[Cardiac myxoma: anatomic and clinical description of four cases (author's transl)].

R. Pingitore

Abstract:Four cases of cardiac myxoma diagnosed among 68 solid intracavitary cardiac formations are described. The myxomas (all unexpected autopsy findings of the left atrium) are illustrated by their clinica, macroscopic, histologic and histochemic characteristics. The differences between heart myxomas and thrombi are briefly outline and discussed.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Conflict of Interest and the CREATE-X Trial in the New England Journal of Medicine

Akihiko Ozaki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-017-9966-3

Abstract:There is an increasing emphasis on clear disclosure of conflict of interest in medical communities, following repeated scientific frauds in clinical trials. However, incomplete COI statements continue to be prevalent in the medical community, as appears to have occurred in the Capecitabine for Residual Cancer as Adjuvant Therapy (CREATE-X) trial, which was recently published in the New England Journal of Medicine. The authors of the article did not clearly report the roles of the Japan Breast Cancer Research Group, a sponsor and funder of the study, although a majority of the Japanese authors served in important positions in the organization. Furthermore, the conflict of interest related to Chugai Pharmaceutical Company, a Japanese distributor of capecitabine, was not correctly disclosed. More transparent statements of conflict of interest and clarification of sponsors and funders' roles, as well as rigorous review by academic journals are required to fairly interpret the findings of clinical trials, including and beyond the single case of the CREATE-X trial.
Accuracy of post-publication Financial Conflict of Interest corrections in medical research: A secondary analysis of pharmaceutical company payments to the authors of the CREATE-X trial report in the New England Journal of Medicine

Akihiko Ozaki,Hiroaki Saito,Toyoaki Sawano,Yuki Shimada,Tetsuya Tanimoto

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12854

Bioethics

Abstract:In June 2017, Japanese and Korean authors published the results of the CREATE-X trial in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). After we identified their inadequate disclosures of Financial Conflict of Interests (FCOIs), the authors made a post-publication correction of their FCOIs. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the accuracy of the post-publication corrections by the Japanese authors of the CREATE-X trial. All the Japanese authors of the CREATE-X trial were included in the study. We determined the payments received by these authors in 2016 using publicly available data published by 78 pharmaceutical companies based on the stipulated Japanese transparency guidelines. We retrieved the original and revised versions of the FCOI disclosures as published on the NEJM website, and compared the payments reported by the pharmaceutical companies and the original and revised FCOI disclosures of the authors. Of the 12 authors, nine received payments made by the drug manufacturer involved in the CREATE-X trial. Of these nine, only three (33.3%) originally disclosed their relationships, and another three (33.3%) later disclosed such relationships in the post-publication corrections. Similarly, of the 11 receiving at least one payment from other manufacturers of breast cancer products, none correctly disclosed the payments in the original or the revised disclosure. In the CREATE-X trial, FCOIs with pharmaceutical companies were not properly disclosed by 11 of the 12 Japanese authors, even after the post-publication corrections, which highlights the need to pay more attention to the accuracy of FCOI disclosures in academic publications.
Increasing trends of pharmaceutical payments to breast cancer specialists in Japan: A retrospective study from 2016 to 2019

Yudai Kaneda,Erika Yamashita,Hiroaki Saito,Kenji Gonda,Masahiro Wada,Tetsuya Tanimoto,Akihiko Ozaki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0310880

IF: 3.7

2024-09-27

PLoS ONE

Abstract:The introduction of new drugs often leads to aggressive promotion and potential financial conflicts of interest, which may bias treatment decisions and potentially harm patients. The breast cancer therapeutics market is rapidly evolving globally, and Japan is no exception. This study aimed to analyze trends in pharmaceutical payments to breast cancer specialists in Japan from 2016 to 2019, focusing on company-level data, relationships with new drug introductions, and individual specialist payment patterns. This retrospective study examined financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and breast cancer specialists in Japan from 2016 to 2019. The analysis focused on certified specialists as of May 2023 and used payment data from 93 pharmaceutical companies for activities such as lecturing, writing, and consulting. First, a company-level analysis examined total payments, categories, and trends for all companies and the top 10 individually; second, a specialist-level analysis looked at payment amounts amount and counts. The Gini index was employed to assess the concentration of payments among specialists. Total payments reached USD 13,329,911, growing at 10.1% annually, with 81.4% allocated to lecturing engagements. The top 10 companies, led by Chugai Pharmaceutical, Eisai, and AstraZeneca, accounted for 89.5% of all payments. Companies like Pfizer Japan and Eli Lilly Japan saw notable increases following the introduction of new drugs such as palbociclib and abemaciclib. Payment distribution was highly skewed, with an average of 2,884. A Gini index of 0.994 further confirmed that a small group of specialists received a disproportionately large share of the payments From 2016 to 2019, pharmaceutical payments to Japanese breast cancer specialists increased significantly, coinciding with new drug introductions. The concentration of payments among a select group of specialists raises concerns about potential influences on clinical decision-making and guideline recommendations.

