A cross-sectional analysis of HIV and hepatitis C clinical trials 2007 to 2010: the relationship between industry sponsorship and randomized study design

Trials

Charles B Hicks⁵  Christopher D Pfeiffer⁶  John R Horton⁷  William C Miller²  Susanna Naggie³  Ephraim L Tsalik⁴  Neela D Goswami¹ 

[1] Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Department of Medicine, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA;Department of Epidemiology, Gillings School of Public Health, Department of Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA;Duke Clinical Research Institute, Durham, NC, USA;Research Service, Durham VAMC, 27710 Durham, NC, USA;Department of Medicine, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC, USA;Division of Infectious Diseases, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, OR, USA;GlaxoSmithKline Health Care, Parsippany, NJ, USA

关键词: Trial;    Methodology;    Randomization;    Bias;    Pharmaceutical;    Industry;   

Others  :  807594
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-15-31

 received in 2013-06-19, accepted in 2014-01-16,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

The proportion of clinical research sponsored by industry will likely continue to expand as federal funds for academic research decreases, particularly in the fields of HIV/AIDS and hepatitis C (HCV). While HIV and HCV continue to burden the US population, insufficient data exists as to how industry sponsorship affects clinical trials involving these infectious diseases. Debate exists about whether pharmaceutical companies undertake more market-driven research practices to promote therapeutics, or instead conduct more rigorous trials than their non-industry counterparts because of increased resources and scrutiny. The ClinicalTrials.gov registry, which allows investigators to fulfill a federal mandate for public trial registration, provides an opportunity for critical evaluation of study designs for industry-sponsored trials, independent of publication status. As part of a large public policy effort, the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative (CTTI) recently transformed the ClinicalTrials.gov registry into a searchable dataset to facilitate research on clinical trials themselves.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional analysis of 477 HIV and HCV drug treatment trials, registered with ClinicalTrials.gov from 1 October 2007 to 27 September 2010, to study the relationship of study sponsorship with randomized study design. The likelihood of using randomization given industry (versus non-industry) sponsorship was reported with prevalence ratios (PR). PRs were estimated using crude and stratified tabular analysis and Poisson regression adjusting for presence of a data monitoring committee, enrollment size, study phase, number of study sites, inclusion of foreign study sites, exclusion of persons older than age 65, and disease condition.

Results

The crude PR was 1.17 (95% CI 0.94, 1.45). Adjusted Poisson models produced a PR of 1.13 (95% CI 0.82, 1.56). There was a trend toward mild effect measure modification by study phase, but this was not statistically significant. In stratified tabular analysis the adjusted PR was 1.14 (95% CI 0.78, 1.68) among phase 2/3 trials and 1.06 (95% CI 0.50, 2.22) among phase 4 trials.

