Reporting Bias in Drug Trials Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration:
Review of Publication and Presentation
Background:
Previous studies of drug trials submitted to regulatory authorities have documented
selective reporting of both entire trials and favorable results. The objective of this
study is to determine the publication rate of efficacy trials submitted to the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) in approved New Drug Applications (NDAs) and to compare the
trial characteristics as reported by the FDA with those reported in publications.
Methods and Findings:
This is an observational study of all efficacy trials found in approved NDAs for New
Molecular Entities (NMEs) from 2001 to 2002 inclusive and all published clinical trials
corresponding to the trials within the NDAs. For each trial included in the NDA, we
assessed its publication status, primary outcome(s) reported and their statistical
significance, and conclusions. Seventy-eight percent (128/164) of efficacy trials
contained in FDA reviews of NDAs were published. In a multivariate model, trials with
favorable primary outcomes (OR = 4.7, 95% confidence interval
[CI] 1.
33–17.1, p = 0.018) and
active controls (OR = 3.4, 95% CI 1.02–11.2,
p = 0.047) were more likely to be published. Forty-one
primary outcomes from the NDAs were omitted from the papers. Papers included 155
outcomes that were in the NDAs, 15 additional outcomes that favored the test drug, and
two other neutral or unknown additional outcomes. Excluding outcomes with unknown
significance, there were 43 outcomes in the NDAs that did not favor the NDA drug. Of
these, 20 (47%) were not included in the papers. The statistical significance
of five of the remaining 23 outcomes (22%) changed between the NDA and the
paper, with four changing to favor the test drug in the paper (p
= 0.
38). Excluding unknowns, 99 conclusions were provided in both NDAs and
papers, nine conclusions (9%) changed from the FDA review of the NDA to the
paper, and all nine did so to favor the test drug (100%, 95% CI
72%–100%, p = 0.0039).
Conclusions:
Many trials were still not published 5 y after FDA approval. Discrepancies between the
trial information reviewed by the FDA and information found in published trials tended
to lead to more favorable presentations of the NDA drugs in the publications. Thus, the
information that is readily available in the scientific literature to health care
professionals is incomplete and potentially biased.
Vyšlo v časopise:
Reporting Bias in Drug Trials Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration:
Review of Publication and Presentation. PLoS Med 5(11): e217. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050217
Kategorie:
Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0050217
Souhrn
Background:
Previous studies of drug trials submitted to regulatory authorities have documented
selective reporting of both entire trials and favorable results. The objective of this
study is to determine the publication rate of efficacy trials submitted to the Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) in approved New Drug Applications (NDAs) and to compare the
trial characteristics as reported by the FDA with those reported in publications.
Methods and Findings:
This is an observational study of all efficacy trials found in approved NDAs for New
Molecular Entities (NMEs) from 2001 to 2002 inclusive and all published clinical trials
corresponding to the trials within the NDAs. For each trial included in the NDA, we
assessed its publication status, primary outcome(s) reported and their statistical
significance, and conclusions. Seventy-eight percent (128/164) of efficacy trials
contained in FDA reviews of NDAs were published. In a multivariate model, trials with
favorable primary outcomes (OR = 4.7, 95% confidence interval
[CI] 1.
33–17.1, p = 0.018) and
active controls (OR = 3.4, 95% CI 1.02–11.2,
p = 0.047) were more likely to be published. Forty-one
primary outcomes from the NDAs were omitted from the papers. Papers included 155
outcomes that were in the NDAs, 15 additional outcomes that favored the test drug, and
two other neutral or unknown additional outcomes. Excluding outcomes with unknown
significance, there were 43 outcomes in the NDAs that did not favor the NDA drug. Of
these, 20 (47%) were not included in the papers. The statistical significance
of five of the remaining 23 outcomes (22%) changed between the NDA and the
paper, with four changing to favor the test drug in the paper (p
= 0.
