Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2012;9(8):e1001280.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001280. Epub 2012 Aug 7.

Conflict of interest reporting by authors involved in promotion of off-label drug use: an analysis of journal disclosures

Affiliations

Conflict of interest reporting by authors involved in promotion of off-label drug use: an analysis of journal disclosures

Aaron S Kesselheim et al. PLoS Med. 2012.

Abstract

Background: Litigation documents reveal that pharmaceutical companies have paid physicians to promote off-label uses of their products through a number of different avenues. It is unknown whether physicians and scientists who have such conflicts of interest adequately disclose such relationships in the scientific publications they author.

Methods and findings: We collected whistleblower complaints alleging illegal off-label marketing from the US Department of Justice and other publicly available sources (date range: 1996-2010). We identified physicians and scientists described in the complaints as having financial relationships with defendant manufacturers, then searched Medline for articles they authored in the subsequent three years. We assessed disclosures made in articles related to the off-label use in question, determined the frequency of adequate disclosure statements, and analyzed characteristics of the authors (specialty, author position) and articles (type, connection to off-label use, journal impact factor, citation count/year). We identified 39 conflicted individuals in whistleblower complaints. They published 404 articles related to the drugs at issue in the whistleblower complaints, only 62 (15%) of which contained an adequate disclosure statement. Most articles had no disclosure (43%) or did not mention the pharmaceutical company (40%). Adequate disclosure rates varied significantly by article type, with commentaries less likely to have adequate disclosure compared to articles reporting original studies or trials (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 0.10, 95%CI = 0.02-0.67, p = 0.02). Over half of the authors (22/39, 56%) made no adequate disclosures in their articles. However, four of six authors with ≥ 25 articles disclosed in about one-third of articles (range: 10/36-8/25 [28%-32%]).

Conclusions: One in seven authors identified in whistleblower complaints as involved in off-label marketing activities adequately disclosed their conflict of interest in subsequent journal publications. This is a much lower rate of adequate disclosure than has been identified in previous studies. The non-disclosure patterns suggest shortcomings with authors and the rigor of journal practices. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared the following competing interests: ASK was co-chair of a conference entitled Conflicts of Interest in the Practice of Medicine: A National Symposium sponsored by the American Society of Law, Medicine, and Ethics, the Highmark Foundation, the Jewish Healthcare Foundation, and the University of Pittsburgh; ASK was paid a small honorarium for his effort. In 2008-2009, ASK served as an expert witness for the state of Texas in a case against Merck alleging inappropriate promotion of rofecoxib (Vioxx), and ASK served as an expert witness for a class of individual plaintiffs in a case against AstraZeneca alleging inappropriate promotion of esomeprazole (Nexium). All other authors have declared no competing interests.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1. Flowchart categorization of articles in sample according to the adequacy of their conflicts of interest disclosures.
Figure 2
Figure 2. Counts and proportions of articles with adequate disclosure, by author.
Each vertical line is a unique author, and the y-axis shows the number of articles published by that author. The extent of the vertical line above or below zero represents the frequency of adequate and inadequate disclosure for each author.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O (2003) Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 326: 1167–1170. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP (2003) Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 289: 454–465. - PubMed
    1. Ridker PM, Torres J (2006) Reported outcomes in major cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and not-for-profit organizations: 2000–2005. JAMA 295: 2270–2274. - PubMed
    1. Sage WM (2007) Some principles require principals: why banning “conflicts of interest” won't solve incentive problems in biomedical research. Texas Law Rev 85: 1413–1463.
    1. Institute of Medicine, Board on Health Sciences Policy (2009) Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Washington, D.C.: NAS Press.

Publication types