Conflicts of interest in randomized controlled trials reported in neurosurgical journals.

OBJECTIVE: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) form the basis of today's evidence-based approach to medicine, and play a critical role in guidelines and the drug and device approval process. Conflicts of interest (COIs) are commonplace in medical research, but little is known about their influence. The authors aimed to evaluate the extent and influence of COIs in recent RCTs published in core neurosurgical journals using a cross-sectional analysis. METHODS: Through review of 6 general neurosurgical journals, all interventional RCTs published from January 2009 to January 2019 were identified. Because it is difficult to objectively assess study outcome, the authors opted for a strict rating approach based on the statistical significance of unambiguously reported primary endpoints, and the reported statistical protocol. RESULTS: A total of 129 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. During the study period, the Journal of Neurosurgery published the largest number of RCTs (n = 40, 31%). Any potential COI was disclosed by 57%, and a mean of 12% of authors had a personal COI. Nonfinancial industry involvement was reported in 10%, while 31% and 20% received external support and sponsoring, respectively. Study registration was reported by 56%, while 51% of studies were blinded. Registration showed an increasing trend from 17% to 76% (p < 0.001). The median randomized sample size was 92 (interquartile range 50-153), and 8% were designed to investigate noninferiority or equality. Sixty-three RCTs (49%) unambiguously reported a primary endpoint, of which 13% were composite primary endpoints. In 43%, study outcome was positive, which was associated with a noninferiority design (31% vs 3%, p = 0.007) and a composite primary endpoint (46% vs 9%, p = 0.002). Potential COIs were not significantly associated with study positivity (69% vs 59%, p = 0.433). In the multivariate analysis, only a composite primary endpoint remained predictive of a positive study outcome (odds ratio 6.34, 95% confidence interval 1.51-33.61, p = 0.017). CONCLUSIONS: This analysis provides an overview of COIs and their potential influence on recent trials published in core neurosurgical journals. Reporting of primary endpoints, study registration, and uniform disclosure of COIs are crucial to ensure the quality of future neurosurgical randomized trials. COIs do not appear to significantly influence the outcome of randomized neurosurgical trials.

Conflicts of interest and industry professional relationships in psychiatric neurosurgery: a comparative literature review.

OBJECTIVE The research required to establish that psychiatric treatments are effective often depends on collaboration between academic clinical researchers and industry. Some of the goals of clinical practice and those of commercial developers of psychiatric therapies overlap, such as developing safe and effective treatments. However, there might also be incompatible goals; physicians aim to provide the best care they can to their patients, whereas the medical industry ultimately aims to develop therapies that are commercially successful. In some cases, however, clinical research may be aiming both at improved patient care and commercial success. It is in these cases that a conflict of interest (COI) arises. The goal of this study was to identify differences and commonalities regarding COIs between 2 kinds of somatic psychiatric interventions: pharmacological and neurosurgical. METHODS The authors conducted a study focused on professional concerns regarding pharmacological and neurosurgical psychiatric interventions. They used medical and bioethics journal articles as an indicator of professionals' concerns and carried out a thematic content analysis of peer-reviewed articles published between 1960 and 2015, using PubMed and Google Scholar. RESULTS One hundred thirty-seven relevant articles were identified, of which 86 papers focused primarily on psychopharmacology and 51 on neurosurgery. The intervention most discussed in the psychiatric neurosurgery data set was deep brain stimulation (n = 42). While there were no significant differences at the level of categories, pharmacological and neurosurgical interventions differ in the underlying themes discussed. Two issues widely discussed in the articles on pharmaceutical interventions, but largely neglected in the neurosurgery articles, were medical professional issues and industry involvement. CONCLUSIONS COIs are a neglected issue in the discussion of ethics concerns regarding medical devices in psychiatry. Yet as these interventions become more common, it is important to address them in part through learning from the discussion regarding COIs in the pharmaceutical industry and by developing approaches to address those aspects of COIs that are unique to the medical device industry.

Conflict of interest policies and disclosure requirements in neurosurgical journals.