38). Excluding unknowns, 99 conclusions were provided in both NDAs and
papers, nine conclusions (9%) changed from the FDA review of the NDA to the
paper, and all nine did so to favor the test drug (100%, 95% CI
72%–100%, p = 0.0039).
Conclusions:
Many trials were still not published 5 y after FDA approval. Discrepancies between the
trial information reviewed by the FDA and information found in published trials tended
to lead to more favorable presentations of the NDA drugs in the publications. Thus, the
information that is readily available in the scientific literature to health care
professionals is incomplete and potentially biased.
Zdroje
1. Simes
RJ
1986
Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical
trials.
J Clin Oncol
4
1529
1541
2. Dickersin
K
1990
The existence of publication bias and risk factors for its
occurrence.
JAMA
263
1385
1389
3. Misakian
AL
Bero
LA
1998
Publication bias and research on passive smoking: comparison of published
and unpublished studies.
JAMA
280
250
253
4. Ioannidis
JP
1998
Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion
and publication of randomized efficacy trials.
JAMA
279
281
286
5. Ioannidis
JP
2005
Why most published research findings are false.
PLoS Med
2
0101
0106
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
6. Dickersin
K
1987
Reference bias in reports of drug trials.
Br Med J (Clin Res Ed)
295
1066
1067
7. Dickersin
K
Chan
S
Chalmers
TC
Sacks
HS
Smith
H
Jr
1987
Publication bias and clinical trials.
Control Clin Trials
8
343
353
8. Easterbrook
P
Berlin
J
Gopalan
R
Matthews
D
1991
Publication bias in clinical research.
Lancet
337
867
872
9. Hemminki
E
1980
Study of information submitted by drug companies to licensing
authorities.
BMJ
280
833
836
10. Chan
AW
Krleza-Jeric
K
Schmid
I
Altman
DG
2004
Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian
Institutes of Health Research.
CMAJ
171
735
740
11. Melander
H
Ahlqvist-Rastad
J
Meijer
G
Beermann
B
2003
Evidence b(i)ased medicine–selective reporting from studies
sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug
applications.
BMJ
326
1171
1173
12. Turner
EH
Matthews
AM
Linardatos
E
Tell
RA
Rosenthal
R
2008
Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on
apparent efficacy.
N Engl J Med
358
252
260
13. Chan
AW
Hrobjartsson
A
Haahr
MT
Gotzsche
PC
Altman
DG
2004
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized
trials: comparison of protocols to published articles.
JAMA
291
2457
2465
14. MacLean
CH
Morton
SC
Ofman
JJ
Roth
EA
Shekelle
PG
2003
How useful are unpublished data from the Food and Drug Administration in
meta-analysis.
J Clin Epidemiol
56
44
51
15. [No author listed]
2007
Drugs@FDA: Glossary of Terms
Available: http://www.fda.gov/cder/drugsatfda/glossary.htm#N. Accessed 7 June
2007.
16. CDER Drug and Biologic Approval Reports
Available: http://www.fda.gov/cder/rdmt/.
Accessed 7 June 2007.
17. Berlin
JA
1997
Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? University of
Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group.
Lancet
350
185
186
18. Clark
HD
Wells
GA
Huet
C
McAlister
FA
Salmi
LR
1999
Assessing the quality of randomized trials: reliability of the Jadad
scale.
Control Clin Trials
20
448
452
19. Jadad
AR
Moore
RA
Carroll
D
Jenkinson
C
Reynolds
DJ
1996
Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding
necessary.
Control Clin Trials
17
1
12
20. Chalmers
TC
Block
JB
Lee
S
1972
Controlled studies in clinical cancer research.
N Engl J Med
287
75
78
21. Colditz
GA
Miller
JN
Mosteller
F
1989
How study design affects outcomes in comparisons of therapy. I:
Medical.
Stat Med
8
441
454
22. Schulz
KF
Chalmers
I
Hayes
RJ
Altman
DG
1995
Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated
with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials.
