Factors Associated with Results and Conclusions of Trials of ThiazolidinedionesReport as inadecuate




Factors Associated with Results and Conclusions of Trials of Thiazolidinediones - Download this document for free, or read online. Document in PDF available to download.

Background

When a sponsor funds a study of two competing drugs in a head-to-head comparison, the results and conclusions are likely to favor the sponsor’s drug. Thiazolidinediones, oral medications used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, are one of the most costly choices of oral anti-diabetic medications, yet they do not demonstrate clinically relevant differences in achieving lower glycosylated hemoglobin levels compared to other oral antidiabetic drugs. Our aim is to examine associations between research funding source, study design characteristics aimed at reducing bias, and other factors with the results and conclusions of randomized controlled trials RCTs of thiazolidinediones compared to other oral hypoglycemic agents.

Methods and Findings

This is a cross-sectional study of 61 published RCTs comparing a thiazolidinedione glitazone to another anti-diabetic drug or placebo for treatment of type 2 diabetes. Data on study design characteristics, funding source, author’s financial ties, results for primary outcomes, and author conclusions were extracted. Univariate logistic regression identified associations between independent variables and results and conclusions that favored the glitazone. Of the RCTs, 59% 36-61 were funded by industry, 39% 24-61 did not disclose any funding. Common study design weaknesses included inadequate blinding and lack of concealment of allocation. Trials that reported favorable glycemic control results for the glitazone were more likely to have adequate blinding OR 95% CI  = 5.42 1.46, 21.19, p = 0.008 and have a corresponding author with financial ties to the glitazone manufacturer OR 95% CI  = 4.12 1.05, 19.53; p = 0.04. Trials with conclusions favoring the glitazone were less likely to be funded by a comparator drug company than a glitazone company OR 95% CI  = 0.026 0, 0.40, p = 0.003 and less likely to be published in journals with higher impact factors OR 95% CI  = 0.79 0.62, 0.97, p = 0.011. One limitation of our study is that we categorized studies as funded by industry based on each article’s disclosure which could underestimate the number of industry sponsored studies and personal ties of investigators. Additionally, our study did not include any head-to-head comparisons of one glitazone to another.

Conclusions

Published RCT comparisons of glitazones with other anti-diabetic drugs or placebo are predominantly industry supported and this support, as well as the financial ties of study authors, appears to be associated with favorable findings.



Author: Gail Rattinger, Lisa Bero

Source: http://plos.srce.hr/



DOWNLOAD PDF




Related documents