Bennett Charles L, Lai Stephen Y, Henke Michael, Barnato Sara E, Armitage James O, Sartor Oliver
The South Carolina College of Pharmacy, South Carolina Center of Economic Excellence for Medication Safety and Efficacy, and Southern Network on Adverse Reactions, Columbia, USA.
Arch Intern Med. 2010 Sep 13;170(16):1490-8. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2010.309.
To our knowledge, no prior research has evaluated the association between pharmaceutical industry funding and basic science research results. When erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) were licensed to treat chemotherapy-associated anemia, basic science concerns related to potential cancer stimulation were raised. We evaluated associations between pharmaceutical industry support and reported findings evaluating ESA effects on cancer cells.
Articles identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (1988-2008) investigating basic science findings related to ESA administration in the solid tumor setting were reviewed. Outcomes included information on erythropoietin receptors (EpoRs), Epo-induced signaling events, cellular function, and qualitative conclusions. Information on study funding (academic investigators with no reported funding from ESA manufacturers [64 studies], academic investigators with grant funding from ESA manufacturers [7 studies], and investigators employed by the ESA manufacturers [3 studies]) was evaluated. Some studies did not include information on each outcome.
Investigators without funding from ESA manufacturers were more likely than academic investigators with such funding or investigators employed by ESA manufacturers to identify EpoRs on solid tumor cells (100%, 60%, and 67%, respectively; P = .009), Epo-induced signaling events (94%, 0%, and 0%, respectively; P = .001), or changes in cellular function (57%, 0%, and 0%, respectively; P = .007) and to conclude that ESAs had potentially harmful effects on cancer cells (57%, 0%, and 0%, respectively; P = .008).
Researchers who do not have pharmaceutical industry support are more likely than those with pharmaceutical support to identify detrimental in vitro effects of ESAs. The potential for conflicts of interest to affect basic science research should be considered.
据我们所知，此前尚无研究评估制药行业资助与基础科学研究结果之间的关联。当促红细胞生成素（ESA）被批准用于治疗化疗相关性贫血时，引发了与潜在癌症刺激相关的基础科学担忧。我们评估了制药行业支持与报告的评估ESA对癌细胞影响的研究结果之间的关联。
对MEDLINE和EMBASE数据库（1988 - 2008年）中识别出的、研究实体瘤环境中ESA给药相关基础科学研究结果的文章进行了综述。研究结果包括促红细胞生成素受体（EpoR）、Epo诱导的信号事件、细胞功能信息以及定性结论。对研究资助信息（未报告有ESA制造商资助的学术研究人员[64项研究]、有ESA制造商资助的学术研究人员[7项研究]以及受雇于ESA制造商的研究人员[3项研究]）进行了评估。部分研究未包含每项研究结果的信息。
未获得ESA制造商资助的研究人员比获得此类资助的学术研究人员或受雇于ESA制造商的研究人员更有可能识别实体瘤细胞上的EpoR（分别为100%、60%和67%；P = 0.009）、Epo诱导的信号事件（分别为94%、0%和0%；P = 0.001）或细胞功能变化（分别为57%、0%和0%；P = 0.007），并得出ESA对癌细胞有潜在有害影响的结论（分别为57%、0%和0%；P = 0.008）。
没有制药行业支持的研究人员比有制药行业支持的研究人员更有可能识别出ESA在体外的有害影响。应考虑利益冲突对基础科学研究产生影响的可能性。
