NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
PLoS One. 2019 Sep 25;14(9):e0222117. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0222117. eCollection 2019.
Commercial or industry funding is associated with outcomes that favour the study funder in published studies, across various areas of research. However, it is currently unclear whether there are differences between trials with and without industry involvement at the stage of trial registration.
To determine whether industry involvement (industry sponsorship, funding, or collaboration) is associated with trial characteristics at the time of trial registration.
We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of all interventional studies registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry in 2017 and classified them by industry involvement. We analysed whether there were differences in study characteristics (including type of control, sample size, study phase, randomisation, registration timing, and purpose of study) by industry involvement.
Industry involvement was reported by 21% of the 1,433 included trials. Only 40% of trials with industry involvement used an active control compared to 58% of non-industry trials (OR = 0.49, 95%CI = 0.38 to 0.63, p < .001), and industry trials reported smaller sample sizes (Median(IQR)industry = 45(24-100), Median(IQR)non-industry = 70(35-160), Mean Difference = -153, 95% CI = -233 to -75, p < .001). Industry trials were more likely to be earlier phase trials (Χ2(df) = 71.46(4), p < .001). There was no difference in use of randomisation between industry (70%) and non-industry trials (73%) (OR = 0.88, 95%CI = 0.67-1.20, p = .38). Eighty-three percent of industry trials compared to 70% of non-industry trials were prospectively registered (OR = 2.02, 95%CI = 1.47-2.82, p < .001). Industry trials were more likely to assess treatment (85%), rather than prevention, education or diagnosis compared to non-industry trials (64%) (OR = 3.02, 95%CI = 2.17-4.32, p < .001).
The current study gives insight into differences in trial characteristics by industry involvement at registration stage. There was a reduced use of active controls in trials with industry involvement which has previously been proposed as a mechanism behind more favourable results. Non-industry funders and sponsors are crucial to ensure research addresses not only treatments, but also prevention, diagnosis and education questions.
在各个研究领域,商业或行业资助与发表研究中有利于研究资助者的结果相关。然而,目前尚不清楚在试验注册阶段,有行业参与和无行业参与的试验之间是否存在差异。
确定行业参与(行业赞助、资助或合作)是否与试验注册时的试验特征相关。
我们对 2017 年在澳大利亚和新西兰临床试验注册中心注册的所有干预性研究进行了横断面分析,并根据行业参与情况对其进行了分类。我们分析了在行业参与情况下,研究特征(包括对照类型、样本量、研究阶段、随机化、注册时间和研究目的)是否存在差异。
21%的 1433 项纳入试验报告了行业参与。与非工业试验相比,只有 40%的工业试验采用了活性对照,而 58%的非工业试验采用了活性对照(OR=0.49,95%CI=0.38 至 0.63,p<.001),并且工业试验报告的样本量较小(中位数(IQR)工业=45(24 至 100),中位数(IQR)非工业=70(35 至 160),平均差异=-153,95%CI=-233 至-75,p<.001)。工业试验更有可能处于早期阶段(Χ2(df)=71.46(4),p<.001)。工业(70%)和非工业试验(73%)之间的随机化使用没有差异(OR=0.88,95%CI=0.67 至 1.20,p=0.38)。83%的工业试验与 70%的非工业试验相比,前瞻性注册(OR=2.02,95%CI=1.47 至 2.82,p<.001)。与非工业试验(64%)相比,工业试验更有可能评估治疗(85%),而不是预防、教育或诊断(OR=3.02,95%CI=2.17 至 4.32,p<.001)。
本研究深入了解了注册阶段行业参与对试验特征的差异。与有行业参与的试验相比,活性对照的使用减少,这曾被提议为产生更有利结果的机制。非工业资助者和赞助商对于确保研究不仅解决治疗问题,而且解决预防、诊断和教育问题至关重要。