Phone 0800 HEALTH

For-Profit Research More Favorable in Drug Trials

For-Profit Research More Favorable in Drug Trials

Friday, August 22nd 2003

Conclusions in randomized drug trials funded by for-profit organizations may be more positive than those funded by nonprofit organizations because of biased interpretations of trial results, a new study finds. Bias may be introduced by subtle factors, such as an emphasis on results from surrogate outcomes or subgroups, or by more explicit ones, such as a financial conflict of interest, according to the authors.

Regardless, the recurring evidence that suggests a link between industry-backed research and positive conclusions of drug trials argues for establishing an international register, available to the public, of all randomized clinical trials, according to the study published in the Aug. 20 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association. The register would "enable the public to follow the development of drugs from the beginning of Phase 2 trials," said the authors, and would make available "data from unpublished randomized trials irrespective of funding source or results."

The authors, from the Center for Clinical Intervention Research at Denmark's Copenhagen University Hospital, conclude, "Editors, peer reviewers, and readers of trial reports should evaluate carefully the trial data to determine if the reported conclusions are supported by the data."

Officials at Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the industry group that represents drugmakers, had not seen the study and were not able to comment on its findings.

Based on the premise that industry-sponsored trials tend to draw conclusions in support of their drugs in development, the researchers sought to examine whether the link between funding and the conclusions derived from drug trials reflected the extent of the treatment effect (the difference in outcomes between groups) or the occurrence of adverse events. Adverse events were classified into four categories: no significant difference between study and control groups, significantly more frequent in the control group, significantly more frequent in the study group, or not reported.

Using a random sample of 167 reviews selected from the May 2001 Cochrane Library, the researchers identified 25 reviews of 370 drug trials that contained eligible meta-analyses, or models that contained the assessment of a binary outcome and noted the influence of a selection bias. The primary binary outcome, or research questions with only two possible outcomes, was considered the primary outcome for all of the trials included in each meta-analysis. Researchers then sought to measure whether the study drug was recommended as the treatment of choice.

In more than half (51%) of the trials funded by for-profit organizations, the study drug was recommended as the treatment of choice compared with 16% of the trials funded by nonprofit organizations, 30% of trials that did not report funding, and 35% of those funded by both nonprofit and for-profit organizations, the study found. In addition, adjusted analyses did not show an influence of treatment effect or adverse events on the association, according to the study. "The present study adds to previous evidence showing that this association does not reflect the quantitative trial results; neither the magnitude of the treatment effect nor the occurrence of adverse events could explain the association," the authors wrote.

The authors raise several possibilities for the association between funding source and conclusion, including violation of the so-called "uncertainty principle," publication bias, emphasis on subgroup or secondary analyses, or bias in drawing conclusions. "After having conducted exploratory randomized trials in Phase 2 drug development, several confirmatory randomized Phase 3 (proof of concept) trials usually are launched," the authors note. "Such trials may have a higher likelihood of favoring the experimental drug."

The design of the study by the Danish researchers, who were not available for comment, could not refute or confirm those hypotheses, the authors said. However, given that about half of all trials should favor the control, not the experimental intervention, the latest findings on the association between funding source and study conclusion should be reason for caution, they note.

"The combined evidence underlines the need for an international register of all initiated randomized clinical trials," the authors conclude.

Cathy Tokarski

JAMA. 2003;290(7):921-928

Reviewed by Gary D. Vogin, MD

Footnote from Ideal Health:

 

The following products are all useful for Nutritional Health Insurance:

Clean Lean Protein
Inner Health Plus
Good Green Stuff
Hi Strength Fish Oil Caps
Multi-Vite
Superior Olive Leaf
Superior Magnesium
Super Multi Plus
Super Thisilyn
SystemWell
Whey Protein - Vanilla
Zinc

Related health information can be found here:

Acid and alkaline forming foods
Alfamax, a rich source of Vitamins and Minerals
Cholesterol
Ensure healthy gut function with probiotic supplementation
Free radicals and antioxidants
Immunity
Levels of protein, carbohydrate and fat in Food
Protein - a macronutrient so often overlooked
The Good Health Diet
Water, the elixir of life

Related articles can be found here:

Age at First Exposure to Cereal Linked to Risk of Diabetes
Dietary Changes Can Lower Colon Cancer Risk
Doctors Alarmed by Gene-Altered Foods
Food Allergies May Trigger Life-Threatening Asthma Attacks
Health-Giving Broccoli the Best of the Bunch
Higher Fruit, Vegetable Intake Associated With Lower Stroke Risk
Low Fat Foods Promote Obesity
Size Surprise in Milk Study
Vitamin C Use May Lower Heart Disease Risk
Vitamin Lacking in 1 of 10 Toddlers

If you need help or advice, you are welcome to email our naturopathic team with your health question.

Disclaimer: The health information presented here has been written for the New Zealand health consumer. It is of a general nature and is only intended to provide a summary of the subjects covered. The information is not intended to be comprehensive or to provide medical advice to you. While all care has been taken to ensure the accuracy of the information, no responsibility or liability is accepted, and no person should act in reliance on any statement contained in the information provided. All health ailments should be treated by a qualified health professional.

ref:n97

Boost Your Seven Immune Systems

Previous news item

Boost Your Seven Immune Systems
21 Aug 2003

Comments

Home | Previous Page | Back to top

Choose a health topic

Join Our Facebook Community
high potency filsh oil
Customer Testimonials
natural health practitioners nz
100% new zealand owned
useful resources approved by natural therapy for all