General Hospital George Papanikolaou, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Eur J Clin Invest. 2010 Feb;40(2):172-82. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02240.x. Epub 2009 Dec 27.
Most clinical trials on medical interventions are sponsored by the industry. The choice of comparators shapes the accumulated evidence. We aimed to assess how often major companies sponsor trials that involve only their own products.
Studies were identified by searching ClinicalTrials.gov for trials registered in 2006. We focused on randomized trials involving the 15 companies that had sponsored the largest number of registered trials in ClinicalTrials.gov in that period.
Overall, 577 randomized trials were eligible for analysis and 82% had a single industry sponsor [89% (166/187) of the placebo-control trials, 87% (91/105) of trials comparing different doses or ways of administration of the same intervention, and 78% (221/285) of other active control trials]. The compared intervention(s) belonged to a single company in 67% of the trials (89%, 81% and 47% in the three categories respectively). All 15 companies strongly preferred to run trials where they were the only industry sponsor or even the only owner of the assessed interventions. Co-sponsorship typically reflected co-ownership of the same intervention by both companies. Head-to-head comparison of different active interventions developed by different companies occurred in only 18 trials with two or more industry sponsors.
Each company generates a clinical research agenda that is strongly focused on its own products, while comparisons involving different interventions from different companies are uncommon. This diminishes the ability to understand the relative merits of different interventions for the same condition.
大多数医学干预措施的临床试验都是由行业赞助的。对照的选择塑造了累积的证据。我们旨在评估主要公司赞助仅涉及自身产品的试验的频率。
通过在 ClinicalTrials.gov 上搜索 2006 年注册的试验来确定研究。我们专注于涉及在该时期 ClinicalTrials.gov 上赞助注册试验数量最多的 15 家公司的随机试验。
共有 577 项随机试验符合分析条件,其中 82%有单一行业赞助商[89%(166/187)的安慰剂对照试验,87%(91/105)的比较同一干预措施不同剂量或给药方式的试验,以及 78%(221/285)的其他活性对照试验]。在 67%的试验中(在这三个类别中分别为 89%、81%和 47%),比较的干预措施属于单一公司。所有 15 家公司都强烈倾向于开展只有他们自己作为行业赞助商或甚至是评估干预措施的唯一所有者的试验。共同赞助通常反映了两家公司对同一干预措施的共同所有权。只有两个或更多行业赞助商的 18 项试验中才进行了不同公司开发的不同活性干预措施的头对头比较。
每家公司都制定了一个临床研究议程,该议程强烈关注其自身产品,而不同公司之间涉及不同干预措施的比较并不常见。这降低了理解同一疾病不同干预措施相对优势的能力。