Advertisement

Meta-analyses with industry involvement are massively published and report no caveats for antidepressants

  • Shanil Ebrahim
    Affiliations
    Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, 1265 Welch Road, 3rd Floor, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

    Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, 1265 Welch Road, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

    Department of Clinical Epidemiology & Biostatistics, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, Room 2C, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada

    Department of Anesthesia, McMaster University, 1200 Main Street West, HSC 2U1, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada

    Department of Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine, Hospital for Sick Children, 555 University Ave, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1X8, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Sheena Bance
    Affiliations
    Department of Applied Psychology and Human Development, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto, 252 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1V6, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Abha Athale
    Affiliations
    Department of Rehabilitation Science, University of Toronto, 500 University Ave, Toronto, Ontario M5G 1V7, Canada
    Search for articles by this author
  • Cindy Malachowski
    Affiliations
    Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Redwood Building T152, 150 Governor's Lane, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
    Search for articles by this author
  • John P.A. Ioannidis
    Correspondence
    Corresponding author. 1265 Welch Road, Medical School Office Building, Room X306, Stanford, CA 94305, USA. Tel./fax: +1 (650) 725-5465.
    Affiliations
    Stanford Prevention Research Center, Department of Medicine, Stanford University, 1265 Welch Road, 3rd Floor, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

    Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, 1265 Welch Road, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

    Department of Health Research and Policy, Stanford University School of Medicine, Redwood Building T152, 150 Governor's Lane, Stanford, CA 94305, USA

    Department of Statistics, Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences, 390 Serra Mall, Stanford, CA 94305, USA
    Search for articles by this author
Published:September 20, 2015DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.021

      Abstract

      Objectives

      To identify the impact of industry involvement in the publication and interpretation of meta-analyses of antidepressant trials in depression.

      Study Design and Setting

      Using MEDLINE, we identified all meta-analyses evaluating antidepressants for depression published in January 2007–March 2014. We extracted data pertaining to author affiliations, conflicts of interest, and whether the conclusion of the abstract included negative statements on whether the antidepressant(s) were effective or safe.

      Results

      We identified 185 eligible meta-analyses. Fifty-four meta-analyses (29%) had authors who were employees of the assessed drug manufacturer, and 147 (79%) had some industry link (sponsorship or authors who were industry employees and/or had conflicts of interest). Only 58 meta-analyses (31%) had negative statements in the concluding statement of the abstract. Meta-analyses including an author who were employees of the manufacturer of the assessed drug were 22-fold less likely to have negative statements about the drug than other meta-analyses [1/54 (2%) vs. 57/131 (44%); P < 0.001].

      Conclusion

      There is a massive production of meta-analyses of antidepressants for depression authored by or linked to the industry, and they almost never report any caveats about antidepressants in their abstracts. Our findings add a note of caution for meta-analyses with ties to the manufacturers of the assessed products.

      Keywords

      To read this article in full you will need to make a payment

      Purchase one-time access:

      Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
      One-time access price info
      • For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
      • For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'

      Subscribe:

      Subscribe to Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
      Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
      Already an online subscriber? Sign in
      Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect

      References

        • Moher D.
        • Tetzlaff J.
        • Tricco A.C.
        • Sampson M.
        • Altman D.G.
        Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews.
        PLos Med. 2007; 4: e78
        • Stamatakis E.
        • Weiler R.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Undue industry influences that distort healthcare research, strategy, expenditure and practice: a review.
        Eur J Clin Invest. 2013; 43: 469-475
        • Jørgensen A.W.
        • Maric K.L.
        • Tendal B.
        • Faurschou A.
        • Gøtzsche P.C.
        Industry-supported meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses with non-profit or no support: differences in methodological quality and conclusions.
        BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008; 9: 60
        • Jørgensen A.W.
        • Hilden J.
        • Gøtzsche P.C.
        Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review.
        BMJ. 2006; 333: 782
        • Djulbegovic B.
        • Kumar A.
        • Miladinovic B.
        • Reljic T.
        • Galeb S.
        • Mhaskar A.
        • et al.
        Treatment success in cancer: industry compared to publicly sponsored randomized controlled trials.
        PLoS One. 2013; 8: e58711
        • Lundh A.
        • Sismondo S.
        • Lexchin J.
        • Busuioc O.A.
        • Bero L.
        Industry sponsorship and research outcome.
        Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012; 12: MR000033
        • Kelly R.J.
        • Cohen L.J.
        • Semple R.J.
        • Bialer P.
        • Lau A.
        • Bodenheimer A.
        • et al.
        Relationship between drug company funding and outcomes of clinical psychiatric research.
        Psychol Med. 2006; 36: 1647-1656
      1. U.S. Anti-Depressant Market - Old Fashion Branding Could Save The Day. Available at http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/p35qmw/u_s. Accessed February 26, 2014.

        • Hammad T.A.
        • Laughren T.
        • Racoosin J.
        Suicidality in pediatric patients treated with antidepressant drugs.
        Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2006; 63: 332-339
      2. Relationship between psychotropic drugs and pediatric suicidality: review and evaluation of clinical data. Available at http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/04/briefing/2004-4065b1-10-TAB08-Hammads-Review.pdf]. Accessed February 26, 2014.

