Dataset Information

Reporting of industry funded study outcome data: comparison of confidential and published data on the safety and effectiveness of rhBMP-2 for spinal fusion.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To investigate whether published results of industry funded trials of recombinant human bone morphogenetic protein 2 (rhBMP-2) in spinal fusion match underlying trial data by comparing three different data sources: individual participant data, internal industry reports, and publicly available journal publications and conference abstracts.

Data collection and synthesis

The manufacturer of rhBMP-2 products (Medtronic; Minneapolis, MN) provided complete individual participant data and internal reports for all its studies of rhMBP-2 in spinal fusion. We identified publications and conference abstracts through comprehensive literature searches. We compared outcomes provided in the individual participant data against outcomes reported in publications. For effectiveness outcomes, we compared meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials based on each of the three data sources. For adverse events, meta-analysis of the published aggregate data was not possible and we compared the number and type of adverse events reported between data sources.

Results

32 publications reported outcomes from 11 of the 17 existing manufacturer sponsored studies. For individual randomised controlled trials, 56% (9/16) to 88% (15/17) of effectiveness outcomes known to have been collected were reported in the published literature. Meta-analyses of effectiveness data were almost identical for pain outcomes and similar for fusion across the three data sources. A minority of adverse event data known to have been collected were reported in the published literature. Several journal articles reported only "serious," "related," or "unanticipated" adverse events, without defining these terms. Others reported a small proportion of the collected adverse event categories. Around 23% (533/2302) of the total adverse events collected in published randomised controlled trials have been reported in the literature, with randomised controlled trials evaluating the licensed preparation (Infuse) reporting around 11% (122/1108) of collected adverse events.

Conclusions

The published literature only partially represents the total data known to have been collected on the effects of rhBMP-2. This did not lead to substantially different results for meta-analysis of effectiveness outcomes. In contrast, reporting of adverse event data in trial publications was inadequate and inconsistent to the extent that any systematic review based solely on the publicly available data would not be able to properly evaluate the safety of rhBMP-2. Analysis of individual participant data enabled the most complete, detailed, and in-depth analysis and was not more resource intensive than extracting, collating, and analysing aggregate data from multiple trial publications and conference abstracts. Confidential internal reports presented considerably more adverse event data than publications, and in the absence of individual participant data access to these reports would support more accurate and reliable investigation, with less time and effort than relying on incomplete published data.

SUBMITTER: Rodgers MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3687771 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:To investigate whether adverse effects data for the sponsor's product are presented more favourably in pharmaceutical industry-funded studies than in non-industry-funded studies.We conducted a systematic review of methodological evaluations that had assessed the relationship between industry funding and the reported risk of adverse effects. Searches were undertaken in 10 databases and supplemented with other sources of information such as handsearching, citation searching, checking conference proceedings and discussion with experts. Two reviewers independently screened the records and carried out data extraction for potentially relevant papers. We included studies that compared the results and interpretation of the adverse effects data according to funding source (e.g. adverse effects data in pharmaceutical industry research vs. data from nonprofit organizations, or from one manufacturer vs. another). Methodological evaluations were excluded if categories of funding source were not explicitly specified by the researchers, and if we were uncertain that industry-funded studies were present in the evaluation.The search strategy yielded 4,069 hits, of which six methodological evaluations met our inclusion criteria. One survey of 370 trials covering a wide range of topics found that trials with industry sponsors had more complete reporting of adverse effects compared with non-industry-funded trials, whereas another survey of 504 inhaled corticosteroid studies showed no apparent difference after confounding factors were adjusted for. In contrast, we found evidence from post hoc subgroup analyses involving two products where the likelihood of harm was of a lower magnitude in manufacturer-funded studies compared with nonmanufacturer-funded studies. There is also evidence from four methodological evaluations that authors with industry funding were more likely than authors without pharmaceutical funding to interpret and conclude that a drug was safe, even among studies that did find a statistically significant increase in adverse effects for the sponsored product.Our review indicates that industry funding may not be a major threat to bias in the reporting of the raw adverse effects data. However, we are concerned about potential bias in the interpretation and conclusions of industry-funded authors and studies.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Unabridged access to drug industry and regulatory trial registers and data reduces reporting bias in systematic reviews and may provide a complete index of a drug's clinical study programme. Currently, there is no public index of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine industry study programmes or a public index of non-industry funded studies. METHODS:By cross-verification via study programme enquiries to the HPV vaccine manufacturers and regulators and searches of trial registers and journal publication databases, we indexed clinical HPV vaccine studies as a basis to address reporting bias in a systematic review of clinical study reports. RESULTS:We indexed 206 clinical studies: 145 industry and 61 non-industry funded studies. One of the four HPV vaccine manufacturers (GlaxoSmithKline) provided information on its study programme. Most studies were cross-verified from two or more sources (160/206, 78%) and listed on regulatory or industry trial registers or journal publication databases (195/206, 95%)-in particular, on ClinicalTrials.gov (176/195, 90%). However, study results were only posted for about half of the completed studies on ClinicalTrials.gov (71/147, 48%). Two thirds of the industry studies had a study programme ID, manufacturer specific ID, and national clinical trial (NCT) ID (91/145, 63%). Journal publications were available in journal publication databases (the Cochrane Collaboration's Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar and PubMed) for two thirds of the completed studies (92/149, 62%). CONCLUSION:We believe we came close to indexing complete HPV vaccine study programmes, but only one of the four manufacturers provided information for our index and a fifth of the index could not be cross-verified. However, we indexed larger study programmes than those listed by major regulators (i.e., the EMA and FDA that based their HPV vaccine approvals on only half of the available trials). To reduce reporting bias in systematic reviews, we advocate the registration and publication of all studies and data in the public domain.

