Literature DB >> 32661931

Evaluation of Selective Outcome Reporting Bias in Efficacy Endpoints in Print and Television Advertisements for Oncology Drugs.

Cole Wayant1, Greg Aran2, Bradley S Johnson2, Matt Vassar2.   

Abstract

IMPORTANCE: Selective outcome reporting bias in oncology drug advertisements may encourage misconceptions about a drug's efficacy profile.
OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine the rates of selective outcome reporting in published cancer clinical trials and in television and print advertisements for anticancer medications. We also quantified the number of advertisements that did not include or cite any studies with mature overall survival (OS) data (i.e., data with all required patient events for final analysis). DESIGN/SETTING/PARTICIPANTS: We conducted a cross-sectional investigation of advertisements uploaded to the AdPharm Database (repository of pharmaceutical advertisements); the clinical trials supporting the ads; and the trial registrations associated with the trials. Data were extracted by two investigators who were blinded to each other's data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The first co-primary objective was to investigate selective outcome reporting between trial registrations and published trials. The second co-primary objective was to investigate selective outcome reporting between the same published trials and drug advertisements.
RESULTS: We included 74 advertisements and 48 clinical trials. Print ads were the most common (n = 66), and most print advertisements were targeted to health care providers (n = 55, 83.3%). Overall, 41/48 (85.4%) trials were registered prior to study enrollment, and 41/48 (85.4%) did not deviate from the registered primary endpoints. Across all advertisements (n = 74), statistically significant endpoints were more often reported (unadjusted risk ratio [uRR] 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] (1.14-1.40)) and 22/55 (40.0%) advertisements cited trials with immature overall survival data (i.e., data without the required number of events for final analysis).
CONCLUSIONS: In our sample, statistically significant endpoints were more commonly reported than nonsignificant endpoints. Immature endpoints (those analyzed before the required number of accrued patient events) were often reported. By reporting only significant endpoints and those that are immature, advertisers may encourage misconceptions about a drug's efficacy profile.

Entities:  

Keywords:  advertisement; bias; clinical trials; oncology; overall survival; surrogate endpoint

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32661931      PMCID: PMC7572986          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-020-06028-1

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  34 in total

Review 1.  Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis.

Authors:  Dirk Bassler; Matthias Briel; Victor M Montori; Melanie Lane; Paul Glasziou; Qi Zhou; Diane Heels-Ansdell; Stephen D Walter; Gordon H Guyatt; David N Flynn; Mohamed B Elamin; Mohammad Hassan Murad; Nisrin O Abu Elnour; Julianna F Lampropulos; Amit Sood; Rebecca J Mullan; Patricia J Erwin; Clare R Bankhead; Rafael Perera; Carolina Ruiz Culebro; John J You; Sohail M Mulla; Jagdeep Kaur; Kara A Nerenberg; Holger Schünemann; Deborah J Cook; Kristina Lutz; Christine M Ribic; Noah Vale; German Malaga; Elie A Akl; Ignacio Ferreira-Gonzalez; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Gerard Urrutia; Regina Kunz; Heiner C Bucher; Alain J Nordmann; Heike Raatz; Suzana Alves da Silva; Fabio Tuche; Brigitte Strahm; Benjamin Djulbegovic; Neill K J Adhikari; Edward J Mills; Femida Gwadry-Sridhar; Haresh Kirpalani; Heloisa P Soares; Paul J Karanicolas; Karen E A Burns; Per Olav Vandvik; Fernando Coto-Yglesias; Pedro Paulo M Chrispim; Tim Ramsay
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-03-24       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Big bad pharma: an ethical analysis of physician-directed and consumer-directed marketing tactics.

Authors:  Amanda L Connors
Journal:  Albany Law Rev       Date:  2009-09

3.  Creating demand for prescription drugs: a content analysis of television direct-to-consumer advertising.

Authors:  Dominick L Frosch; Patrick M Krueger; Robert C Hornik; Peter F Cronholm; Frances K Barg
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2007 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.166

4.  Health care knowledge and consumer learning: the case of direct-to-consumer drug advertising.

Authors:  Marjorie Delbaere; Malcolm C Smith
Journal:  Health Mark Q       Date:  2006

5.  Sensitivity Analysis in Observational Research: Introducing the E-Value.

Authors:  Tyler J VanderWeele; Peng Ding
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2017-07-11       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 6.  Selective outcome reporting in obesity clinical trials: a cross-sectional review.

Authors:  J Rankin; A Ross; J Baker; M O'Brien; C Scheckel; M Vassar
Journal:  Clin Obes       Date:  2017-05-30

7.  Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis.

Authors:  Andreas Lundh; Joel Lexchin; Barbara Mintzes; Jeppe B Schroll; Lisa Bero
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2018-08-21       Impact factor: 17.440

8.  Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020.

Authors:  Angela B Mariotto; K Robin Yabroff; Yongwu Shao; Eric J Feuer; Martin L Brown
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2011-01-12       Impact factor: 13.506

9.  A systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses measuring the strength of association between surrogate end-points and overall survival in oncology.

Authors:  Alyson Haslam; Spencer P Hey; Jennifer Gill; Vinay Prasad
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2018-12-05       Impact factor: 9.162

Review 10.  Registration Practices of Randomized Clinical Trials in Rhinosinusitis: A Cross-sectional Review.

Authors:  Andrew Ross; David George; Cole Wayant; Tom Hamilton; Matt Vassar
Journal:  JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg       Date:  2019-05-01       Impact factor: 6.223

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.