Conflicts of Interest and Outcomes of Cardiovascular Trials.

Conflicts of interests have long been recognized as potential sources of influence in the conduct and reporting of clinical trials. This controversy was again rekindled after the publication of the latest statin guidelines and a series of studies regarding competing interests in leading medical journals. We investigate the association between declared author conflicts and the outcomes of large cardiovascular trials. We searched the Medline (PubMed) database to identify "phase 2" and "phase 3" clinical trials using the search term "cardiovascular" over the past decade using "10 years" as the filter. We perceived the competing interest as present regardless of the nature such as consulting fees, honoraria, travel imbursements, stock holding, and employment. Of the 699 titles retrieved, 114 studies met the inclusion criteria. Nearly 80% of studies had at least a single author with competing interests. The 114 studies had a total of 1,433 investigators, of which 725 had declared conflicts of interests (50.6%). A total of 66 studies (58%) had half or >50 percent of investigators who had some conflicts of interests. Of these studies, 54 studies had favorable outcomes and only 12 had unfavorable outcomes (p <0.001). Among the type of competing interests, consulting or personal fees was the most common present in 58 investigators (51%). This was followed by research grants present in 55 the researchers (48%). Among 25 (22%) studies, at least one investigator reported stakes in the industry, of which only 2 studies had unfavorable outcomes for the intervention being investigated. Just 1 of the 25 clinical trials with a sample size of >1,000 had no investigators with competing interests. In conclusion, authors conflicts are associated with favorable outcomes in cardiovascular outcome trials.

Final report of the Lyme disease review panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

In April 2008, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) entered into an agreement with Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal to voluntarily undertake a special review of its 2006 Lyme disease guidelines. This agreement ended the Attorney General's investigation into the process by which the guidelines were developed. The IDSA agreed to convene an independent panel to conduct a one-time review of the guidelines. The Review Panel members, vetted by an ombudsman for potential conflicts of interest, reviewed the entirety of the 2006 guidelines, with particular attention to the recommendations devoted to post-Lyme disease syndromes. After multiple meetings, a public hearing, and extensive review of research and other information, the Review Panel concluded that the recommendations contained in the 2006 guidelines were medically and scientifically justified on the basis of all of the available evidence and that no changes to the guidelines were necessary.