multidisciplinary sciences
[Challenges to International Collaborative Clinical Research and Approval Disparities]

Yukinori Ozaki,Toshimi Takano

Abstract:The standard treatment and prognosis of breast cancer are improving as because of international collaborative clinical research. Generally, the standard treatment for breast cancer in Japan is not different from that in the US, Europe or other Asian countries, however, some novel agents have not been developed or have been delayed. For example, no institution in Japan has participated in the clinical trials of sacituzumab-govitecan. Institutions in Japan participated in the clinical trial of alpelisib and neratinib, however, the development of these drugs was delayed due to the racial difference and lack of a company in charge. On the other hand, there are international collaborative trials that Japan has participated in or has taken the lead, such as POSITIVE trial, CREATE-X trial, and PATHWAY trial. There are many challenges for Japan to participate in or lead international collaborative trials with Europe, US, or Asia. It is necessary to build a network and infrastructure for international collaborative trials based on the cooperation between the institutions and clinical trial groups in the world.
Pharmaceutical company payments to Japanese breast cancer practice guideline authors

Anju Murayama,Kenichi Higuchi,Keerthana R. Byreddy,Kugo Hinari,Yuki Senoo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ctd2.304

2024-06-16

Clinical and Translational Discovery

Abstract:Of the 149 authors of the Clinical Practice Guidelines for Breast Cancer, edition 2022, 115 (77.2%) received personal payments from drug companies from 2016 to 2020. More than 60% of personal payments were not declared by the authors, because of the less transparent COI policy of the Japanese Breast Cancer Society. Nine authors undeclared personal payments summing 3 828 455 from drug companies between 2016 and 2020. The average and median payment amounts per author were 58 197) and 322‒ 588 054 in 2016 to ‐ 246 936 (fourth highest) and 594 615 even though these payments were higher than the thresholds. Conclusion This study demonstrated that the majority of the breast cancer guideline authors received personal payments from drug companies in Japan. Furthermore, the majority of payments were not declared because of the less transparent COI policy.
Conflicts of Interest Among Cardiology Clinical Practice Guideline Authors in Japan

Anju Murayama,Megumi Aizawa,Keerthana R Byreddy,Kenichi Higuchi,Yuki Senoo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.124.034506

2024-04-16

Abstract:Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) offer disease management recommendations based on scientific evidence. However, financial conflicts of interest between CPG developers and the pharmaceutical industry could bias these recommendations, potentially affecting patient care. Proper management of these conflicts of interest is particularly crucial for maintaining the integrity of CPGs. The study aimed to evaluate the extent of financial relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and authors of CPGs for cardiovascular diseases in Japan. Methods and results: The study analyzed personal payments from the pharmaceutical industry to authors of cardiovascular disease CPGs published by the Japanese Circulation Society from January 2015 to December 2022. Payment data, including speaking, consultancy, and writing fees from 2016 to 2020, were extracted from a publicly available database containing personal payments disclosed by all major pharmaceutical companies. A total of 929 unique authors from 37 eligible Japanese Circulation Society CPGs were identified. Notably, 94.4% of these authors received personal payments from pharmaceutical companies, totaling >US $70.8 million. The mean±SD payment per author was US $76 314±138 663) and the median payment per author was US $20 792 (interquartile range: US $4262-US $76 998) over the 5-year period. Chairs of CPGs received significantly higher payments than other authors. More than 80% of authors in each CPG received personal payments. Conclusions: The study elucidated that there were considerable financial relationships between pharmaceutical companies and cardiology CPG authors in Japan. This finding deviates from international conflict of interest management policies, suggesting the need for more stringent conflict of interest management strategies by the Japanese Circulation Society to ensure the development of trustworthy and evidence-based CPGs.
Investigators' Financial Conflict of Interest May Influent Clinical Trail

