation required financial association with a different company that produces or administers PRP than the company in the study. Studies were classified as favorable if study outcomes achieved significance (P < .05) of PRP over controls or as analogous if there was no statistical significance between PRP and controls. Data were analyzed using the χ2 test and Fisher exact test.

RESULTS

Of the 47 studies selected for analysis, 8 (17.0%) had no direct industry affiliation; 9 (19.1%) had indirect affiliation; and 30 (63.8%) had no industry affiliation. Of the studies, 22 (46.8%) reported favorable results with PRP compared with controls and 25 (53.2%) showed analogous results between PRP and controls. Degree of industry affiliation was significantly associated with an increased likelihood of reporting favorable study outcomes (P = .041). Directly affiliated studies had a significantly increased likelihood of reporting favorable results (P = .024) compared with indirectly affiliated studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies that used PRP produced by companies that directly funded the studies or were financially affiliated with the authors were significantly more likely to report favorable results.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level II, systematic review of Level I and II studies.

Industry affiliation does not predict outcomes of randomized controlled trials for mesenchymal stem cells in knee osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

This research aims to determine the influence of industry on the outcomes of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for Mesenchymal Stem Cell (MSC) treatments in knee osteoarthritis (OA).

METHODS

PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched from 2010 onwards using the terms "knee osteoarthritis" and "mesenchymal stem cells". After identifying relevant RCTs, studies were categorized as industry-affiliated or non-industry-affiliated. They were also classified as favorable if they achieved statistically significant (p < 0.05) results with MSC injections compared to control. Chi-squared tests were employed to analyze the relationship between industry affiliation and study outcome.

RESULTS

Post exclusion criteria, 38 studies were analyzed. Of these, there were 20 (52.6%) industry affiliated (IA) and 18 (47.4%) non-industry affiliated (NIA) studies. Among the 20 IA studies, 17 (85.0%) reported favorable outcomes for MSC treatment arm, with the remaining 3 (15.0%) showing analogous (no difference between treatment arms) results. For the 18 NIA studies, 15 (83.3%) were favorable, and 3 (16.6%) were analogous. No significant difference in outcomes was observed between IA and NIA studies (p = 0.888). Analysis of patient reported outcomes also revealed no significant difference. Of note, studies using allogeneic MSCs were more likely to be IA than studies using autologous MSCs (p = 0.005) CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated no strong association between industry affiliation and the outcomes of RCTs for MSC treatments in knee OA. Despite this, the potential influence of industry ties should always be considered when applying study findings to new treatment modalities for patient care.

Results of Randomized Controlled Trials of Platelet-Rich Plasma in Lower-Extremity Tendinopathy Are Not Influenced by Industry Sponsorship

PURPOSE

To determine whether industry affiliation influences the results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying the use of platelet-rich plasma (PRP) for the treatment of patellar or Achilles tendinopathy.

METHODS

The PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, and MEDLINE databases were searched in July 2023 for RCTs investigating PRP for the treatment of patellar or Achilles tendinopathy published between 2009 and July 2023. Industry affiliation was determined by analyzing each study's funding or conflict-of-interest section. Author disclosures were searched in the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons disclosure database and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services open payments database. An industry-affiliated (IA) designation was given if an author had a relevant disclosure or if the company that funded the study manufactured PRP. Otherwise, a non-industry-affiliated (NIA) designation was given. Fisher exact analysis was used to determine whether PRP had a favorable effect, no significant effect, or an unfavorable effect on outcome.

RESULTS

Analysis was performed on 22 studies (10 IA and 12 NIA), with 17 studies (77.3%) reporting a conflict of interest or funding for the research, 4 (18.2%) reporting no conflict of interest, and 1 (4.5%) with no reporting. Of the 22 included studies, 8 (36.4%) reported favorable outcomes regarding PRP use and 14 (63.6%) reported no significant effect. Favorable outcomes were found in 4 of the 10 IA studies (40.0%), whereas no significant effect was reported in 6 (60.0%). The 12 NIA studies included 4 (33.3%) with favorable results and 8 (66.7%) with no significant effect. The comparison between industry affiliation and results reported was not statistically significant (P > .999).

