Impact of Funding Source on Clinical Trial Results Including Cardiovascular Outcome Trials.

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

2015-12-15

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Repository Usage Stats

158
views
529
downloads

Citation Stats

Abstract

Previous authors have suggested a higher likelihood for industry-sponsored (IS) studies to have positive outcomes than non-IS studies, though the influence of publication bias was believed to be a likely confounder. We attempted to control for the latter using a prepublication database to compare the primary outcome of recent trials based on sponsorship. We used the "advanced search" feature in the clinicaltrials.gov website to identify recently completed phase III studies involving the implementation of a pharmaceutical agent or device for which primary data were available. Studies were categorized as either National Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsored or IS. Results were labeled "favorable" if the results favored the intervention under investigation or "unfavorable" if the intervention fared worse than standard medical treatment. We also performed an independent literature search to identify the cardiovascular trials as a case example and again categorized them into IS versus NIH sponsored. A total of 226 studies sponsored by NIH were found. When these were compared with the latest 226 IS studies, it was found that IS studies were almost 4 times more likely to report a positive outcome (odds ratio [OR] 3.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 2.6087 to 5.9680, p <0.0001). As a case example of a specialty, we also identified 25 NIH-sponsored and 215 IS cardiovascular trials, with most focusing on hypertension therapy (31.6%) and anticoagulation (17.9%). IS studies were 7 times more likely to report favorable outcomes (OR 7.54, 95% CI 2.19 to 25.94, p = 0.0014). They were also considerably less likely to report unfavorable outcomes (OR 0.11, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.26, p <0.0001). In conclusion, the outcomes of large clinical studies especially cardiovascular differ considerably on the basis of their funding source, and publication bias appears to have limited influence on these findings.

Department

Description

Provenance

Citation

Published Version (Please cite this version)

10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.09.034

Publication Info

Riaz, Haris, Sajjad Raza, Muhammad Shahzeb Khan, Irbaz Bin Riaz and Richard A Krasuski (2015). Impact of Funding Source on Clinical Trial Results Including Cardiovascular Outcome Trials. Am J Cardiol, 116(12). pp. 1944–1947. 10.1016/j.amjcard.2015.09.034 Retrieved from https://hdl.handle.net/10161/11297.

This is constructed from limited available data and may be imprecise. To cite this article, please review & use the official citation provided by the journal.


Unless otherwise indicated, scholarly articles published by Duke faculty members are made available here with a CC-BY-NC (Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial) license, as enabled by the Duke Open Access Policy. If you wish to use the materials in ways not already permitted under CC-BY-NC, please consult the copyright owner. Other materials are made available here through the author’s grant of a non-exclusive license to make their work openly accessible.