Guang-kuan XIE

2005-01-01

Abstract:Investigators' financial conflict of interest in clinical research may negatively influent clinical trials.Based on US research results,this paper analyses the investigators' main financial interests in clinical trial,discloses how they may unduly affect the design,conduct and report of the clinical trial,and the negative consequences that may be produced.
Supplementary Table S3 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Timothy A. Lin,Zachary R. McCaw,Alex Koong,Christine Lin,Joseph Abi Jaoude,Roshal Patel,Ramez Kouzy,Molly B. El Alam,Alexander D. Sherry,Sonal S. Noticewala,Clifton D. Fuller,Charles R. Thomas,Ryan Sun,J. Jack Lee,Ruitao Lin,Ying Yuan,Yu Shyr,Tomer Meirson,Ethan B. Ludmir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.27231412

2024-01-01

Abstract:Table S3: List of 341 trials included in the overall analysis. ADT, androgen deprivation therapy; mFOLFOX, folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin; FOLFIRI, folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan; GM-CSF, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor; R-DHAP; rituximab, dexamethasone, cytarabine, cisplatin; O-DHAP; ofatumumab, dexamethasone, cytarabine, cisplatin; EDP, etoposide doxorubicin cisplatin; G-CHOP, obintuzumab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin hydrochloride, vincristine, prednisone; RCHOP, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin hydrochloride, vincristine, prednisone; VR-CAP, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone with bortezomib; AC, Adriamycin with cyclophosphamide; T, paclitaxel; XT, capecitabine plus paclitaxel; GIST, gastrointestinal stromal tumor; IFN, interferon; 5FU, 5-fluorouracil; FA, folinic acid; recMAGE-A3, recombinant MAGE A-3; NGR-Htnf, NGR–human tumor necrosis factor; TACE, trans-arterial chemoembolization; T-DM1, Trastuzumab emtansine; Mf, mitomycin-C and fluoropyrimidine; iceMFP, intraperitoneal cisplatin (100 mg), intravenous mitomycin-C (15 mg/m(2)) on postoperative day 1, followed by oral doxifluridine for 12 months, and six monthly intravenous cisplatin (60 mg/m(2); RFA, radiofrequency ablation.
Barriers and hurdles delaying governance approval for an ethically approved nationwide clinical trial in pancreatic cancer

Ariadna Recasens,Lin Li,Liane Ioannou,Elysia Greenhill,David Attwood,Bruce Ross Cheek,Jacqueline Lesage,Helen Madgwick,Tracy Walker,John Zalcberg,Charles Pilgrim

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ans.19296

IF: 1.7

2024-10-30

ANZ Journal of Surgery

Abstract:Streamlined and expedited clinical research is fundamental to rapidly test, translate and implement novel strategies and treatments into routine care to improve patient outcomes. Ethics and governance reviews are required to conduct any clinical trial in Australia. This study reports the challenges encountered while seeking governance approval to onboard participating sites in the SCANPatient trial. Backgrounds Streamlined, expedited clinical research is fundamental to rapidly test, translate and implement novel treatments into routine care to improve patient outcomes. The National Mutual Acceptance (NMA) scheme was designed to expedite the ethics approval process, however, growing concerns exist about the fragmented time‐consuming governance process needed to actually commence clinical research in Australia. This study reports hurdles and barriers encountered while seeking governance approval for the SCANPatient trial. Methods SCANPatient is a nationwide multi‐centre trial comparing standard narrative radiological reporting of CT scans for suspected pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma. with an alternative structured approach. SCANPatient was approved by a national Human Research Ethics Committee under the NMA. The documents, time, costs and platforms required to obtain governance approval and open the trial at 30 participating hospitals were analysed. Results Wide variation exists in research governance office (RGO) requirements for local approval, resulting in extra costs (>$117 000), delays of up to 4 months in commencing the trial at some participating sites, unplanned adjustment of the study design, and ultimately the loss of several potential sites. There were inconsistencies among RGOs minimum requirements and processes across jurisdictions and sites, with delays in obtaining approval signatures, time‐consuming processes, differing platforms used to submit governance reviews and inflexibility of RGO processes all contributing to delays in progressing the trial and obtaining governance approval. Conclusion The current governance process is time‐ and cost‐consuming and undermines the NMA scheme's efforts to streamline the clinical trials review process.

