Survey Shows Close Collaboration in Industry-Funded Academic Trials 
​[Thursday, October 11, 2018]

In industry-funded clinical trials run by academics, the industry participants play an important role in the design, conduct and reporting of the trials, a fact appreciated by more than 90% of the academic collaborators. In a survey published last week, researchers reviewed critical decision processes regarding Phase III and IV clinical trials lead by academic investigators and funded by the industry and found that industry participants were not passive contributors. Clinical trials are complex, long-term and expensive projects. Academia lacks the resources and motivation to fund the quality systems needed to run high quality clinical trials, particularly large exercises such as Phase III and IV clinical trials. It has been suggested that Industry and academia should develop constructive partnerships and learn from each other. And it seems it is happening. The survey shows some interesting trends. Most industry-academia collaborative trials involved industry as the primary funder for the trial and included large teams of researchers, both from the funder and the academic centers. In more than 90% of the trials, the funders and the academics were both involved in design, conduct and reporting, and in most cases the funder also involved CROs to assure trial monitoring and management. Funders played a bigger role in the analysis of the data but still involved the academic participants in the final reports. Academic authors were involved in the choice of comparator treatment in most trials, whereas funders were involved in choice of outcomes in most trials. The funders were also involved in writing the manuscripts in most cases and were listed as authors on the publications. Most such collaborations were covered by confidentiality agreements, and in many cases the funders had the right to review and comment on the manuscript and presentations prior to publishing but mostly the funder did not have the right of approval for publication. Disagreements between the funders and academics were reported by only one respondent to the survey. This shows a positive relationship between industry and academia to conduct good quality research. In such collaborations, academics usually help identify clinical sites and play a major role in the design of the study, while industry members lead in monitoring and reporting processes. Both partners control databases and analysis, explore relevant scientific questions, and discuss the generation of new hypotheses. It is important for the two partners to form of a constructive collaboration, and it seems like it is.