The effects on clinical trial activity of direct funding and taxation policy interventions made by government: A systematic review

Abstract

Context Governments have attempted to increase clinical trial activity in their jurisdictions using a range of methods including targeted direct funding and industry tax rebates. The effectiveness of the different approaches employed is unclear. Objective To systematically review the effects of direct government financing interventions by allowing companies to reduce their tax payable on clinical trial activity. Data sources Pub Med, Scopus, Sage, ProQuest, Google Scholar and Google were searched up to the 11th of April 2022. In addition, the reference lists of all potentially eligible documents were hand searched to identify additional reports. Following feedback from co-authors, information on a small number of additional interventions were specifically sought out and included. Data extraction Summary information about potentially eligible reports were reviewed independently by two researchers, followed by extraction of data into a structured spreadsheet for eligible studies. The primary outcomes of interest were the number of clinical trials and the expenditure on clinical trials but data about other evaluations were also collected. Results There were 1694 potentially eligible reports that were reviewed. Full text assessments were done for 304, and 30 reports that provided data on 43 interventions were included– 29 that deployed targeted direct funding and 14 that provided tax rebates or exemptions. There were data describing effects on a primary outcome for 25/41 of the interventions. The most common types of interventions were direct funding to researchers via special granting mechanisms and tax offsets to companies and research organisations. All 25 of the studies for which data were available reported a positive impact on numbers and/or expenditure on clinical trials though the robustness of evaluations was limited for many. Estimates of the magnitude of effects of interventions were reported inconsistently, varied substantially, and could not be synthesised quantitatively, though targeted direct funding interventions appeared to be associated with more immediate impact on clinical trial activity. Conclusion There is a high likelihood that governments can increase clinical trial activity with either direct or indirect fiscal mechanisms. Direct funding may provide a more immediate and tangible return on investment than tax rebates.