Impact of Funding Source on Clinical Trial Results Including Cardiovascular Outcome Trials.

Previous authors have suggested a higher likelihood for industry-sponsored (IS) studies to have positive outcomes than non-IS studies, though the influence of publication bias was believed to be a likely confounder. We attempted to control for the latter using a prepublication database to compare the primary outcome of recent trials based on sponsorship. We used the "advanced search" feature in the clinicaltrials.gov website to identify recently completed phase III studies involving the implementation of a pharmaceutical agent or device for which primary data were available. Studies were categorized as either National Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsored or IS. Results were labeled "favorable" if the results favored the intervention under investigation or "unfavorable" if the intervention fared worse than standard medical treatment. We also performed an independent literature search to identify the cardiovascular trials as a case example and again categorized them into IS versus NIH sponsored. A total of 226 studies sponsored by NIH were found. When these were compared with the latest 226 IS studies, it was found that IS studies were almost 4 times more likely to report a positive outcome (odds ratio [OR] 3.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6087 to 5.9680, p <0.0001). As a case example of a specialty, we also identified 25 NIH-sponsored and 215 IS cardiovascular trials, with most focusing on hypertension therapy (31.6%) and anticoagulation (17.9%). IS studies were 7 times more likely to report favorable outcomes (OR 7.54, 95% CI 2.19 to 25.94, p = 0.0014). They were also considerably less likely to report unfavorable outcomes (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.26, p <0.0001). In conclusion, the outcomes of large clinical studies especially cardiovascular differ considerably on the basis of their funding source, and publication bias appears to have limited influence on these findings.

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.

Safety and Use of Anticoagulation After Aortic Valve Replacement With Bioprostheses: A Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The American College of Cardiology guidelines recommend 3 months of anticoagulation after replacement of the aortic valve with a bioprosthesis. However, there remains great variability in the current clinical practice and conflicting results from clinical studies. To assist clinical decision making, we pooled the existing evidence to assess whether anticoagulation in the setting of a new bioprosthesis was associated with improved outcomes or greater risk of bleeding. METHODS AND RESULTS: We searched the PubMed database from the inception of these databases until April 2015 to identify original studies (observational studies or clinical trials) that assessed anticoagulation with warfarin in comparison with either aspirin or no antiplatelet or anticoagulant therapy. We included the studies if their outcomes included thromboembolism or stroke/transient ischemic attacks and bleeding events. Quality assessment was performed in accordance with the Newland Ottawa Scale, and random effects analysis was used to pool the data from the available studies. I(2) testing was done to assess the heterogeneity of the included studies. After screening through 170 articles, a total of 13 studies (cases=6431; controls=18210) were included in the final analyses. The use of warfarin was associated with a significantly increased risk of overall bleeding (odds ratio, 1.96; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-3.08; P<0.0001) or bleeding risk at 3 months (odds ratio, 1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.10-3.34; P<0.0001) compared with aspirin or placebo. With regard to composite primary outcome variables (risk of venous thromboembolism, stroke, or transient ischemic attack) at 3 months, no significant difference was seen with warfarin (odds ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval, 0.82-1.56; P=0.67). Moreover, anticoagulation was also not shown to improve outcomes at time interval >3 months (odds ratio, 1.12; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-1.58; P=0.79). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to the current guidelines, a meta-analysis of previous studies suggests that anticoagulation in the setting of an aortic bioprosthesis significantly increases bleeding risk without a favorable effect on thromboembolic events. Larger, randomized controlled studies should be performed to further guide this clinical practice.