surgery
Transitional dynamics in oncology clinical trials: evaluating the impact of Clinical Trials Act on cooperative groups

Kenichi Nakamura,Koji Takeda,Akiko M Saito,Miho Kato,Shinya Sato,Satoshi Nakagawa,Yasuyuki Kawamoto,Eiji Oki,Isamu Okamoto,Hiroaki Okamoto,Hiroshi Katayama,Junki Mizusawa,Harumi Kaba,Taro Shibata,Haruhiko Fukuda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jjco/hyae034

IF: 2.925

2024-03-26

Japanese Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:Abstract Objective large-scale multicentre clinical trials conducted by cooperative groups have generated a lot of evidence to establish better standard treatments. The Clinical Trials Act was enforced on 1 April 2018, in Japan, and it has remarkably increased the operational burden on investigators, but its long-term impact on cancer cooperative groups is unknown. Methods a survey was conducted across the nine major cooperative groups that constitute the Japan Cancer Trials Network to assess the impact of Clinical Trials Act on the number of newly initiated trials from fiscal year (from 1 April to 31 March) 2017 to 2022 and that of ongoing trials on 1 April in each year from 2018 to 2023. Results the number of newly initiated trials dropped from 38 trials in fiscal year 2017 to 26 trials in fiscal year 2018, surged to 50 trials in fiscal year 2019, but then gradually decreased to 25 trials by fiscal year 2022. Specified clinical trials decreased from 32 trials in fiscal year 2019 to 12 trials in fiscal year 2022. The number of ongoing trials was 220 trials in 2018, peaked at 245 trials in 2020, but then gradually decreased to 219 trials by 2023. The number of specified clinical trials has been in consistent decline. By April 2023, of the 20 ongoing non-specified clinical trials, nine adhered to Clinical Trials Act and 11 followed the Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects. Conclusion the number of multicentre clinical trials in oncology gradually decreased after the Clinical Trials Act’s enforcement, which underscores the need for comprehensive amendment of the Clinical Trials Act to streamline the operational process.

oncology
International Collaboration and Commercial Involvement in Randomized Controlled Trials From 10 Leading Countries, 1997 Through 2019

Shunichi Fukuhara,Yuki Kataoka,Takuya Aoki,Joseph Green,Sayaka Shimizu,Nagayasu Toyoda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.61205

2024-05-27

Cureus

Abstract:Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) affect clinical decisions and their number is increasing. However, trends in international collaboration on RCTs and involvement of healthcare-related industries, the latter of which may contribute to bias, are not known. The objectives were to identify concerns surrounding RCTs, and to quantify changes in (1) the numbers of RCT articles in journals of high clinical importance, (2) international collaboration, and (3) commercial involvement in RCTs by authors in countries that contribute the most to the scientific literature. This was not a systematic review of the medical literature. It is a descriptive study of trends during the past two decades. We extracted RCT articles from MEDLINE data (1997-2019). When grouped by authors' country, the analyses were limited to the 10 leading countries in the natural sciences, as defined by the Nature Index 2019 Annual Tables. The Core Clinical Journals (CCJ) filter in PubMed was used to identify journals that were likely to be highly relevant to clinical practice. RCT articles that included authors from multiple countries were used as examples of international collaboration, and RCTs in which at least one author's affiliation was corporate were considered to have commercial involvement. The annual number of RCT articles more than doubled (from 10,360 to 22,384), but the number published in the CCJ was essentially unchanged (from 2,245 to 2,346). The vast majority of RCT articles had US-based authors. International collaboration increased in nine of the 10 countries studied, and it was particularly common among researchers in Europe, Canada, and Australia. In contrast, international collaboration decreased in China. Regarding commercial involvement, between 1997 and 2019 the proportion of single-country RCTs with commercial involvement decreased (from 12.4% to 3.8% for the United States, and from 2.5% to 0.0% for Europe-Canada-Australia). In contrast, the proportion of international-collaborative RCTs with commercial involvement increased (from 9.2% to 17.6% for the United States, and from 17.9% to 21.3% for Europe-Canada-Australia). The largest change in commercial involvement was the 12-fold increase in Japan: from 3% to 36% (1997-2019). Japan was also noteworthy for its 28-percentage-point decrease in first-authorship of RCT articles from 2012 to 2019. In conclusion, recent increases in the number of RCT articles have occurred almost exclusively outside the CCJ. Thus, many newer RCT articles might have relatively low clinical relevance or impact. International collaboration has generally increased, along with commercial involvement. The latter has become particularly common in Japan, increasing the potential for sponsorship bias. The effects of ongoing attempts to reverse that trend should be evaluated.
Do Editorialists With Industry-Related Conflicts of Interest Write Unduly Favorable Editorials for Cancer Drugs in Top Journals?

