1 / 72

Design and Reporting Modifications in Industry-Sponsored Comparative Psychopharmacology Trials

Design and Reporting Modifications in Industry-Sponsored Comparative Psychopharmacology Trials DANIEL J. SAFER, M.D.1 J nerve mental dis 2002. BMJ 2006;333;782-; originally published online 6 Oct 2006; Anders W Jørgensen, Jørgen Hilden and Peter C Gøtzsche review

Download Presentation

Design and Reporting Modifications in Industry-Sponsored Comparative Psychopharmacology Trials

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Design and Reporting Modifications in Industry-Sponsored Comparative • Psychopharmacology Trials • DANIEL J. SAFER, M.D.1 • J nerve mental dis 2002

  2. BMJ 2006;333;782-; originally published online 6 Oct 2006; Anders W Jørgensen, Jørgen Hilden and Peter C Gøtzsche review meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic supported meta-analyses and other Cochrane reviews compared with industry

  3. Are you at risk? falling victim to misleading presentations as a result of conflict of interest of investigators Not at all A little Moderate risk High risk

  4. Spinning • get in groups of 2 to 5 • write down 3 ways in which papers can mislead • 3 minutes

  5. Spinning • get in groups of 2 to 5 • write down three ways to avoid being mislead • 3 minutes

  6. Conclusions and Funding, Als-Nielsen, JAMA 2003 • 25 Cochrane reviews, 370 RCTs • random selection of 167 of 1081 (issue 2, 2001) • excluded • 101 < 5 studies • 6 no concealment variability • 2 no binary outcome • 16 non-pharmacological • abstracted • sources of funding • effect on primary outcome • adverse effects • methodological quality (concealment, blinding)

  7. Scale Used to Grade Conclusions in Trials 6 Points Experimental intervention highly preferred and should now be considered the standard intervention in all patients, or similar 5 Points Experimental intervention preferred to control, but further trials still indicated, experimental may be more costly, or similar 4 Points Experimental and control intervention about equal, but the experimental cheaper, easier to administer, or similar minor advantage 3 Points Experimental and control intervention about equal, but the control may be cheaper, easier to administer, or similar minor advantage 2 Points Control intervention preferred to experimental intervention, but experimental intervention might be promising under some circumstances, or similar 1 Point Control intervention highly preferred and should now be considered the standard intervention in all patients, or similar

  8. Relation Between Funding Source and Conclusions in 370 Randomized Drug Trials Abbreviation: IQR, interquartile range. *Conclusions in trials were assessed by a 1-6 point scale. If the conclusions recommended the experimental drug as the treatment of choice without disclaimers, 6 points was assigned, and if not, 1-5 points was assigned. +p<.001, using Kruskal-Wallis test (medians) or X2 test (proportions)

  9. Als-Nielson, JAMA, 2003 • bigger effect size, more likely stronger recommendation • blinding, more likely stronger recommendation • after adjustment, industry funding, odds ratio 5.3 (95% CI 2.0 to 14.4)

  10. 1 Read methods and resultsbypass the discussion

  11. ACP Journal Club? • secondary journal since 1991 • provides structured summaries • articles important to internists • high methodologic quality • therapy, randomization • diagnosis, blind comparison to a gold standard • may provide more information than original article • concealment of randomization • who is blind • patients, caregivers, outcome data collectors, adjudictors of outcome, data analysts • loss to follow-up

  12. PROGRESS, Lancet 2001

  13. PROGRESS, Lancet 2001

  14. Methods

  15. Results

  16. Interpretation

  17. perindopril R NO placebo Ask MD if patient will give two drugs perindopril + indapamide YES R R placebo

  18. PROGRESS Trial – ACP JC

  19. PROGRESS

  20. PROGRESS

  21. ACP Journal Club

  22. 2 Read the abstract reported in evidence-based secondary publications (ACPJC)

  23. Use of placebo when active comparator optimal Do you manage patients with type II diabetes? Is there any agent you would routinely suggest for patients with diabetic nephropathy? Angiotensin receptor blockers for diabetic nephropathy vs. ACE inhibitors Parving H-H et al. N Engl J Med 2001;345(12):870-878 Brenner BM N Engl J Med 2001;345(12):861-869 Lewis EJ et al. N Engl J Med 2001;345(12):851-60. Hostetter TH. N Engl J Med 2001;345(12):910-912

