• J Clin Epidemiol · Jul 2015

    Review Comparative Study

    Head-to-head randomized trials are mostly industry sponsored and almost always favor the industry sponsor.

    • Maria Elena Flacco, Lamberto Manzoli, Stefania Boccia, Lorenzo Capasso, Katina Aleksovska, Annalisa Rosso, Giacomo Scaioli, Corrado De Vito, Roberta Siliquini, Paolo Villari, and John P A Ioannidis.
    • Department of Medicine and Aging Sciences, University of Chieti, Via dei Vestini 5, 66013 Chieti, Italy; Regional Healthcare Agency of the Abruzzo Region, Via Attilio Monti 9, 65127 Pescara, Italy.
    • J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Jul 1; 68 (7): 811-20.

    ObjectivesTo map the current status of head-to-head comparative randomized evidence and to assess whether funding may impact on trial design and results.Study Design And SettingFrom a 50% random sample of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in journals indexed in PubMed during 2011, we selected the trials with ≥ 100 participants, evaluating the efficacy and safety of drugs, biologics, and medical devices through a head-to-head comparison.ResultsWe analyzed 319 trials. Overall, 238,386 of the 289,718 randomized subjects (82.3%) were included in the 182 trials funded by companies. Of the 182 industry-sponsored trials, only 23 had two industry sponsors and only three involved truly antagonistic comparisons. Industry-sponsored trials were larger, more commonly registered, used more frequently noninferiority/equivalence designs, had higher citation impact, and were more likely to have "favorable" results (superiority or noninferiority/equivalence for the experimental treatment) than nonindustry-sponsored trials. Industry funding [odds ratio (OR) 2.8; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.6, 4.7] and noninferiority/equivalence designs (OR 3.2; 95% CI: 1.5, 6.6), but not sample size, were strongly associated with "favorable" findings. Fifty-five of the 57 (96.5%) industry-funded noninferiority/equivalence trials got desirable "favorable" results.ConclusionThe literature of head-to-head RCTs is dominated by the industry. Industry-sponsored comparative assessments systematically yield favorable results for the sponsors, even more so when noninferiority designs are involved.Copyright © 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Free full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…

What will the 'Medical Journal of You' look like?

Start your free 21 day trial now.

We guarantee your privacy. Your email address will not be shared.