Has industry funding biased studies of the protective effects of alcohol on cardiovascular disease? A preliminary investigation of prospective cohort studies

INTRODUCTION AND AIMS: There have been no previous quantitative analyses of the possible effects of industry funding on alcohol and health research. This study examines whether findings of alcohol's protective effects on cardiovascular disease may be biased by industry funding. DESIGN AND METHODS: Findings from a recent systematic review of prospective cohort studies were combined with public domain data on alcohol industry funding. The six outcomes evaluated were alcohol's effects on cardiovascular disease mortality, incident coronary heart disease, coronary heart disease mortality, incident stroke, stroke mortality and mortality from all causes. RESULTS: We find no evidence of possible funding effects for outcomes other than stroke. Whether studies find alcohol to be a risk factor or protective against incident stroke depends on whether or not there is possible industry funding [risk ratio (RR) 1.07 (0.97–1.17) for those without concern about industry funding compared with RR 0.88 (0.81–0.94)]. For stroke mortality, a similar difference is not statistically significant, most likely because there are too few studies. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: Dedicated high-quality studies of possible alcohol industry funding effects should be undertaken, and these should be broad in scope. They also need to investigate specific areas of concern, such as stroke, in greater depth. [McCambridge J, Hartwell G. Has industry funding biased studies of the protective effects of alcohol on cardiovascular disease? A preliminary investigation of prospective cohort studies. Drug Alcohol Rev 2015;34:58–66]