Results reported in the main cardiovascular clinical trials funded by for-profit and non-profit organizations: 2000-2005

Paul M. Ridker, MD; Jose Torres, BA
Journal of the American Medical Association
2006

In 2006 on the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), a research by Ridker and Torres wanted to verify if this situation had changed in the 2000s, in particular in the studies concerning the cardiovascular field. After reviewing 303 superiority trials, published between 2000 and 2005 on JAMA, NEJM e Lancet and for which the source of funding was indicated. The authors found that out of 137 industry-funded trials 92 (67%) had a favorable result for the new treatment (P<.001), while this only happened in 51 (49%) of the 104 trials funded by non-profit organizations (P= .80). Of the 62 mixed-funded trials, 35 (57%) were favorable. Among the 205 RCTs (Randomized Clinical Trials) of drugs, the proportions favorable to the new treatment were 39.5% for those financed by non-profit organizations, 54.4% for those with mixed financing and 65.5% for those financed by industry (P for the intra-group trend = .002). Among the 39 RCTs conducted on cardiovascular devices, the proportions of the studies with favorable results were respectively 50.0%, 69.2%, 82.4%, (P for the intra-group trend = .07). In addition, trials that had surrogate end points were more likely to have a positive result (67%) than those that had clinical end points (54.1%; P= .02).

Source: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/295/19/2270