Treatment success in cancer: industry compared to publicly sponsored randomized controlled trials.

To assess if commercially sponsored trials are associated with higher success rates than publicly-sponsored trials.We undertook a systematic review of all consecutive, published and unpublished phase III cancer randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and the NCIC Clini...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Benjamin Djulbegovic, Ambuj Kumar, Branko Miladinovic, Tea Reljic, Sanja Galeb, Asmita Mhaskar, Rahul Mhaskar, Iztok Hozo, Dongsheng Tu, Heather A Stanton, Christopher M Booth, Ralph M Meyer
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2013-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3605423?pdf=render
id doaj-81c5a9802e444fef99e549f05edfdfb0
record_format Article
spelling doaj-81c5a9802e444fef99e549f05edfdfb02020-11-25T01:51:09ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032013-01-0183e5871110.1371/journal.pone.0058711Treatment success in cancer: industry compared to publicly sponsored randomized controlled trials.Benjamin DjulbegovicAmbuj KumarBranko MiladinovicTea ReljicSanja GalebAsmita MhaskarRahul MhaskarIztok HozoDongsheng TuHeather A StantonChristopher M BoothRalph M MeyerTo assess if commercially sponsored trials are associated with higher success rates than publicly-sponsored trials.We undertook a systematic review of all consecutive, published and unpublished phase III cancer randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and the NCIC Clinical Trials Group (CTG). We included all phase III cancer RCTs assessing treatment superiority from 1980 to 2010. Three metrics were assessed to determine treatment successes: (1) the proportion of statistically significant trials favouring the experimental treatment, (2) the proportion of the trials in which new treatments were considered superior according to the investigators, and (3) quantitative synthesis of data for primary outcomes as defined in each trial.GSK conducted 40 cancer RCTs accruing 19,889 patients and CTG conducted 77 trials enrolling 33,260 patients. 42% (99%CI 24 to 60) of the results were statistically significant favouring experimental treatments in GSK compared to 25% (99%CI 13 to 37) in the CTG cohort (RR = 1.68; p = 0.04). Investigators concluded that new treatments were superior to standard treatments in 80% of GSK compared to 44% of CTG trials (RR = 1.81; p<0.001). Meta-analysis of the primary outcome indicated larger effects in GSK trials (odds ratio = 0.61 [99%CI 0.47-0.78] compared to 0.86 [0.74-1.00]; p = 0.003). However, testing for the effect of treatment over time indicated that treatment success has become comparable in the last decade.While overall industry sponsorship is associated with higher success rates than publicly-sponsored trials, the difference seems to have disappeared over time.http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3605423?pdf=render
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Benjamin Djulbegovic
Ambuj Kumar
Branko Miladinovic
Tea Reljic
Sanja Galeb
Asmita Mhaskar
Rahul Mhaskar
Iztok Hozo
Dongsheng Tu
Heather A Stanton
Christopher M Booth
Ralph M Meyer
spellingShingle Benjamin Djulbegovic
Ambuj Kumar
Branko Miladinovic
Tea Reljic
Sanja Galeb
Asmita Mhaskar
Rahul Mhaskar
Iztok Hozo
Dongsheng Tu
Heather A Stanton
Christopher M Booth
Ralph M Meyer
Treatment success in cancer: industry compared to publicly sponsored randomized controlled trials.
PLoS ONE
author_facet Benjamin Djulbegovic
Ambuj Kumar
Branko Miladinovic
Tea Reljic
Sanja Galeb
Asmita Mhaskar
Rahul Mhaskar
Iztok Hozo
Dongsheng Tu
Heather A Stanton
Christopher M Booth
Ralph M Meyer
author_sort Benjamin Djulbegovic
title Treatment success in cancer: industry compared to publicly sponsored randomized controlled trials.
title_short Treatment success in cancer: industry compared to publicly sponsored randomized controlled trials.
title_full Treatment success in cancer: industry compared to publicly sponsored randomized controlled trials.
title_fullStr Treatment success in cancer: industry compared to publicly sponsored randomized controlled trials.
title_full_unstemmed Treatment success in cancer: industry compared to publicly sponsored randomized controlled trials.
title_sort treatment success in cancer: industry compared to publicly sponsored randomized controlled trials.
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
series PLoS ONE
issn 1932-6203
publishDate 2013-01-01
description To assess if commercially sponsored trials are associated with higher success rates than publicly-sponsored trials.We undertook a systematic review of all consecutive, published and unpublished phase III cancer randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and the NCIC Clinical Trials Group (CTG). We included all phase III cancer RCTs assessing treatment superiority from 1980 to 2010. Three metrics were assessed to determine treatment successes: (1) the proportion of statistically significant trials favouring the experimental treatment, (2) the proportion of the trials in which new treatments were considered superior according to the investigators, and (3) quantitative synthesis of data for primary outcomes as defined in each trial.GSK conducted 40 cancer RCTs accruing 19,889 patients and CTG conducted 77 trials enrolling 33,260 patients. 42% (99%CI 24 to 60) of the results were statistically significant favouring experimental treatments in GSK compared to 25% (99%CI 13 to 37) in the CTG cohort (RR = 1.68; p = 0.04). Investigators concluded that new treatments were superior to standard treatments in 80% of GSK compared to 44% of CTG trials (RR = 1.81; p<0.001). Meta-analysis of the primary outcome indicated larger effects in GSK trials (odds ratio = 0.61 [99%CI 0.47-0.78] compared to 0.86 [0.74-1.00]; p = 0.003). However, testing for the effect of treatment over time indicated that treatment success has become comparable in the last decade.While overall industry sponsorship is associated with higher success rates than publicly-sponsored trials, the difference seems to have disappeared over time.
url http://europepmc.org/articles/PMC3605423?pdf=render
work_keys_str_mv AT benjamindjulbegovic treatmentsuccessincancerindustrycomparedtopubliclysponsoredrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT ambujkumar treatmentsuccessincancerindustrycomparedtopubliclysponsoredrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT brankomiladinovic treatmentsuccessincancerindustrycomparedtopubliclysponsoredrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT teareljic treatmentsuccessincancerindustrycomparedtopubliclysponsoredrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT sanjagaleb treatmentsuccessincancerindustrycomparedtopubliclysponsoredrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT asmitamhaskar treatmentsuccessincancerindustrycomparedtopubliclysponsoredrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT rahulmhaskar treatmentsuccessincancerindustrycomparedtopubliclysponsoredrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT iztokhozo treatmentsuccessincancerindustrycomparedtopubliclysponsoredrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT dongshengtu treatmentsuccessincancerindustrycomparedtopubliclysponsoredrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT heatherastanton treatmentsuccessincancerindustrycomparedtopubliclysponsoredrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT christophermbooth treatmentsuccessincancerindustrycomparedtopubliclysponsoredrandomizedcontrolledtrials
AT ralphmmeyer treatmentsuccessincancerindustrycomparedtopubliclysponsoredrandomizedcontrolledtrials
_version_ 1724998200726650880