How Can the Evidence from Global Large-scale Clinical Trials for Cardiovascular Diseases be Improved?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinical investigations are important for obtaining evidence to improve medical treatment. Large-scale clinical trials with thousands of participants are particularly important for this purpose in cardiovascular diseases. Conducting large-scale clinical trials entails high research costs. This study sought to investigate global trends in large-scale clinical trials in cardiovascular diseases.</p> <p>Findings</p> <p>We searched for trials using clinicaltrials.gov (URL: <url>http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/</url>) using the key words 'cardio' and 'event' in all fields on 10 April, 2010. We then selected trials with 300 or more participants examining cardiovascular diseases. The search revealed 344 trials that met our criteria. Of 344 trials, 71% were randomized controlled trials, 15% involved more than 10,000 participants, and 59% were funded by industry. In RCTs whose results were disclosed, 55% of industry-funded trials and 25% of non-industry funded trials reported statistically significant superiority over control (p = 0.012, 2-sided Fisher's exact test).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our findings highlighted concerns regarding potential bias related to funding sources, and that researchers should be aware of the importance of trial information disclosures and conflicts of interest. We should keep considering management and training regarding information disclosures and conflicts of interest for researchers. This could lead to better clinical evidence and further improvements in the development of medical treatment worldwide.</p

Funding and infrastructure among large-scale clinical trials examining cardiovascular diseases in Japan: evidence from a questionnaire survey

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Large-scale clinical trials with thousands of participants are often needed to evaluate the risk reductions of cardiac events and/or death. Many recent clinical trials have evaluated the incidences of cardiac events using hard endpoints, especially in cardiovascular and metabolic medicine. A high investigation cost is involved in conducting a large-scale clinical trial, and obtaining sufficient funding is essential. The infrastructural environment of clinical trials is currently inadequate in Japan. We conducted a questionnaire-based survey to address this issue. The present study sought to clarify the current situation surrounding large-scale clinical trials in terms of funding and infrastructure, and to inform discussion about improving the financial and infrastructural situation for clinical trials.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We sent questionnaires to 119 sponsors of large-scale clinical trials between August 2007 and December 2007, and between July 2009 and August 2009. Answers to each question were summarized and data were statistically analyzed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We received responses from the sponsors of 63 (52.9%) out of 119 trials to which questionnaires were sent. The results revealed that 25 trials (39.7%) were funded by foundations, and 21 trials (33.3%) were funded by public agencies. All of the foundations involved in conducting clinical trials, where funding sources were specified, were funded by private organizations such as pharmaceutical companies. All of the clinical trials with a cost of JPY 300 million (USD 3.27 million) or more were funded by private organizations, and none were funded solely by public agencies. The sponsors of 23 trials (36.5%) responded that the trial was 'not registered' to clinical trial registry.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The questionnaire responses revealed that there were still many trials whose funding sources were unclear and many sponsors were unaware of their responsibilities in managing and/or financing the costs of clinical trials. These findings indicate that further discussion is required to establish appropriate frameworks and/or rules regarding funding, while considering conflicts of interest. This discussion should take place as soon as possible to facilitate appropriate clinical trials.</p

Limited accessibility to designs and results of Japanese large-scale clinical trials for cardiovascular diseases

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Clinical evidence is important for improving the treatment of patients by health care providers. In the study of cardiovascular diseases, large-scale clinical trials involving thousands of participants are required to evaluate the risks of cardiac events and/or death. The problems encountered in conducting the Japanese Acute Myocardial Infarction Prospective (JAMP) study highlighted the difficulties involved in obtaining the financial and infrastructural resources necessary for conducting large-scale clinical trials. The objectives of the current study were: 1) to clarify the current funding and infrastructural environment surrounding large-scale clinical trials in cardiovascular and metabolic diseases in Japan, and 2) to find ways to improve the environment surrounding clinical trials in Japan more generally.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We examined clinical trials examining cardiovascular diseases that evaluated true endpoints and involved 300 or more participants using Pub-Med, Ichushi (by the Japan Medical Abstracts Society, a non-profit organization), websites of related medical societies, the University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) Clinical Trials Registry, and clinicaltrials.gov at three points in time: 30 November, 2004, 25 February, 2007 and 25 July, 2009.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We found a total of 152 trials that met our criteria for 'large-scale clinical trials' examining cardiovascular diseases in Japan. Of these, 72.4% were randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Of 152 trials, 9.2% of the trials examined more than 10,000 participants, and 42.8% examined between 1,000 and 10,000 participants. The number of large-scale clinical trials markedly increased from 2001 to 2004, but suddenly decreased in 2007, then began to increase again. Ischemic heart disease (39.5%) was the most common target disease. Most of the larger-scale trials were funded by private organizations such as pharmaceutical companies. The designs and results of 13 trials were not disclosed.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>To improve the quality of clinical trials, all sponsors should register trials and disclose the funding sources before the enrolment of participants, and publish their results after the completion of each study.</p

On Models and Code:A Unified Approach to Support Large-Scale Deductive Program Verification

Despite the substantial progress in the area of deductive program verification over the last years, it still remains a challenge to use deductive verification on large-scale industrial applications. In this abstract, I analyse why this is case, and I argue that in order to solve this, we need to soften the border between models and code. This has two important advantages: (1) it would make it easier to reason about high-level behaviour of programs, using deductive verification, and (2) it would allow to reason about incomplete applications during the development process. I discuss how the first steps towards this goal are supported by verification techniques within the VerCors project, and I will sketch the future steps that are necessary to realise this goal

Industry-supported meta-analyses compared with meta-analyses with non-profit or no support: Differences in methodological quality and conclusions

