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 lekárstvo

Článok vyšiel v časopise

PLOS Medicine


2008 Číslo 11
Najčítanejšie tento týždeň
Najčítanejšie v tomto čísle
Prihlásenie
Zabudnuté heslo

Zadajte e-mailovú adresu, s ktorou ste vytvárali účet. Budú Vám na ňu zasielané informácie k nastaveniu nového hesla.

Prihlásenie

Nemáte účet?  Registrujte sa