Industry effects on evidence: a case study of long-acting injectable antipsychotics

ABSTRACT

A vigorously debated issue in the psychiatric literature is whether long-acting injectable antipsychotics (LAIs) show clinical benefit over antipsychotics taken orally. In addressing this question, it is critical that systematic reviews incorporate risk of bias assessments of trial data in a robust way and are free of undue industry influence. In this paper, we present a case analysis in which we identify some of the design problems in a recent systematic review on LAIs vs oral formulations. This case illustrates how evidence syntheses that are shaped by commercial interests may undermine patient-centered models of recovery and care. We offer recommendations that address both the bioethical and research design issues that arise in the systematic review process when researchers have financial conflicts of interest.

KEYWORDS:

• Industry influence
• conflict of interest
• bioethics
• research bias
• organizational and institutional ethics
• commercial interests

Disclosure statement

The authors have no affiliations with or involvement in any organization or entity with any financial interest or personal/professional interest in the subject matter discussed. This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Additional information

Funding

The author(s) reported there is no funding associated with the work featured in this article.