  24. Incomparable comparators • 8 RCTS of 2nd generation neuroleptics vs. 20 mg/d haloperidol • fewer extrapyramidal symptoms • standard dose haloperidol < 12 mg • RCT paroxetine qd vs. amitriptyline bid • less daytime somnolence • standard amitriptyline qhs Safer J Nerv Ment Dis 2002;190(9):583-92. Geddes J et al BMJ 2000;321(7273):1371-6. Christiansen PE, et al. Acta Psychiatr Scand 1996;93(3):158-63

  25. Neurology 2006;66;1294-1295 • Jacqueline A. French and Richard J. Kryscio • trials • Active control trials for epilepsy : Avoiding bias in head-to-head

  26. Use of appropriate active comparator instead of placebo For profitagency Nonprofitagency 136 trials of new treatments for multiple myeloma 40% 79% Mann H et al. James Lind Library, 2003

  27. Goetschze in methods pharmaceutical other than reporting bias (though has reporting bias implications as well)

  28. 3 Beware faulty comparators

  29. Irbesartan vs amlodipine in diabetic nephropathy • in comparison to amlodipine, irbesartan reduced the combined endpoint of all cause mortality, progression to end stage renal disease, and doubling of serum creatinine (RRR 20%, 95% CI 7.5% to 32%) • did irbesartan reduce all-cause mortality?

  30. Risk reduction with irbesartan (vs. amlodipine) Doubling of creatinine concentration RRR 33% (16-47%) End-stage renal disease RRR 23% (-0.5-41%) All-cause mortality RRR -3% (-35-22%) Composite endpoint RRR 20% (7.5-32%) -40 -24 -8 8 24 40 56 RRR (95% CI) RCT 1715 DM 2 nephropathy, HTN irbesartan vs amlodipine NEJM 2001; 345: 851

  31. What has gone wrong? • widely varying importance • biggest effect on least important • most important no effect • criteria for use of composite • similar patient-importance • similar effect

  32. UKPDS Diabetes-related endpoints Sudden death Death from hypoglycemia Death from hyperglycemia Fatal MI Nonfatal MI Angina Heart failure Stroke Renal failure Amputation Vitreous hemorrhage Retinal photocoagulation Blindness in one eye Cataract extraction After 10 years of treatment with diet + SU or insulin: 35.3% with diet: 38.5% RD: 3.2% NNT for 10 years: 31 SIMILAR PATIENT IMPORTANCE? SIMILAR TREATMENT EFFECT? 2.7% 1 in 35 reviews note thisdominance

  33. 4 Beware composite endpoints

  34. 5,269 patients with abnormal glucose tolerance test randomized to lifestyle advice, or advice + rosiglitazone followed for 3 to 5 years

  35. What is the authors’ message? • rosiglitazone to prevent diabetes: • strong indication (for all) • weak indication (for some) • not indicated

  36. Doctor, what do I gain by taking rosiglitazone? • Doc: less chance of diabetes • Pt: what happens if I get diabetes • Doc: you have to take a drug • Pt: the same drug I’m taking to prevent diabetes? • Doc: I could give you a drug with less problems • Pt: I’ll take a drug every day for 3 years to lower my risk of taking the same or a less toxic drug from 25 to 10%???

  37. What is your view? • rosiglitazone to prevent diabetes: • strong indication (for all) • weak indication (for some) • not indicated • what has gone wrong here?

  38. Other problematic surrogates • tests of cognitive function instead of function and behavior in Alzheimer’s • bone density instead of fractures in osteoporosis • oxygenation instead of mortality in ARDS • asymptomatic DVT instead of symptomatic thromboembolism • pulmonary function instead of exacerbations and qol in respiratory disease • lipids instead of CV events in atherosclerosis

  39. Another surrogate • patients with CV disease • higher HDL associated with lower CV risk • strongly agree • agree • disagree • raising HDL should decrease CV risk • strongly agree • agree • disagree

  40. 5 Beware substitute endpoints

More Related