Evaluation of Selective Outcome Reporting Bias in Efficacy Endpoints in Print and Television Advertisements for Oncology Drugs.
advertisement
bias
clinical trials
oncology
overall survival
surrogate endpoint
Journal
Journal of general internal medicine
ISSN: 1525-1497
Titre abrégé: J Gen Intern Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8605834
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2020
10 2020
Historique:
received:
01
10
2019
accepted:
30
06
2020
pubmed:
15
7
2020
medline:
15
5
2021
entrez:
15
7
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Selective outcome reporting bias in oncology drug advertisements may encourage misconceptions about a drug's efficacy profile. 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). 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. 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. 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). 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32661931
doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06028-1
pii: 10.1007/s11606-020-06028-1
pmc: PMC7572986
doi:
Substances chimiques
Pharmaceutical Preparations
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
2853-2857Références
Donohue JM, Cevasco M, Rosenthal MB. A Decade of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(7):673-681.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa070502
Mintzes B Advertising of Prescription-Only Medicines to the Public: Does Evidence of Benefit Counterbalance Harm? 2012. doi: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031811-124540
Stange KC. Time to ban direct-to-consumer prescription drug marketing. Ann Fam Med. 2007;5(2):101-104.
doi: 10.1370/afm.693
Connors AL. Big bad pharma: an ethical analysis of physician-directed and consumer-directed marketing tactics. Albany Law Rev. 2009;73(1):243-282.
pubmed: 20235401
Delbaere M, Smith MC. Health care knowledge and consumer learning: the case of direct-to-consumer drug advertising. Health Mark Q. 2006;23(3):9-29.
doi: 10.1080/07359680802086059
Boden WE, Diamond GA. DTCA for PTCA—crossing the line in consumer health education? N Engl J Med. 2008;358(21):2197-2200.
doi: 10.1056/NEJMp0801433
Frosch DL, Krueger PM, Hornik RC, Cronholm PF, Barg FK. Creating demand for prescription drugs: a content analysis of television direct-to-consumer advertising. Ann Fam Med. 2007;5(1):6-13.
doi: 10.1370/afm.611
Almasi EA, Stafford RS, Kravitz RL, Mansfield PR. What are the public health effects of direct-to-consumer drug advertising? PLoS Med. 2006;3(3):e145.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0030145
Kuehn BM. FDA weighs limits for online ads. JAMA. 2010;303(4):311-313.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2009.1961
Frosch DL, Grande D, Tarn DM, Kravitz RL. A Decade of Controversy: Balancing Policy With Evidence in the Regulation of Prescription Drug Advertising. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(1):24-32.
doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.153767
Schnipper LE, Abel GA. Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertising in Oncology Is Not Beneficial to Patients or Public Health. JAMA Oncol. 2016;2(11):1397-1398.
doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2016.2463
Abel GA, Chen K, Taback N, Hassett MJ, Schrag D, Weeks JC. Impact of oncology-related direct-to-consumer advertising: Association with appropriate and inappropriate prescriptions. Cancer. 2013;119(5):1065-1072.
doi: 10.1002/cncr.27814
Kim H. Trouble Spots in Online Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Promotion: A Content Analysis of FDA Warning Letters. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2015;4(12):813-821.
doi: 10.15171/ijhpm.2015.157
Kroschinsky F, Stölzel F, von Bonin S, et al. New drugs, new toxicities: severe side effects of modern targeted and immunotherapy of cancer and their management. Crit Care. 2017;21(1):89.
doi: 10.1186/s13054-017-1678-1
Mariotto AB, Yabroff KR, Shao Y, Feuer EJ, Brown ML. Projections of the cost of cancer care in the United States: 2010-2020. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2011;103(2):117-128.
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djq495
Chan A-W, Hróbjartsson A, Haahr MT, Gøtzsche PC, Altman DG. Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles. JAMA. 2004;291(20):2457-2465.
doi: 10.1001/jama.291.20.2457
Wittes J. On changing a long-term clinical trial midstream. Stat Med. 2002;21(19):2789-2795.
doi: 10.1002/sim.1282
Wayant C, Scheckel C, Hicks C, et al. Evidence of selective reporting bias in hematology journals: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2017;12(6):e0178379.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0178379
Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, et al. The impact of outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials on a cohort of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2010;340:c365.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.c365
Rankin J, Ross A, Baker J, O’Brien M, Scheckel C, Vassar M. Selective outcome reporting in obesity clinical trials: a cross-sectional review. Clin Obes. 2017;7(4):245-254.
doi: 10.1111/cob.12199
Raghav KPS, Mahajan S, Yao JC, et al. From Protocols to Publications: A Study in Selective Reporting of Outcomes in Randomized Trials in Oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(31):3583-3590.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2015.62.4148
Klara K, Kim J, Ross JS. Direct-to-Consumer Broadcast Advertisements for Pharmaceuticals: Off-Label Promotion and Adherence to FDA Guidelines. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(5):651-658.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-4274-9
Chen H, Cohen P, Chen S. How Big is a Big Odds Ratio? Interpreting the Magnitudes of Odds Ratios in Epidemiological Studies. Commun Stat Simul Comput. 2010;39(4):860-864.
doi: 10.1080/03610911003650383
VanderWeele TJ, Ding P. Sensitivity Analysis in Observational Research: Introducing the E-Value. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167(4):268-274.
doi: 10.7326/M16-2607
Dwan K, Altman DG, Clarke M, et al. Evidence for the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical trials. PLoS Med . 2014;11(6):e1001666.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001666
Ross A, George D, Wayant C, Hamilton T, Vassar M. Registration Practices of Randomized Clinical Trials in Rhinosinusitis: A Cross-sectional Review. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2019.0145
Als-Nielsen B, Chen W, Gluud C, Kjaergard LL. Association of funding and conclusions in randomized drug trials: a reflection of treatment effect or adverse events? JAMA. 2003;290(7):921-928.
doi: 10.1001/jama.290.7.921
Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome: systematic review with meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2018;44(10):1603-1612.
doi: 10.1007/s00134-018-5293-7
Lundh A, Lexchin J, Mintzes B, Schroll JB, Bero L. Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2:MR000033.
Haslam A, Hey SP, Gill J, Prasad V. A systematic review of trial-level meta-analyses measuring the strength of association between surrogate end-points and overall survival in oncology. Eur J Cancer. 2019;106:196-211.
doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.11.012
Wayant C, Vassar M. A comparison of matched interim analysis publications and final analysis publications in oncology clinical trials. Ann Oncol. 2018;29(12):2384-2390.
doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdy447
Booth CM, Eisenhauer EA. Progression-free survival: meaningful or simply measurable? J Clin Oncol. 2012;30(10):1030-1033.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.38.7571
Bassler D, Briel M, Montori VM, et al. Stopping randomized trials early for benefit and estimation of treatment effects: systematic review and meta-regression analysis. JAMA. 2010;303(12):1180-1187.
doi: 10.1001/jama.2010.310
Food and Drug Administration. Presenting Quantitative Efficacy and Risk Information in Direct-to-Consumer Promotional Labeling and Advertisements: Guidance for Industry. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM623515.pdf . Published October 2018. Accessed 24 Jan 2019.
Raphael MJ, Robinson A, Booth CM, et al. The Value of Progression-Free Survival as a Treatment End Point Among Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review and Qualitative Assessment of the Literature. JAMA Oncol. 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.3338
Boutron I, Altman DG, Hopewell S, Vera-Badillo F, Tannock I, Ravaud P. Impact of spin in the abstracts of articles reporting results of randomized controlled trials in the field of cancer: the SPIIN randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(36):4120-4126.
doi: 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.7503