OBJECTIVE: An increasing amount of funding in neurosurgery research comes from industry, which may create a conflict of interest (COI) and the potential to bias results. The reporting and handling of COIs have become difficult, particularly as explicit policies themselves and definitions thereof continue to vary between medical journals. In this study, the authors sought to evaluate the prevalence and comprehensiveness of COI policies among leading neurosurgical journals. METHODS: The authors conducted a cross-sectional study of publicly available online disclosure policies in the 20 highest-ranking neurosurgical journals, as determined by Google Scholar Metrics, in July 2016. RESULTS: Overall, 89.5% of the highest-impact neurosurgical journals included COI policy statements. Ten (53%) journals requested declaration of nonfinancial conflicts, while 2 journals specifically set a time period for COIs. Sixteen journals required declaration from the corresponding author, 13 from all authors, 6 from reviewers, and 5 from editors. Four journals were included in the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) list of publications that follow the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals (currently known as Recommendations for the Conduct, Reporting, Editing, and Publication of Scholarly Work in Medical Journals). Five journal policies included COI declaration verification, management, or enforcement. The neurosurgery journals with more comprehensive COI policies were significantly more likely to have higher h5-indices (p = 0.003) and higher impact factors (p = 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: In 2016, the majority of, but not all, high-impact neurosurgical journals had publically available COI disclosure policies. Policy inclusiveness and comprehensiveness varied substantially across neurosurgical journals, but COI comprehensiveness was associated with other established markers of individual journals' favorability and influence, such as impact factor and h5-index.

Four-year results of a prospective single-arm study on 200 semi-constrained total cervical disc prostheses: clinical and radiographic outcome.

OBJECTIVE Recent studies have described encouraging outcomes after cervical total disc replacement (cTDR), but there are also critical debates regarding the long-term effects of heterotopic ossification (HO) and the prevalence of adjacent-level degeneration. The aim in this paper was to provide 4-year clinical and radiographic outcome results on the activ C disc prosthesis. METHODS A total of 200 subjects underwent single-level activ C (Aesculap AG) implantation between C-3 and C-7 for the treatment of symptomatic degenerative disc disease. Clinical and radiographic assessments were performed preoperatively, intraoperatively, at discharge, and again at 6 weeks, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, and 4 years. Radiographic evaluations were done by an independent core laboratory using a specific software for quantitative motion analysis. RESULTS Neck Disability Index (NDI) and visual analog scale (VAS) score for neck and arm pain decreased significantly from baseline to the 4-year follow-up. The mean improvement for NDI was 20, for VAS severity and frequency of neck pain 26.4 and 28, and for VAS severity and frequency of arm pain 30.7 and 35.1, respectively. The neurological situation improved for the majority of patients (86.4%); 76.1% of cases were asymptomatic. Subsequent surgical interventions were reported in 7% of the cases, including device removals in 3%. In 2.5% a subsidence greater than 3 mm was recorded; 1 of these cases also had a migration greater than 3 mm. No device displacement, expulsion, disassembly, loose or fractured device, osteolysis, or facet joint degeneration at the index level was observed. Segmental lordotic alignment changed from -2.4° preoperatively to -6.2° at 4 years, and postoperative height was maintained during the follow-up. Advanced HO (Grade III and IV) was present in 27.1% of the cases; 82.4% showed segmental mobility. A progression of radiographic adjacent-segment degeneration occurred in 28.2%, but only 4.5% required surgical treatment. CONCLUSIONS The activ C is a safe and effective device for cervical disc replacement confirming the encouraging results after cTDR. Clinical trial registration no.: NCT02492724 ( clinicaltrials.gov ).

Off-label innovation: characterization through a case study of rhBMP-2 for spinal fusion.

OBJECTIVE Off-label therapies are widely used in clinical practice by spinal surgeons. Some patients and practitioners have advocated for increased regulation of their use, and payers have increasingly questioned reimbursment for off-label therapies. In this study, the authors applied a model that quantifies publication data to analyze the developmental process from initial on-label use to off-label innovation, using as an example recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP-2) because of its wide off-label use. METHODS As a case study of off-label innovation, the developmental patterns of rhBMP-2 from FDA-approved use for anterior lumbar interbody fusion to several of its off-label uses, including posterolateral lumbar fusion, anterior cervical discectomy and fusion, and posterior lumbar interbody fusion/transforaminal lumbar interbody fusion, were evaluated using the "progressive scholarly acceptance" (PSA) model. In this model, PSA is used as an end point indicating acceptance of a therapy or procedure by the relevant scientific community and is reached when the total number of peer-reviewed studies devoted to refinement or improvement of a therapy surpasses the total number assessing initial efficacy. Report characteristics, including the number of patients studied and study design, were assessed in addition to the time to and pattern of community acceptance, and results compared with previous developmental study findings. Disclosures and reported conflicts of interest for all articles were reviewed, and these data were also used in the analysis. RESULTS Publication data indicated that the acceptance of rhBMP-2 off-label therapies occurred more rapidly and with less evidence than previously studied on-label therapies. Additionally, the community appeared to respond more robustly (by rapidly changing publication patterns) to reports of adverse events than to new questions of efficacy. CONCLUSIONS The development of off-label therapies, including the influence of investigative methods, regulation, and changing perspectives, can be characterized on the basis of publication patterns. The approach and findings in this report could inform future off-label development of therapies and procedures as well as attempts to regulate off-label use.