Project description:ImportanceIn May 2019, new federal regulations regarding Title X funding were introduced. There has been no formal evaluation of the impact of this regulatory shift as it pertains to minors' access to services.ObjectiveTo explore the geography of federally funded clinics providing confidential reproductive care to adolescents following changes to Title X funding regulations.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cross-sectional study used a population-based sample of US Census tracts. All clinics participating in the Title X program in August 2018 and August 2020 were included in the analysis. Data were analyzed from January to December 2021.ExposuresPeriod, defined as before and after the 2019 Title X rule change (August 2018 and August 2020, respectively).Main outcomes and measuresUS Census tracts were evaluated for the availability of confidential family planning care within a 30-minute drive, according to the presence of a Title X clinic or a permissive state law. Census tracts in which minors lost access to confidential care after the rule change were characterized in terms of demographic characteristics. Univariate logistic regression evaluated associations between Census tract characteristics and the odds of losing vs maintaining access to legally protected confidential minor services.ResultsThe study included 72 620 Census tracts, accounting for approximately 324 697 728 US residents (99.96% of the population). After the Title X rule change, 1743 clinics in the Title X program left (39.0%) and minors living in 6299 Census tracts (8.7%) lost access to confidential family planning care, corresponding to an estimated 933 649 youth aged 15 to 17 years. Minors living in rural Census tracts (odds ratio [OR], 1.27; 95% CI, 1.18-1.36) and those in the Midwest (OR, 2.41; 95% CI, 2.24-2.60) had higher odds of losing access to care. Minors living in Census tracts with a higher Social Vulnerability Index (OR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.47-0.55), a larger proportion of Black individuals (OR, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.31-0.37), and/or a larger proportion of Hispanic individuals (OR, 0.45; 95% CI, 0.42-0.49) were less likely to lose access to care.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that there were losses in access to legally protected confidential reproductive health services for youth after the 2019 Title X rule change. Although evidence-based Title X guidelines have since been reinstated, state laws that ensure adolescent confidentiality in obtaining family planning services may protect youth from future alterations to the Title X program.

Project description:Background & aimsIn 2005, the registration of all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) before enrolment of participants became a condition for publication by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors to increase transparency in trial reporting. Among RCTs on transarterial chemoembolisation (TACE) for the treatment of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) published after 2007, we assess the proportion that were registered and compare registered primary outcomes (PO) with those reported in publications to determine whether primary outcome reporting bias favoured significant outcomes.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE and EMBASE for reports of RCTs evaluating TACE for HCC treatment between 1 September 2007 and 31 March 2018. Registration and publication information for each included RCT was compared using a standardised data extraction form.ResultsThirteen out of 53 (25%) included RCTs were correctly registered (i.e. before the starting date of the RCT), 14 (26%) were registered after the RCT starting date, and 26 (49%) were not registered. Six out of 14 of the retrospectively registered RCTs (43%) were registered after their completion date. The PO was clearly reported in the published article of all registered RCTs, whereas the report was not clear in 8/26 (31%) of the non-registered RCTs (p = 0.01). Among registered RCTs, 8/27 (30%) had major discrepancies between registered and published PO. The influence of these discrepancies could be assessed in 6 of them and was shown to statistically favour significant results in 2.ConclusionsRegistration and outcome reporting in RCTs on TACE for HCC are often inadequate. Registration should be reinforced because it is a key to transparency.Lay summaryTrial registration is fundamental to our understanding and interpretation of results, as it provides information on all relevant clinical trials (to place the results in a broader context), and on the details of their associated protocols (to ensure that the scientific plan is followed). Once a randomised controlled trial (RCT) is completed, the trial results are usually publicly shared via scientific articles that are expected to thoroughly and objectively report them. This study shows that half of the RCTs evaluating transarterial chemoembolisation for hepatocellular carcinoma were not registered, and identified major discrepancies between registered and published primary outcome favouring significant results.

Project description:BackgroundThe analysis of large-scale gene expression data is a fundamental approach to functional genomics and the identification of potential drug targets. Results derived from such studies cannot be trusted unless they are adequately designed and reported. The purpose of this study is to assess current practices on the reporting of experimental design and statistical analyses in gene expression-based studies.MethodsWe reviewed hundreds of MEDLINE-indexed papers involving gene expression data analysis, which were published between 2003 and 2005. These papers were examined on the basis of their reporting of several factors, such as sample size, statistical power and software availability.ResultsAmong the examined papers, we concentrated on 293 papers consisting of applications and new methodologies. These papers did not report approaches to sample size and statistical power estimation. Explicit statements on data transformation and descriptions of the normalisation techniques applied prior to data analyses (e.g. classification) were not reported in 57 (37.5%) and 104 (68.4%) of the methodology papers respectively. With regard to papers presenting biomedical-relevant applications, 41(29.1 %) of these papers did not report on data normalisation and 83 (58.9%) did not describe the normalisation technique applied. Clustering-based analysis, the t-test and ANOVA represent the most widely applied techniques in microarray data analysis. But remarkably, only 5 (3.5%) of the application papers included statements or references to assumption about variance homogeneity for the application of the t-test and ANOVA. There is still a need to promote the reporting of software packages applied or their availability.ConclusionRecently-published gene expression data analysis studies may lack key information required for properly assessing their design quality and potential impact. There is a need for more rigorous reporting of important experimental factors such as statistical power and sample size, as well as the correct description and justification of statistical methods applied. This paper highlights the importance of defining a minimum set of information required for reporting on statistical design and analysis of expression data. By improving practices of statistical analysis reporting, the scientific community can facilitate quality assurance and peer-review processes, as well as the reproducibility of results.