We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Special Article | Health Care Reform

Association Between Pharmaceutical Support and Basic Science Research on Erythropoiesis-Stimulating Agents

Charles L. Bennett, MD, PhD, MPP; Stephen Y. Lai, MD, PhD; Michael Henke, MD; Sara E. Barnato, MD; James O. Armitage, MD; Oliver Sartor, MD
Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(16):1490-1498. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2010.309.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Background  To our knowledge, no prior research has evaluated the association between pharmaceutical industry funding and basic science research results. When erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) were licensed to treat chemotherapy-associated anemia, basic science concerns related to potential cancer stimulation were raised. We evaluated associations between pharmaceutical industry support and reported findings evaluating ESA effects on cancer cells.

Methods  Articles identified in MEDLINE and EMBASE databases (1988-2008) investigating basic science findings related to ESA administration in the solid tumor setting were reviewed. Outcomes included information on erythropoietin receptors (EpoRs), Epo-induced signaling events, cellular function, and qualitative conclusions. Information on study funding (academic investigators with no reported funding from ESA manufacturers [64 studies], academic investigators with grant funding from ESA manufacturers [7 studies], and investigators employed by the ESA manufacturers [3 studies]) was evaluated. Some studies did not include information on each outcome.

Results  Investigators without funding from ESA manufacturers were more likely than academic investigators with such funding or investigators employed by ESA manufacturers to identify EpoRs on solid tumor cells (100%, 60%, and 67%, respectively; P = .009), Epo-induced signaling events (94%, 0%, and 0%, respectively; P = .001), or changes in cellular function (57%, 0%, and 0%, respectively; P = .007) and to conclude that ESAs had potentially harmful effects on cancer cells (57%, 0%, and 0%, respectively; P = .008).

Conclusions  Researchers who do not have pharmaceutical industry support are more likely than those with pharmaceutical support to identify detrimental in vitro effects of ESAs. The potential for conflicts of interest to affect basic science research should be considered.

Figures in this Article

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?


Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.

Search methods for articles investigating erythropoietin receptors (EpoRs) in solid tumors.

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.

Percentage of published studies. A, Percentage of published studies identifying the presence of EpoRs, Epo-induced signaling events, and Epo-induced changes in cellular function. B, Percentage of published studies identifying qualitative conclusions (ESAs harmful or ESAs beneficial) by funding source. Epo indicates erythropoietin; EpoRs, erythropoietin receptors; and ESAs, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents.

Graphic Jump Location




Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

14 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections