Funding and conclusions of network meta-analyses on targeted therapies in inflammatory diseases: an overview

Abstract

ObjectivesTo explore the association between industry funding and network meta-analyses’ (NMAs) conclusion, and the use in Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) of NMAs. Study Design and SettingThis was an overview of NMAs and CPGs. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and several guideline databases up to February 18th 2023. We included CPGs from the last 5 years and NMAs of randomized controlled trials that evaluated targeted therapies in immune-mediated inflammatory diseases. Data extraction and outcome assessments were done in duplicate by independent authors. ResultsWe included 216 NMAs and 99 CPGs. 31% (67/216) were industry-funded. The proportion of industry-funded NMAs that cited one treatment as being best was 44% (25/57) compared to 26% (30/116) for nonindustry-funded (OR = 2.24 [1.15-4.39]; aOR = 1.76 [0.81-3.81]). The abstract's conclusion of 39/67 (58%) industry-funded and 69/149 (46%) nonindustry-funded NMAs were considered unsupported by the results (OR = 1.61 [0.90-2.89]; aOR = 1.40 [0.71-2.78]). All industry-funded NMAs that cited one treatment as best cited their own sponsored drug. 59/99 (60%) CPGs included at least one NMA, with 23/59 (39%) of them citing industry-funded NMAs. ConclusionsWe did not find evidence that industry-funded NMAs were more likely to have unsupported conclusions or to cite only one treatment as being best in their conclusions compared to non-industry-funded NMAs. However, almost all industry-funded NMAs favored their own treatments. Even though 40% of the CPGs did not rely on NMA, over a third of those who did used industry-funded NMAs. Limitations include the possible misclassification due to undisclosed funding and potential confounders that have not been accounted for.