Shubham Sharma,Bishal Gyawali,Christopher M. Booth,Elizabeth A. Eisenhauer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2021.7016

IF: 12.6934

2021-11-01

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network

Abstract:Background: Editorials accompanying the publication of trials in major oncology journals can have a substantial influence on clinical practice. We describe the prevalence of financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) of authors writing such editorials and the extent to which FCOIs may shape the interpretation of clinical trials. Methods: We examined editorials published in 2018 alongside trial reports in the top 5 journals that publish cancer drug trials ( New England Journal of Medicine , Lancet , Lancet Oncology , JAMA Oncology , and Journal of Clinical Oncology ). An editorial was considered to have an FCOI if at least one of the editorialists had any disclosed FCOI. An FCOI with the same company whose drug was being discussed in the editorial was classified as a direct FCOI. Editorials were reviewed for their content and classified as being unduly favorable (defined as the presence of a positive spin without discussion of limitations) or not. Association of an FCOI and a direct FCOI with writing an unduly favorable editorial was assessed. Results: Of the 90 editorials assessed, 74% (n=67) were classified as having an FCOI with the pharmaceutical industry, and 39% (n=35) had an FCOI with the same company whose product was being discussed in the editorial (direct FCOI). Editorials were classified as being unduly favorable toward the study drug in 12% (8 of 67) and 13% (3 of 23) ( P =1.0) of those with and without FCOIs, respectively; corresponding rates with and without direct FCOI were 23% (8 of 35) and 5% (3 of 55), respectively ( P =.009). Conclusions: Editorials in top oncology journals were frequently authored by experts with FCOIs, including direct FCOIs. Authoring an unduly favorable editorial for a new cancer drug was significantly associated with the author having a direct FCOI with the same company. These findings support the call for journals to ensure that authors of editorials have no direct FCOIs.

oncology
A retrospective look: Industry partnership and transparency in phase III randomized clinical trials of breast cancer targeted therapies across two decades.

Qiao Ruan,Amandeep Kaur Mann-Grewal,Caitlin Ruth Johnson,Caroline Behler,Daniel Stuart Kapp,John K Chan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.16_suppl.580