JAMA
273
408
412
23. Rochon
PA
Gurwitz
JH
Simms
RW
Fortin
PR
Felson
DT
1994
A study of manufacturer-supported trials of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory
drugs in the treatment of arthritis.
Arch Intern Med
154
157
163
24. Safer
DJ
2002
Design and reporting modifications in industry-sponsored comparative
psychopharmacology trials.
J Nerv Ment Dis
190
583
592
25. Djulbegovic
B
Lacevic
M
Cantor
A
Fields
KK
Bennett
CL
2000
The uncertainty principle and industry-sponsored research.
Lancet
356
635
638
26. Johansen
HK
Gotzsche
PC
1999
Problems in the design and reporting of trials of antifungal agents
encountered during meta-analysis.
JAMA
282
1752
1759
27. Cho
MK
Bero
LA
1996
The quality of drug studies published in symposium
proceedings.
Ann Intern Med
124
485
489
28. Bekelman
JE
Li
Y
Gross
CP
2003
Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research:
a systematic review.
JAMA
289
454
465
29. Lexchin
J
Bero
LA
Djulbegovic
B
Clark
O
2003
Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality:
systematic review.
BMJ
326
1167
1170
30. Levine
J
Gussow
J
Hastings
D
Eccher
A
2003
Authors' financial relationships with the food and beverage industry and
their published positions on the fat substitute Olestra.
Am J Public Health
93
664
669
31. [No authors listed
2008
Clinical Trials Registry Legislation
Available: http://opa.faseb.org/pdf/July-Dec2007/ClinicalTrialsRegistryLegislation-3580.pdf.
Accessed 18 January 2008.
32. World Health Organization
2008
International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP): Results
Reporting
Available: http://www.who.int/ictrp/results/en/. Accessed 18 January 2008.
33. [NO authors listed]
2008
Law Strengthens FDA
Available: http://www.fda.gov/oc/initiatives/advance/fdaaa.html. Accessed 18 January
2008.
34. Maine
CDC
2008
Clinical Trials
Available: http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/boh/clinical_trials.htm. Accessed 18 January
2008.
35. Dickersin
K
Min
YI
Meinert
CL
1992
Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of
applications submitted to two institutional review boards.
JAMA
267
374
378
36. Lee
KP
Boyd
EA
Holroyd-Leduc
JM
Bacchetti
P
Bero
LA
2006
Predictors of publication: characteristics of submitted manuscripts
associated with acceptance at major biomedical journals.
Med J Aust
184
621
626
37. Higgins
J
Green
S
2006
Intention to Treat Issue, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of
Interventions 4.2.6 [updated September 2006]; Section
8.4.
In:
The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2006
Chichester, UK
John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
38. Institute for Scientific Information
2007
Science Citation Index: Journal Citation Reports
Available: http://scientific.thomson.com/products/jcr/. Accessed July 2007.
Štítky
Interné lekárstvoČlánok vyšiel v časopise
PLOS Medicine
2008 Číslo 11
- MUDr. Dana Vondráčková: Hepatopatie sú pri liečbe metamizolom väčším strašiakom ako agranulocytóza
- Metamizol v liečbe pooperačnej bolesti u detí do 6 rokov veku
- Parazitičtí červi v terapii Crohnovy choroby a dalších zánětlivých autoimunitních onemocnění
- Vztah mezi statiny a rizikem vzniku nádorových onemocnění − metaanalýza
- Statiny indukovaná myopatie: Jak na diferenciální diagnostiku?
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
- Multiple Masses on the Tongue of a Patient with Generalized Mucocutaneous Lesions
- Informed Consent and Shared Decision-Making: A Requirement to Disclose to Patients Off-Label Prescriptions
- Estimating the Global Burden of Snakebite Can Help To Improve Management
- Reporting Bias in Drug Trials Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: Review of Publication and Presentation