Article

Factors associated with findings of published trials of drug-drug comparisons: Why some statins appear more efficacious than others

Leiden University, Leyden, South Holland, Netherlands
PLoS Medicine (Impact Factor: 14). 06/2007; 4(6):e184. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040184
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Published pharmaceutical industry-sponsored trials are more likely than non-industry-sponsored trials to report results and conclusions that favor drug over placebo. Little is known about potential biases in drug-drug comparisons. This study examined associations between research funding source, study design characteristics aimed at reducing bias, and other factors that potentially influence results and conclusions in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of statin-drug comparisons.
This is a cross-sectional study of 192 published RCTs comparing a statin drug to another statin drug or non-statin drug. Data on concealment of allocation, selection bias, blinding, sample size, disclosed funding source, financial ties of authors, results for primary outcomes, and author conclusions were extracted by two coders (weighted kappa 0.80 to 0.97). Univariate and multivariate logistic regression identified associations between independent variables and favorable results and conclusions. Of the RCTs, 50% (95/192) were funded by industry, and 37% (70/192) did not disclose any funding source. Looking at the totality of available evidence, we found that almost all studies (98%, 189/192) used only surrogate outcome measures. Moreover, study design weaknesses common to published statin-drug comparisons included inadequate blinding, lack of concealment of allocation, poor follow-up, and lack of intention-to-treat analyses. In multivariate analysis of the full sample, trials with adequate blinding were less likely to report results favoring the test drug, and sample size was associated with favorable conclusions when controlling for other factors. In multivariate analysis of industry-funded RCTs, funding from the test drug company was associated with results (odds ratio = 20.16 [95% confidence interval 4.37-92.98], p < 0.001) and conclusions (odds ratio = 34.55 [95% confidence interval 7.09-168.4], p < 0.001) that favor the test drug when controlling for other factors. Studies with adequate blinding were less likely to report statistically significant results favoring the test drug.
RCTs of head-to-head comparisons of statins with other drugs are more likely to report results and conclusions favoring the sponsor's product compared to the comparator drug. This bias in drug-drug comparison trials should be considered when making decisions regarding drug choice.

1 Follower
 · 
88 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: IntroductionThere is little evidence regarding the influence of conflicts of interest on preclinical research. This study examines whether industry sponsorship is associated with increased risks of bias and/or effect sizes of outcomes in published preclinical thiazolidinedione (TZD) studies.Methods We identified preclinical TZD studies published between January 1, 1965, and November 14, 2012. Coders independently extracted information on study design criteria aimed at reducing bias, results for all relevant outcomes, sponsorship source and investigator financial ties from the 112 studies meeting the inclusion criteria. The average standardized mean difference (SMD) across studies was calculated for plasma glucose (efficacy outcome) and weight gain (harm outcome). In subgroup analyses, TZD outcomes were assessed by sponsorship source and risk of bias criteria.ResultsSeven studies were funded by industry alone, 17 studies funded by both industry and non-industry, 49 studies funded by non-industry alone and 39 studies had no disclosures. None of the studies used sample size calculations, intention-to-treat analyses, blinding of investigators or concealment of allocation. Most studies reported favourable results (88 of 112) and conclusions (95 of 112) supporting TZD use. Efficacy estimates were significantly larger in six studies sponsored by industry alone (−3.41; 95% CI −5.21, −1.53; I2 = 93%) versus 42 studies sponsored by non-industry sources (−0.97; 95% CI −1.37, −0.56; I2 = 81%; p-value = 0.01). Harms estimates were significantly larger in four studies sponsored by industry alone (5.00; 95% CI 1.22, 8.77; I2 = 93%) versus 38 studies sponsored by non-industry sources (0.30; 95% CI −0.08, 0.68; I2 = 79%; p-value = 0.02). TZD efficacy and harms did not differ by disclosure of financial COIs or risks of bias.Conclusions Industry-sponsored TZD animal studies have exaggerated efficacy and harms outcomes compared with studies funded by non-industry sources. There was poor reporting of COIs.
    04/2014; 1(1). DOI:10.1002/ebm2.5
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is a large and consistent body of evidence showing that research sponsored by for-profit industries tends to have pro-industry conclusions in comparison with similar research or re-analyses not funded by industry. Disclosure of financial conflicts via statements is presently the standard method for notification of potential biases. However, many journals are not consistent in publishing financial conflicts of interest (FCoI) statements. Furthermore, even when divulged, disclosure merely shifts the burden of evaluating conflicts to readers and the general public. Moreover, there has been an absence of a means of quantifying FCoI. To propose a solution for the question: What are we doing about FCoI that continue to compromise the integrity of the scientific enterprise? The FCoI Scale was developed for scoring and comparing FCoI and describing potential biases. The FCoI Scale consists of a score that may be expressed in whole numbers and decimal fractions, correlated to descriptive terms for potential biases and examples of financial conflicts at 11 levels. The FCoI score (FCoIS) provides a means for a more uniform and concise method of disclosure compared to statements, while at the same time permitting flexibility. It encourages the disclosure of relevant information and transparency in the reporting of financial conflicts. The FCoI Scale has the potential to become the standard basis for measuring, reporting, and comparing financial conflicts, suitable for disciplines in science, medicine, and beyond.
    International journal of occupational and environmental health 01/2015; 21(1):49-52. DOI:10.1179/2049396714Y.0000000097 · 1.10 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) examining the effects of fish oil supplementation on cardiac outcomes have yielded varying results over time. Although RCT are placed at the top of the evidence hierarchy, this methodology arose in the framework of pharmaceutical development. RCT with pharmaceuticals differ in important ways from RCT involving fish oil interventions. In particular, in pharmaceutical RCT, the test agent is present only in the intervention group and not in the control group, whereas in fish oil RCT, n-3 fats are present in the diet and in the tissues of both groups. Also, early phase studies with pharmaceuticals determine pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics to design the dose of the RCT intervention so that it is in a predicted linear dose-response range. None of this happens in fish oil RCT, and there is evidence that both baseline n-3 intake and tissue levels may be sufficiently high in the dose-response range that it is not possible to demonstrate a clinical effect with a RCT. When these issues are considered, it is possible that the changing pattern of fish consumption and fish oil use over time, especially in cardiac patients, can explain the disparity where benefit was observed in the early fish oil trials but not in the more recent trials.
    British Journal Of Nutrition 06/2014; 112(05):1-9. DOI:10.1017/S0007114514001408 · 3.34 Impact Factor

Preview (3 Sources)

Download
1 Download
Available from