Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations

Publication Bias Found Among Trials Submitted To FDA: New Study

Date:
November 26, 2008
Source:
Public Library of Science
Summary:
A quarter of drug trials submitted in support of new drug applications to the US Food and Drug Administration remain unpublished five years after the fact, says new research.

A quarter of drug trials submitted in support of new drug applications to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) remain unpublished five years after the fact, says new research published in the open access journal PLoS Medicine.

Among those trials published, unexplained discrepancies between the FDA submissions and their corresponding publications—the addition or deletion of outcomes, changes in the statistical significance of reported outcomes, and changes in overall trial conclusions—tended to lead to more favorable presentations of the drugs in the medical literature available to health care professionals.

Lisa Bero and colleagues from the University of California San Francisco reviewed the publication status of all 164 efficacy trials carried out in support of the 33 new drug applications (NDA) for new molecular entities approved by the FDA in 2001-2002, and compared information from the FDA reviews with published journal articles. Seventy-eight percent of the trials were published. Trials with favorable outcomes for the drugs were more likely to be published as those without favorable outcomes. Of a total of 179 primary outcomes included in the NDAs, 41 were omitted from the papers. The papers included 138 outcomes that were also in the NDAs (77%), plus 15 additional outcomes that favored the test drug, and two other neutral or unknown additional outcomes. Thus, the papers included more outcomes favoring the test drug than did the NDAs, report the authors.

The research also found additional discrepancies between the FDA reviews and the published papers. Of the 43 primary outcomes reported in the NDAs that showed no statistically significant benefit for the test drug, only half were included in the papers; for five of the reported primary outcomes, the statistical significance differed between the NDA and the paper and generally favored the test drug in the papers. Nine out of 99 conclusions differed between the NDAs and the papers; each time, the published conclusion favored the test drug. The authors did not investigate why the discrepancies existed, nor whether the changes were prompted by the drug sponsor, authors, or journals.

Because of their findings of publication bias and selective reporting, the authors conclude that "the information that is readily available in the scientific literature to health care professionals is incomplete and potentially biased."

In a commentary on the research, An-Wen Chan from the Mayo Clinic in Rochester (uninvolved in the study) says this new research makes an important contribution to the growing body of evidence that the trial literature is skewed towards reporting favorable results. "Biased reporting of results from NDA trials is particularly concerning because these journal articles are the only peer reviewed source of information on recently approved drugs for health care providers, who will have had limited clinical experience with these new treatments," Dr Chan says. "There are also substantial cost implications if the efficacy is overestimated and the drugs overused."

Before a new drug is approved for the treatment of a specific disease in the United States and becomes available for doctors to prescribe, the drug's sponsors must submit a "New Drug Application" (NDA) to the FDA, which provides details of the drug's development from laboratory and animal studies through to clinical trials. FDA reviewers use this evidence to decide whether to approve a drug.


Story Source:

The above story is based on materials provided by Public Library of Science. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.


Journal Reference:

  1. Rising K, Bacchetti P, Bero L. Reporting Bias in Drug Trials Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: Review of Publication and Presentation. PLoS Medicine, 2008; 5 (11): e217 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0050217

Cite This Page:

Public Library of Science. "Publication Bias Found Among Trials Submitted To FDA: New Study." ScienceDaily. ScienceDaily, 26 November 2008. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081124203712.htm>.
Public Library of Science. (2008, November 26). Publication Bias Found Among Trials Submitted To FDA: New Study. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 23, 2014 from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081124203712.htm
Public Library of Science. "Publication Bias Found Among Trials Submitted To FDA: New Study." ScienceDaily. www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081124203712.htm (accessed July 23, 2014).

Share This




More Health & Medicine News

Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Featured Research

from universities, journals, and other organizations


Featured Videos

from AP, Reuters, AFP, and other news services

Courts Conflicted Over Healthcare Law

Courts Conflicted Over Healthcare Law

AP (July 22, 2014) Two federal appeals courts issued conflicting rulings Tuesday on the legality of the federally-run healthcare exchange that operates in 36 states. (July 22) Video provided by AP
Powered by NewsLook.com
Why Do People Believe We Only Use 10 Percent Of Our Brains?

Why Do People Believe We Only Use 10 Percent Of Our Brains?

Newsy (July 22, 2014) The new sci-fi thriller "Lucy" is making people question whether we really use all our brainpower. But, as scientists have insisted for years, we do. Video provided by Newsy
Powered by NewsLook.com
Scientists Find New Way To Make Human Platelets

Scientists Find New Way To Make Human Platelets

Newsy (July 22, 2014) Boston scientists have discovered a new way to create fully functioning human platelets using a bioreactor and human stem cells. Video provided by Newsy
Powered by NewsLook.com
Gilead's $1000-a-Pill Drug Could Cure Hep C in HIV-Positive People

Gilead's $1000-a-Pill Drug Could Cure Hep C in HIV-Positive People

TheStreet (July 21, 2014) New research shows Gilead Science's drug Sovaldi helps in curing hepatitis C in those who suffer from HIV. In a medical study, the combination of Gilead's Hep C drug with anti-viral drug Ribavirin cured 76% of HIV-positive patients suffering from the most common hepatitis C strain. Hepatitis C and related complications have been a top cause of death in HIV-positive patients. Typical medication used to treat the disease, including interferon proteins, tended to react badly with HIV drugs. However, Sovaldi's %1,000-a-pill price tag could limit the number of patients able to access the treatment. TheStreet's Keris Lahiff reports from New York. Video provided by TheStreet
Powered by NewsLook.com

Search ScienceDaily

Number of stories in archives: 140,361

Find with keyword(s):
Enter a keyword or phrase to search ScienceDaily for related topics and research stories.

Save/Print:
Share:

Breaking News:
from the past week

In Other News

... from NewsDaily.com

Science News

Health News

Environment News

Technology News



Save/Print:
Share:

Free Subscriptions


Get the latest science news with ScienceDaily's free email newsletters, updated daily and weekly. Or view hourly updated newsfeeds in your RSS reader:

Get Social & Mobile


Keep up to date with the latest news from ScienceDaily via social networks and mobile apps:

Have Feedback?


Tell us what you think of ScienceDaily -- we welcome both positive and negative comments. Have any problems using the site? Questions?
Mobile: iPhone Android Web
Follow: Facebook Twitter Google+
Subscribe: RSS Feeds Email Newsletters
Latest Headlines Health & Medicine Mind & Brain Space & Time Matter & Energy Computers & Math Plants & Animals Earth & Climate Fossils & Ruins