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
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective To explore the risk of industry sponsorship bias in a systematically identified set of placebo controlled and active comparator trials of statins. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis. Eligibility Open label and double blind randomised controlled trials comparing one statin with another at any dose or with control (placebo, diet, or usual care) for adults with, or at risk of developing, cardiovascular disease. Only trials that lasted longer than four weeks with more than 50 participants per trial arm were included. Two investigators assessed study eligibility. Data sources Bibliographic databases and reference lists of relevant articles published between 1 January 1985 and 10 March 2013. Data extraction One investigator extracted data and another confirmed accuracy. Main outcome measure Mean absolute change from baseline concentration of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Data synthesis Study level outcomes from randomised trials were combined using random effects network meta-analyses. Results We included 183 randomised controlled trials of statins, 103 of which were two-armed or multi-armed active comparator trials. When all of the existing randomised evidence was synthesised in network meta-analyses, there were clear differences in the LDL cholesterol lowering effects of individual statins at different doses. In general, higher doses resulted in higher reductions in baseline LDL cholesterol levels. Of a total of 146 industry sponsored trials, 64 were placebo controlled (43.8%). The corresponding number for the non-industry sponsored trials was 16 (43.2%). Of the 35 unique comparisons available in 37 non-industry sponsored trials, 31 were also available in industry sponsored trials. There were no systematic differences in magnitude between the LDL cholesterol lowering effects of individual statins observed in industry sponsored versus non-industry sponsored trials. In industry sponsored trials, the mean change from baseline LDL cholesterol level was on average 1.77 mg/dL (95% credible interval −11.12 to 7.66) lower than the change observed in non-industry sponsored trials. There was no detectable inconsistency in the evidence network. Conclusions Our analysis shows that the findings obtained from industry sponsored statin trials seem similar in magnitude as those in non-industry sources. There are actual differences in the effectiveness of individual statins at various doses that explain previously observed discrepancies between industry and non-industry sponsored trials.
    BMJ Clinical Research 10/2014; 349:g5741. DOI:10.1136/bmj.g5741 · 14.09 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Industry funding and financial conflicts of interest may contribute to bias in the synthesis and interpretation of scientific evidence.
    Annals of internal medicine 10/2014; 161(7):513-518. DOI:10.7326/M14-0933 · 16.10 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Introduction Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic autoimmune disease characterized by systemic joint inflammation that often leads to significant disability. Several effective anti–TNF agents have been used, but some patients have shown an inadequate response. Rituximab is a therapeutic monoclonal antibody indicated in such cases. Methods We conducted a systematic review to access efficacy and safety of rituximab in patients with active RA which have or have not been treated with anti–TNF agents before, and to relate outcome with RF and anti–CCP serology. We searched major electronics databases, grey literature and searched for references manually. We used Review Manager®5.1 for meta–analysis. Results We included six RCTs comparing rituximab 1000 mg with placebo. Methotrexate was used by both groups. Treatment with rituximab was more effective in naïve and in anti–TNF treatment failure patients ACR20/50/70 and EULAR response. We observed lower changes in Total Genant–modified Sharp score, erosion score and joint narrowing scores in the rituximab group, and SF–36, FACIT–T and HAQ–DI scores were also better in this group. There were no differences between groups regarding safety outcomes, with exception of acute injection reactions, which were more common on rituximab group. More RF/anti–CCP seropositive patients achieved ACR20 than RF/anti–CP negative patients in rituximab group. Conclusion Available data support the use of rituximab for the treatment of RA, as it is an effective and safe option for naïve and anti–TNF treatment failure patients. RF and anti–CCP seam to influence treatment results, but this inference needs further research.
    Revista Brasileira de Reumatologia 05/2014; 54(3):220–230. DOI:10.1016/j.rbr.2013.08.001 · 0.99 Impact Factor

Preview (3 Sources)

1 Download
Available from