IF: 45.3

2024-05-31

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:580 Background: To unveil industry involvement with respect to sponsorship, authorship, and demographic shifts in the trends of randomized clinical trials for breast cancer targeted therapies over the past two decades. Methods: All randomized phase III clinical trials focusing on targeted therapies for breast cancer were systematically identified from clinicaltrials.gov and reviewed using peer-reviewed publications. Trials that focused solely on chemotherapy and hormonal therapy were excluded. SAS Enterprise Guide v7.1 was used to analyze trial characteristics, authorship, and demographic details with Chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests. Results: From 2005-2023, 998 breast cancer treatment clinical trials were identified; 110 trials were included in the final analysis. Overall, 8.2% were limited to the U.S. and Canada while 67.3% were carried out internationally. 34.5% were led by cooperative (Co-op) groups vs 65.5% by pharmaceutical industries. 19.1% of trials were published in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM); all NEJM published trials reported positive results and 76.2% of were industry led. In contrast, of the 4.5% of trials featured in The Lancet, only 60% showed positive findings and 60% had major industry sponsorship. The most common industry partnerships were with Roche (27.3%), Novartis (12.7%), and Pfizer (7.3%) while the most common leading Co-op group was the National Cancer Institute (7.3%). To evaluate trends, trials were split into 3 time periods based on publication dates: 2005-2011, 2012-2017, and 2018-2023. The number of trial publications increased from 13 to 43 to 54. Of the 70% of trials that reported race/ethnicity data, the proportion of White patients decreased (84.5%, 78.8%, 79.3%; p<0.001) and the proportion of Asian patients increased (8.9%, 18.4%, 16.7%; p<0.001). However, enrollment of Black (6.6%, 2.8%, 4.0%; p<0.001) and Hispanic (7.0%, 2.8%, 5.0%; p<0.001) patients remained low. There were no statistically significant changes in international participation (46.2%, 69.8%, 70.4%; p=0.22), the proportion of exclusively industry-led (46.2%, 74.4%, 63.0%; p=0.15) or Co-op group-designed trials (61.5%, 35.7%, 26.4%; p=0.10). Industry-involved data collection increased from 23.1% to 64.2% to 73.6% (p=0.01) while industry sponsored data analysis (38.5%, 61.9%, 66.0%; p=0.49) and manuscript drafting (38.5%, 66.7%, 71.7%; p=0.09) did not significantly change. Conclusions: Over time, there was a notable rise in the number of phase III clinical trials for breast cancer targeted therapies. More than 70% of these trials now engage in international collaboration. Despite this progress, there remains an underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic participants in trial enrollment. Today, nearly 70% of trials have major industry sponsorship in study design, data analysis, and manuscript preparation.

oncology
Clinical Study Report and Individual Participant Data Transparency for US Food and Drug Administration–Approved Anticancer Drugs: A Call for Systematic Data Availability

Natansh D. Modi,Sandra M. Swain,Marc Buyse,Nicole M. Kuderer,Andrew Rowland,Frank W. Rockhold,Michael J. Sorich,Ashley M. Hopkins

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.24.00539

IF: 45.3

2024-06-27

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:Unlocking the full potential of clinical trials through comprehensive CSR and IPD sharing can revolutionize cancer care, enhance safety evaluations, and reduce bias in systematic reviews. It is time for all stakeholders to embrace transparency and advance patient-centered outcomes.

oncology
Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial Comparing a Tissue Adhesive (Dermabond™) with Adhesive Strips (Steri-Strips™) for the Closure of Laparoscopic Trocar Wounds in Children

P. Romero,G. Frongia,S. Wingerter,S. Holland-Cunz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0030-1270458

2011-01-31

European Journal of Pediatric Surgery

Abstract:Background: Methods: Results: Conclusions:
Misleading presentations in functional food trials led by contract research organizations were frequently observed in Japan : meta-epidemiological study

Hidehiro Someko,Norio Yamamoto,Tatsuya Ito,Tomoharu Suzuki,Takahiro Tsuge,Hajime Yabuzaki,Eisuke Dohi,Yuki Kataoka

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111302

IF: 7.407

2024-02-01

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract:OBJECTIVES: The functional food market has experienced significant growth, leading to an uptick in clinical trials conducted by contract research organizations (CROs). Research focusing on CRO-managed trials and the communication of trial outcomes to the consumer market remains underexplored. This metaepidemiological study aims to evaluate the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) facilitated by prominent CROs in Japan and to examine the quality of the representations used to convey their results to consumers.STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This study focused on the food trials that were registered in the University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trial Registry or the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform by the top 5 CROs. Press releases of study results or advertisements of food products based on the study results were identified by conducting a Google search. The risk of bias in the RCT publications was independently assessed by 2 reviewers, who also evaluated the presence of "spin" in the abstracts and full texts. An assessment of "spin" in press releases/advertisements was undertaken.RESULTS: A total of 76 RCT registrations, 32 RCT publications, and 11 press releases/advertisements were included. Approximately 72% of the RCT publications exhibited a high risk of bias due to selective outcome reporting. "Spin" was present in the results of the abstract (72%), abstract conclusion (81%), full-text results (44%), and full-text conclusion (84%). "Spin" appeared in 73% of press releases/advertisements due to the selective outcome reporting.CONCLUSION: Functional food presentations in Japan frequently contained "spin." The Japanese government should more rigorously check whether food manufacturers report outcomes selectively.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services
Barriers and best practices to improving clinical trials transparency at UK public research institutions: A qualitative interview study