CONCLUSIONS

The results of RCTs evaluating the use of PRP in lower-extremity tendinopathy were not influenced by industry sponsorship.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Most biomedical research is funded through industry sponsorship. Although this relation is necessary as technologies are developed, it is important to scrutinize studies for evidence of industry bias to understand how this bias may be affecting study results published in the literature.

Tip of the Iceberg? Country- and Company-Level Analysis of Drug Company Payments for Research and Development in Europe

BACKGROUND

Creating new therapies often involves drug companies paying healthcare professionals and institutions for research and development (R&D) activities, including clinical trials. However, industry sponsorship can create conflicts of interest (COIs). We analysed approaches to drug company R&D payment disclosure in European countries and the distribution of R&D payments at the country and company level.

METHODS

Using documentary sources and a stakeholder survey we identified country- regulatory approaches to R&D payment disclosure. We reviewed company-level descriptions of disclosure practices in the United Kingdom, a country with a major role in Europe's R&D. We obtained country-level R&D payment data from industry trade groups and public authorities and company-level data from eurosfordocs.eu, a publicly available payments database. We conducted content analysis and descriptive statistical analysis.

RESULTS

In 32 of 37 studied countries, all R&D payments were reported without named recipients, following a self-regulatory approach developed by the industry. The methodological descriptions from 125 companies operating in the United Kingdom suggest that within the self-regulatory approach companies had much leeway in deciding what activities and payments were considered as R&D. In five countries, legislation mandated the disclosure of R&D payment recipients, but only in two were payments practically identifiable and analysable. In 17 countries with available data, R&D constituted 19%-82% of all payments reported, with self-regulation associated with higher shares. Available company-level data from three countries with self-regulation suggests that R&D payments were concentrated by big funders, and some companies reported all, or nearly all, payments as R&D.

CONCLUSION

The lack of full disclosure of R&D payments in countries with industry self-regulation leaves considerable sums of money unaccounted for and potentially many COIs undetected. Disclosure mandated by legislation exists in few countries and rarely enhances transparency practically. We recommend a unified European approach to R&D payment disclosure, including clear definitions and a centralised database.

Funding has no effect on clinical outcomes of total joint arthroplasty emerging technologies: a systematic review of bibliometrics and conflicts of interest

Background

The use of new total joint arthroplasty technologies, including patient-specific implants/instrumentation (PSI), computer-assisted (CA), and robotic-assisted (RA) techniques, is increasing. There is an ongoing debate regarding the value provided and potential concerns about conflicts of interest (COI).

Methods

PRISMA guidelines were followed. PubMed, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases were searched for total hip and knee arthroplasties, unicompartmental knee arthroplasties (UKA), PSI, CA, and RA. Bibliometric data, financial COI, clinical/functional scores, and patient-reported outcomes were assessed.

Results

Eighty-seven studies were evaluated, with 35 (40.2%) including at least one author reporting COI, and 13 (14.9%) disclosing industry funding. COI and industry funding had no significant effects on outcomes (P = 0.682, P = 0.447), and there were no significant effects of conflicts or funding on level of evidence (P = 0.508, P = 0.826). Studies in which author(s) disclosed COI had significantly higher relative citation ratio (RCR) and impact factor (IF) than those without (P < 0.001, P = 0.032). Subanalysis demonstrated RA and PSI studies were more likely to report COI or industry funding (P = 0.045). RA (OR = 6.31, 95% CI: 1.61–24.68) and UKA (OR = 9.14, 95% CI: 1.43–58.53) had higher odds of reporting favorable outcomes than PSI.

Conclusions

Author COIs (about 40%) may be lower than previously reported in orthopedic technologies/techniques reviews. Studies utilizing RA and PSI were more likely to report COI, while RA and UKA studies were more likely to report favorable outcomes than PSI. No statistically significant association between the presence of COIs and/or industry funding and the frequency of favorable outcomes or study level of evidence was found.

Level of evidence

Level V Systematic Review

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s42836-022-00146-3.