Conclusions

No significant relationship was found between industry sponsorship and use of randomization in trial design in this cross-sectional study. Prospective studies evaluating other aspects of trial design may shed further light on the relationship between industry sponsorship and appropriate trial methodology.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Goswami et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]McDonough JE: Budget sequestration and the US health sector. N Engl J Med 2013, 368(14):1269-1271.
• [2]Bodenheimer T: Uneasy alliance-clinical investigators and the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med 2000, 342(20):1539-1544.
• [3]Dorsey ER, de Roulet J, Thompson JP, Reminick JI, Thai A, White-Stellato Z, Beck CA, George BP, Moses H 3rd: Funding of US biomedical research, 2003 to 2008. JAMA 2010, 303(2):137-143.
• [4]Lundh A, Krogsboll LT, Gotzsche PC: Sponsors’ participation in conduct and reporting of industry trials: a descriptive study. Trials 2012, 13:146. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]Montaner JS, O’Shaughnessy MV, Schechter MT: Industry-sponsored clinical research: a double-edged sword. Lancet 2001, 358(9296):1893-1895.
• [6]Ross JS, Gross CP, Krumholz HM: Promoting transparency in pharmaceutical industry-sponsored research. Am J Public Health 2012, 102(1):72-80.
• [7]Roumiantseva D, Carini S, Sim I, Wagner TH: Sponsorship and design characteristics of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Contemp Clin Trials 2013, 34(2):348-355.
• [8]Liyanage SS, MacIntyre CR: Do financial factors such as author page charges and industry funding impact on the nature of published research in infectious diseases? Health Info Libr J 2006, 23:214-222.
• [9]Djulbegovic B, Lacevic M, Cantor A, Fields KK, Bennett CL, Adams JR, Kuderer NM, Lyman GH: The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research. Lancet 2000, 356(9230):635-638.
• [10]Cho MK, Bero LA: The quality of drug studies published in symposium proceedings. Ann Intern Med 1996, 124(5):485-489.
• [11]Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, Clark O: Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003, 326(7400):1167-1170.
• [12]Buchkowsky SS, Jewesson PJ: Industry sponsorship and authorship of clinical trials over 20 years. Ann Pharmacother 2004, 38(4):579-585.
• [13]Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP: Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review. JAMA 2003, 289(4):454-465.
• [14]Lee K, Bacchetti P, Sim I: Publication of clinical trials supporting successful new drug applications: a literature analysis. PLoS Med 2008, 5(9):e191.
• [15]Chowers MY, Gottesman BS, Leibovici L, Pielmeier U, Andreassen S, Paul M: Reporting of adverse events in randomized controlled trials of highly active antiretroviral therapy: systematic review. J Antimicrob Chemother 2009, 64(2):239-250.
• [16]Ross JS, Mulvey GK, Hines EM, Nissen SE, Krumholz HM: Trial publication after registration in ClinicalTrials.gov: a cross-sectional analysis. PLoS Med 2009, 6(9):e1000144.
• [17]Aneja A, Esquitin R, Shah K, Iyengar R, Nisenbaum R, Melo M, Matthewkutty S, Sethi SS, Mamdani M, Farkouh ME: Authors’ self-declared financial conflicts of interest do not impact the results of major cardiovascular trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 2013, 61(11):1137-1143.
• [18]Trotta F, Apolone G, Garattini S, Tafuri G: Stopping a trial early in oncology: for patients or for industry? Ann Oncol 2008, 19(7):1347-1353.
• [19]Rasmussen N, Lee K, Bero L: Association of trial registration with the results and conclusions of published trials of new oncology drugs. Trials 2009, 10:116. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Redmond S, von Elm E, Blumle A, Gengler M, Gsponer T, Egger M: Cohort study of trials submitted to ethics committee identified discrepant reporting of outcomes in publications. J Clin Epidemiol 2013, 66(12):1367-1375.
• [21]O’Brien SJ, Gillespie IA, Sivanesan MA, Elson R, Hughes C, Adak GK: Publication bias in foodborne outbreaks of infectious intestinal disease and its implications for evidence-based food policy. England and Wales 1992 to 2003. Epidemiol Infect 2006, 134(4):667-674.
• [22]Califf RM, Zarin DA, Kramer JM, Sherman RE, Aberle LH, Tasneem A: Characteristics of clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2007 to 2010. JAMA 2012, 307(17):1838-1847.
• [23]Goswami ND, Pfeiffer CD, Horton JR, Chiswell K, Tasneem A, Tsalik EL: The state of infectious diseases clinical trials: a systematic review of ClinicalTrials.gov. PloS One 2013, 8(10):e77086.
• [24]Davidson RA: Source of funding and outcome of clinical trials. J Gen Intern Med 1986, 1(3):155-158.
• [25]Kaitin KI, Bryant NR, Lasagna L: The role of the research-based pharmaceutical industry in medical progress in the United States. J Clin Pharmacol 1993, 33(5):412-417.
• [26]Lathyris DN, Patsopoulos NA, Salanti G, Ioannidis JP: Industry sponsorship and selection of comparators in randomized clinical trials. Eur J Clin Invest 2010, 40(2):172-182.
• [27]Heres S, Davis J, Maino K, Jetzinger E, Kissling W, Leucht S: Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: an exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. Am J Psychiatry 2006, 163(2):185-194.
• [28]Lundh A, Sismondo S, Lexchin J, Busuioc OA, Bero L: Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012, 12:MR000033.
• [29]Zarin DA, Tse T, Williams RJ, Califf RM, Ide NC: The ClinicalTrials.gov results database - update and key issues. N Engl J Med 2011, 364(9):852-860.