Nicholas J DeVito,Jessica Morley,Ben Goldacre,Nicholas J. DeVito

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.104991

IF: 3.255

2024-04-01

Health Policy

Abstract:OBJECTIVES: Since 2017, the UK government has made concerted efforts to ensure the dissemination of clinical trials conducted at public research institutions. This study aims to understand how stakeholders within these institutions responded to these pressures and modified internal policies and processes while identifying best practices and barriers to improved transparency practice.METHODS: Research governance and trial management staff from UK public research institutions (i.e., Universities and NHS Trusts) in England, Scotland and Wales participated in semi-structured interviews. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis, aided by the framework method.RESULTS: Between November 2020 and July 2021, 14 individual participants were recruited from 11 different institutions. They worked in research governance, administration, and management. Almost universally, new policies and procedures have been established to ensure investigators are aware of, and supported in, fulfilling their transparency commitments, however challenges remain. Trials of medicinal products, as the most closely regulated research, consequently received the most attention. National professional networks aid in sharing knowledge and best practice within this community.CONCLUSIONS: Investment in the institutional governance of transparency is essential to achieving optimal transparency practices. Universities and hospitals share responsibility for ensuring research is performed and reported to regulatory standards. Facing political pressure, public research institutions in the UK have made efforts to improve their transparency practice which can provide key insights for similar efforts elsewhere.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
International comparison of pharmaceutical industry payment disclosures in the UK and Japan: implications for self-regulation, public regulation, and transparency

Piotr Ozieranski,Hiroaki Saito,Emily Rickard,Shai Mulinari,Akihiko Ozaki

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12992-022-00902-9

2023-03-05

Globalization and Health

Abstract:Self-regulation of payment disclosure by pharmaceutical industry trade groups is a major global approach to increasing transparency of financial relationships between drug companies and healthcare professionals and organisations. Nevertheless, little is known about the relative strengths and weaknesses of self-regulation across countries, especially beyond Europe. To address this gap in research and stimulate international policy learning, we compare the UK and Japan, the likely strongest cases of self-regulation of payment disclosure in Europe and Asia, across three dimensions of transparency: disclosure rules, practices, and data.

public, environmental & occupational health
The state of individual participant data sharing for the highest-revenue medicines

Natansh D Modi,Lee X Li,Jessica M Logan,Michael D Wiese,Ahmad Y Abuhelwa,Ross A McKinnon,Andrew Rowland,Michael J Sorich,Ashley M Hopkins

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745241286147

2024-10-18

Clinical Trials

Abstract:Clinical Trials, Ahead of Print. BackgroundAmid growing emphasis from pharmaceutical companies, advocacy groups, and regulatory bodies for sharing of individual participant data, recent audits reveal limited sharing, particularly for high-revenue medicines. Therefore, this study aimed to assess the individual participant data-sharing eligibility of clinical trials supporting the Food and Drug Administration approval of the top 30 highest-revenue medicines for 2021.MethodsA cross-sectional analysis was conducted on 316 clinical trials supporting approval of the top 30 revenue-generating medicines of 2021. The study assessed whether these trials were eligible for individual participant data sharing, defined as being publicly listed on a data-sharing platform or confirmed by the trial sponsors as in scope for independent researcher individual participant data investigations. Information was gathered from various sources including ClinicalTrials.gov, the European Union Clinical Trials Register, and PubMed. Key factors such as the trial phase, completion dates, and the nature of the data-sharing process were also examined.ResultsOf the 316 trials, 201 (64%) were confirmed eligible for sharing, meaning they were either publicly listed on a data-sharing platform or confirmed by the trial sponsors as in scope for independent researcher individual participant data investigations. A total of 102 (32%) were confirmed ineligible, and for 13 (4%), the sponsor indicated that a full research proposal would be required to determine eligibility. The analysis also revealed a higher rate of individual participant data sharing among companies that utilized independent platforms, such as Vivli, for managing their individual participant data-sharing process. Trials not marked as completed had significantly lower eligibility for individual participant data sharing.ConclusionThis study highlights that a substantial portion of trials for top revenue-generating medicines are eligible for individual participant data sharing. However, challenges persist, particularly for trials that are marked as ongoing and for trials where the sharing processes are managed internally by pharmaceutical companies. Data-sharing rates could be improved by adopting open-access individual participant data-sharing models or using independent platforms. Standardizing policies to facilitate immediate individual participant data availability for approved medicines is necessary.

