OBJECTIVES: To map the current status of head-to-head comparative randomized evidence and to assess whether funding may impact on trial design and results. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: From a 50% random sample of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in journals indexed in PubMed during 2011, we selected the trials with ≥100 participants, evaluating the efficacy and safety of drugs, biologics, and medical devices through a head-to-head comparison. RESULTS: We analyzed 319 trials. Overall, 238,386 of the 289,718 randomized subjects (82.3%) were included in the 182 trials funded by companies. Of the 182 industry-sponsored trials, only 23 had two industry sponsors and only three involved truly antagonistic comparisons. Industry-sponsored trials were larger, more commonly registered, used more frequently noninferiority/equivalence designs, had higher citation impact, and were more likely to have "favorable" results (superiority or noninferiority/equivalence for the experimental.

Head-to-head randomized trials are mostly industry sponsored and almost always favor the industry sponsor / Flacco, Me; Manzoli, L; Boccia, S; Capasso, L; Aleksovska, K; Rosso, Annalisa; Scaioli, G; DE VITO, Corrado; Siliquini, R; Villari, Paolo; Ioannidis, Jp. - In: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY. - ISSN 0895-4356. - STAMPA. - 7(2015), pp. 811-820. [10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.016]

Head-to-head randomized trials are mostly industry sponsored and almost always favor the industry sponsor

ROSSO, ANNALISA;DE VITO, CORRADO;VILLARI, Paolo;
2015

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To map the current status of head-to-head comparative randomized evidence and to assess whether funding may impact on trial design and results. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: From a 50% random sample of the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in journals indexed in PubMed during 2011, we selected the trials with ≥100 participants, evaluating the efficacy and safety of drugs, biologics, and medical devices through a head-to-head comparison. RESULTS: We analyzed 319 trials. Overall, 238,386 of the 289,718 randomized subjects (82.3%) were included in the 182 trials funded by companies. Of the 182 industry-sponsored trials, only 23 had two industry sponsors and only three involved truly antagonistic comparisons. Industry-sponsored trials were larger, more commonly registered, used more frequently noninferiority/equivalence designs, had higher citation impact, and were more likely to have "favorable" results (superiority or noninferiority/equivalence for the experimental.
2015
head-to-head comparison; randomized controlled trials; industry sponsorship; noninferiority trials; conflict of interest; cross-sectional study
01 Pubblicazione su rivista::01a Articolo in rivista
Head-to-head randomized trials are mostly industry sponsored and almost always favor the industry sponsor / Flacco, Me; Manzoli, L; Boccia, S; Capasso, L; Aleksovska, K; Rosso, Annalisa; Scaioli, G; DE VITO, Corrado; Siliquini, R; Villari, Paolo; Ioannidis, Jp. - In: JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY. - ISSN 0895-4356. - STAMPA. - 7(2015), pp. 811-820. [10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.016]
File allegati a questo prodotto
File Dimensione Formato  
Flacco_Head-to-head_2015.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 823.87 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
823.87 kB Adobe PDF
Flacco_Head-to-head-randomized_2015.pdf

accesso aperto

Tipologia: Versione editoriale (versione pubblicata con il layout dell'editore)
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 788.04 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
788.04 kB Adobe PDF

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11573/775175
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 46
  • Scopus 140
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 121
social impact