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Studies have shown that industry-sponsored meta-analyses of drugs lack scientific rigour and have biased conclusions. However, these studies have been restricted to certain medical specialities. We compared all industry-supported meta-analyses of drug-drug comparisons with those without industry support.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We searched PubMed for all meta-analyses that compared different drugs or classes of drugs published in 2004. Two authors assessed the meta-analyses and independently extracted data. We used a validated scale for judging the methodological quality and a binary scale for judging conclusions. We divided the meta-analyses according to the type of support in 3 categories: industry-supported, non-profit support or no support, and undeclared support.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>We included 39 meta-analyses. Ten had industry support, 18 non-profit or no support, and 11 undeclared support. On a 0–7 scale, the median quality score was 6 for meta-analyses with non-profit or no support and 2.5 for the industry-supported meta-analyses (P < 0.01). Compared with industry-supported meta-analyses, more meta-analyses with non-profit or no support avoided bias in the selection of studies (P = 0.01), more often stated the search methods used to find studies (P = 0.02), searched comprehensively (P < 0.01), reported criteria for assessing the validity of the studies (P = 0.02), used appropriate criteria (P = 0.04), described methods of allocation concealment (P = 0.05), described methods of blinding (P = 0.05), and described excluded patients (P = 0.08) and studies (P = 0.15). Forty percent of the industry-supported meta-analyses recommended the experimental drug without reservations, compared with 22% of the meta-analyses with non-profit or no support (P = 0.57).</p> <p>In a sensitivity analysis, we contacted the authors of the meta-analyses with undeclared support. Eight who replied that they had not received industry funding were added to those with non-profit or no support, and 3 who did not reply were added to those with industry support. This analysis did not change the results much.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Transparency is essential for readers to make their own judgment about medical interventions guided by the results of meta-analyses. We found that industry-supported meta-analyses are less transparent than meta-analyses with non-profit support or no support.</p

Abstracts in high profile journals often fail to report harm

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>To describe how frequently harm is reported in the abstract of high impact factor medical journals.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p><it>Design and population</it>: We carried out a blinded structured review of a random sample of 363 Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) carried out on human beings, and published in high impact factor medical journals in 2003. <it>Main endpoint</it>: 1) Proportion of articles reporting harm in the abstract; and 2) Proportion of articles that reported harm in the abstract when harm was reported in the main body of the article. <it>Analysis</it>: Corrected Prevalence Ratio (cPR) and its exact confidence interval were calculated. Non-conditional logistic regression was used.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>363 articles and 407 possible comparisons were studied. Overall, harm was reported in 135 abstracts [37.2% (CI95%:32.2 to 42.4)]. Harm was reported in the main text of 243 articles [66.9% (CI95%: 61.8 to 71.8)] and was statistically significant in 54 articles [14.9% (CI95%: 11.4 to 19.0)]. Among the 243 articles that mentioned harm in the text, 130 articles [53.5% (CI95% 47.0 to 59.9)] reported harm in the abstract; a figure that rose to 75.9% (CI95%: 62.4 to 86.5) when the harm reported in the text was statistically significant. Harm in the abstract was more likely to be reported when statistically significant harm was reported in the main body of the article [cPR = 1.70 (CI95% 1.47 to 1.92)] and when drug companies (not public institutions) funded the RCTs [cPR = 1.29 (CI95% 1.03 to 1.67)].</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Abstracts published in high impact factor medical journals underreport harm, even when harm is reported in the main body of the article.</p

Promotional Tone in Reviews of Menopausal Hormone Therapy After the Women's Health Initiative: An Analysis of Published Articles

Adriane Fugh-Berman and colleagues analyzed a selection of published opinion pieces on hormone therapy and show that there may be a connection between receiving industry funding for speaking, consulting, or research and the tone of such opinion pieces

Non-randomised patients in a cholecystectomy trial: characteristics, procedures, and outcomes

BACKGROUND: Laparoscopic cholecystectomy is now considered the first option for gallbladder surgery. However, 20% to 30% of cholecystectomies are completed as open operations often on elderly and fragile patients. The external validity of randomised trials comparing mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy has not been studied. The aim of this study is to analyse characteristics, procedures, and outcomes for all patients who underwent cholecystectomy without being included in such a trial. METHODS: Characteristics (age, sex, co-morbidity, and ASA-score), operation time, hospital stay, and mortality were compared for patients who underwent cholecystectomy outside and within a randomised controlled trial comparing mini-laparotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy. RESULTS: During the inclusion period 1719 patients underwent cholecystectomy. 726 patients were randomised and 724 of them completed the trial; 993 patients underwent cholecystectomy outside the trial. The non-randomised patients were older – and had more complications from gallstone disease, higher co-morbidity, and higher ASA – score when compared with trial patients. They were also more likely to undergo acute surgery and they had a longer postoperative hospital stay, with a median 3 versus 2 days (p < 0.001 for all comparisons). Standardised mortality ratio within 90 days of operation was 3.42 (mean) (95% CI 2.17 to 5.13) for non-randomised patients and 1.61 (mean) (95%CI 0.02 to 3.46) for trial patients. For non-randomised patients, operation time did not differ significantly between mini-laparotomy and open cholecystectomy in multivariate analysis. However, the operation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy lasted 20 minutes longer than open cholecystectomy. Hospital stay was significantly shorter for both mini-laparotomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy compared to open cholecystectomy. CONCLUSION: Non-randomised patients were older and more sick than trial patients. The assignment of healthier patients to trials comparing mini-laparotomy cholecystectomy and laparoscopic cholecystectomy limits the external validity of conclusions reached in such trials

A Comparison of DSM-IV and DSM-5 Panel Members' Financial Associations with Industry: A Pernicious Problem Persists

Lisa Cosgrove and Sheldon Krimsky examine the new competing interest disclosure policy of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) and report that DSM panel members still have considerable financial conflicts of interest