medicine, research & experimental
High rate of awarding compensation for claims of injuries related to clinical trials by pharmaceutical companies in Japan: a questionnaire survey

Chieko Kurihara,Hideo Kusuoka,Shunsuke Ono,Naoko Kakee,Kazuyuki Saito,Kenji Takehara,Kiyokazu Tsujide,Yuzo Nabeoka,Takuya Sakuhiro,Hiroshi Aoki,Noriko Morishita,Chieko Suzuki,Shigeo Kachi,Emiko Kondo,Yukiko Komori,Tetsu Isobe,Shigeru Kageyama,Hiroshi Watanabe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0084998

IF: 3.7

2014-01-08

PLoS ONE

Abstract:Introduction: International norms and ethical standards have suggested that compensation for research-related injury should be provided to injured research volunteers. However, statistical data of incidence of compensation claims and the rate of awarding them have been rarely reported. Method: Questionnaire surveys were sent to pharmaceutical companies and medical institutions, focusing on industry-initiated clinical trials aiming at new drug applications (NDAs) on patient volunteers in Japan. Results: With the answers from pharmaceutical companies, the incidence of compensation was 0.8%, including 0.06% of monetary compensation. Of the cases of compensation claims, 99% were awarded. In turn, with the answers from medical institutions, the incidence of compensation was 0.6%, including 0.4% of serious but not death cases, and 0.04% of death cases. Furthermore, most claims for compensation were initiated by medical institutions, rather than by the patients. On the other hand, with the answers from clinical trial volunteers, 3% of respondents received compensations. These compensated cases were 25% of the injuries which cannot be ruled out from the scope of compensation. Conclusion: Our study results demonstrated that Japanese pharmaceutical companies have provided a high rate of compensation for clinical trial-related injuries despite the possibility of overestimation. In the era of global clinical development, our study indicates the importance of further surveys to find each country's compensation policy by determining how it is being implemented based on a survey of the actual status of compensation coming from statistical data.

[Cardiac myxoma: anatomic and clinical description of four cases (author's transl)].

Conflict of Interest and the CREATE-X Trial in the New England Journal of Medicine

Accuracy of post-publication Financial Conflict of Interest corrections in medical research: A secondary analysis of pharmaceutical company payments to the authors of the CREATE-X trial report in the New England Journal of Medicine

Increasing trends of pharmaceutical payments to breast cancer specialists in Japan: A retrospective study from 2016 to 2019

[Challenges to International Collaborative Clinical Research and Approval Disparities]

Pharmaceutical company payments to Japanese breast cancer practice guideline authors

Conflicts of Interest Among Cardiology Clinical Practice Guideline Authors in Japan

Investigators' Financial Conflict of Interest May Influent Clinical Trail

Supplementary Table S3 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Barriers and hurdles delaying governance approval for an ethically approved nationwide clinical trial in pancreatic cancer

Transitional dynamics in oncology clinical trials: evaluating the impact of Clinical Trials Act on cooperative groups

International Collaboration and Commercial Involvement in Randomized Controlled Trials From 10 Leading Countries, 1997 Through 2019

Do Editorialists With Industry-Related Conflicts of Interest Write Unduly Favorable Editorials for Cancer Drugs in Top Journals?

A retrospective look: Industry partnership and transparency in phase III randomized clinical trials of breast cancer targeted therapies across two decades.

Clinical Study Report and Individual Participant Data Transparency for US Food and Drug Administration–Approved Anticancer Drugs: A Call for Systematic Data Availability

Prospective, Randomized, Controlled Trial Comparing a Tissue Adhesive (Dermabond™) with Adhesive Strips (Steri-Strips™) for the Closure of Laparoscopic Trocar Wounds in Children

Misleading presentations in functional food trials led by contract research organizations were frequently observed in Japan : meta-epidemiological study

Barriers and best practices to improving clinical trials transparency at UK public research institutions: A qualitative interview study

International comparison of pharmaceutical industry payment disclosures in the UK and Japan: implications for self-regulation, public regulation, and transparency

The state of individual participant data sharing for the highest-revenue medicines

High rate of awarding compensation for claims of injuries related to clinical trials by pharmaceutical companies in Japan: a questionnaire survey