        • Kirsch I.
        • Deacon B.J.
        • Huedo-Medina T.B.
        • Scoboria A.
        • Moore T.J.
        • Johnson B.T.
        Initial severity and antidepressant benefits: a meta-analysis of data submitted to the Food and Drug Administration.
        PLos Med. 2008; 5: e45
        • Haidich A.B.
        • Pilalas D.
        • Contopoulos-Ioannidis D.G.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Most meta-analyses of drug interventions have narrow scopes and many focus on specific agents.
        J Clin Epidemiol. 2013; 66: 371-378
        • Chimonas S.
        • Frosch Z.
        • Rothman D.J.
        From disclosure to transparency: the use of company payment data.
        Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171: 81-86
        • Guay D.R.
        Vilazodone hydrochloride, a combined SSRI and 5-HT1A receptor agonist for major depressive disorder.
        Consult Pharm. 2012; 27: 857-867
        • Fleurence R.
        • Williamson R.
        • Jing Y.
        • Kim E.
        • Tran Q.V.
        • Pikalov A.S.
        • et al.
        A systematic review of augmentation strategies for patients with major depressive disorder.
        Psychopharmacol Bull. 2009; 42: 57-90
        • Robinson D.S.
        • Gilmor M.L.
        • Yang Y.
        • Moonsammy G.
        • Azzaro A.J.
        • Oren D.A.
        • et al.
        Treatment effects of selegiline transdermal system on symptoms of major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis of short-term, placebo-controlled, efficacy trials.
        Psychopharmacol Bull. 2007; 40: 15-28
        • Reynolds T.
        Industry-funded versus publicly funded trials: are the standards the same?.
        J Natl Cancer Inst. 2001; 93: 1590-1592
        • Thomas O.
        • Thabane L.
        • Douketis J.
        • Chu R.
        • Westfall A.O.
        • Allison D.B.
        Industry funding and the reporting quality of large long-term weight loss trials.
        Int J Obes (Lond). 2008; 32: 1531-1536
        • Khan N.A.
        • Lombeida J.I.
        • Singh M.
        • Spencer H.J.
        • Torralba K.D.
        Association of industry funding with the outcome and quality of randomized controlled trials of drug therapy for rheumatoid arthritis.
        Arthritis Rheum. 2012; 64: 2059-2067
        • Peura P.
        • Martikainen J.A.
        • Purmonen T.T.
        • Turunen J.H.
        Sponsorship-related outcome selection bias in published economic studies of triptans: systematic review.
        Med Decis Making. 2012; 32: 237-245
        • Lathyris D.
        • Patsopoulos N.A.
        • Salanti G.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Industry sponsorship and selection of comparators in randomized clinical trials.
        Eur J Clin Invest. 2010; 40: 172-182
        • Yank V.
        • Rennie D.
        • Bero L.A.
        Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study.
        BMJ. 2007; 335: 1202-1205
        • Dunn A.G.
        • Arachi D.
        • Hudgins J.
        • Tsafnat G.
        • Coiera E.
        • Bourgeois F.T.
        Financial conflicts of interest and conclusions about neuraminidase inhibitors for influenza: an analysis of systematic reviews.
        Ann Intern Med. 2014; 161: 513-518
        • Fugh-Berman A.
        • McDonald C.P.
        • Bell A.M.
        • Bethards E.C.
        • Scialli A.R.
        Promotional tone in reviews of menopausal hormone therapy after the Women's Health Initiative: an analysis of published articles.
        PLos Med. 2011; 8: e1000425
        • Hartog C.S.
        • Skupin H.
        • Natanson C.
        • Sun J.
        • Reinhart K.
        Systematic analysis of hydroxyethyl starch (HES) reviews: proliferation of low-quality reviews overwhelms the results of well-performed meta-analyses.
        Intensive Care Med. 2012; 38: 1258-1271
        • Tatsioni A.
        • Siontis G.C.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Partisan perspectives in the medical literature: a study of high frequency editorialists favoring hormone replacement therapy.
        J Gen Intern Med. 2010; 25: 914-919
        • Brunton S.
        • Wang F.
        • Edwards S.B.
        • Crucitti A.S.
        • Ossanna M.J.
        • Walker D.J.
        • et al.
        Profile of adverse events with duloxetine treatment: a pooled analysis of placebo-controlled studies.
        Drug Saf. 2010; 33: 393-407
      3. Report development. Available at http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/epc/. Accessed June 2, 2014.

      4. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Available at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=13059

        • Gøtzsche P.C.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Content area experts as authors: helpful or harmful for systematic reviews and meta-analyses?.
        BMJ. 2012; 345: e7031
        • Smith R.
        • Gøtzsche P.C.
        • Groves T.
        Should journals stop publishing research funded by the drug industry?.
        BMJ. 2014; 348: g171
        • Siontis K.C.
        • Hernandez-Boussard T.
        • Ioannidis J.P.
        Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies.
        BMJ. 2013; 347: f4501

      Linked Article

      • Beyond the corrupting influence of pharmaceutical companies on antidepressant meta-analyses (Letter commenting on: J Clin Epidemiol. 70, 2016, 155−163)
        Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyVol. 78
        • Preview
          I am an admirer of Ioannidis's articles. His latest article [1] focuses on the corruption of meta-analyses by psychiatrists defending pharmaceutical company interests. I agree (1) that ghost writing and the unwillingness of psychiatric journals to correct mistakes are signs of corruption among some academic psychiatrists, and (2) this contributes to skepticism about antidepressant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and meta-analyses. However, as Feinstein critiqued [2], “The doctors try to escape the ardors of thinking: appraisals are delegated to appropriate ‘specialists.’ (The latest approach in the escape process is to delegate appraisals to the specialized meta-analytic results proclaimed as ‘evidence-based medicine.’ The process is not always successful, however, because the results often differ from medicine-based evidence.).” “Specialists” with no psychiatric training review antidepressant meta-analyses without appreciating: (1) major depression is not a “disease,” but a syndrome [3]; (2) the total score on the Hamilton depression scale is a poor efficacy measure [4]; and (3) very little connection exists between suicidal ideation and completed suicide [5].
        • Full-Text
        • PDF