制药业资助和前列腺癌化疗试验:系统综述

Q3 Medicine
Amirreza Heydari , Behnam Shakiba , Asaad Moradi , Saeed Esmaeil Soofian , Nasrollah Abian , Kazem Heidari , Robab Maghsoudi
{"title":"制药业资助和前列腺癌化疗试验:系统综述","authors":"Amirreza Heydari ,&nbsp;Behnam Shakiba ,&nbsp;Asaad Moradi ,&nbsp;Saeed Esmaeil Soofian ,&nbsp;Nasrollah Abian ,&nbsp;Kazem Heidari ,&nbsp;Robab Maghsoudi","doi":"10.1016/j.ctarc.2023.100739","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Clinical trials are increasingly supported by industries while previous studies have shown that industry-supported studies have more favorable results than studies with other sources of funding. In the present study, we investigated the association of industrial funding on the results of clinical trials regarding chemotherapy in prostate cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic literature search was performed in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to identify clinical trials comparing chemotherapy with treatments such as hormone therapy, surgery, radiotherapy, and placebo in patients with metastatic or non-metastatic prostate cancer. Data were extracted by two reviewers on the financial resources and the positive or negative results of chemotherapy in each study. The quality of articles was evaluated and compared based on Cochrane Critical Appraisal Tool. The trials were divided into two groups; industry funded and those not funded by industry. Association of industry funding and positive outcome was presented as odds ratio.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In this study, out of the 91 studies, 80.2% were funded by pharmaceutical companies and 19.8% were funded by government agencies. The end result of 61.6% of the studies funded by pharmaceutical companies was an increase in survival due to chemotherapy, whereas only 27.8% of the studies sponsored by government agencies reported positive results (P-value=0.010). In fact, industry-funded trials more often presented statistically significant positive results for survival (OR: 4.17; CI, 1.34–12.99). In general, there was no significant difference in the degree of bias between the two groups.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>According to this study, despite of the similar quality of studies funded by pharmaceutical companies and government agencies, positive results were more common in studies related to pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, this point should be taken into account when making a decision on the best treatment approach.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":9507,"journal":{"name":"Cancer treatment and research communications","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pharmaceutical industry funding and chemotherapy trials for prostate cancer: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Amirreza Heydari ,&nbsp;Behnam Shakiba ,&nbsp;Asaad Moradi ,&nbsp;Saeed Esmaeil Soofian ,&nbsp;Nasrollah Abian ,&nbsp;Kazem Heidari ,&nbsp;Robab Maghsoudi\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ctarc.2023.100739\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Clinical trials are increasingly supported by industries while previous studies have shown that industry-supported studies have more favorable results than studies with other sources of funding. In the present study, we investigated the association of industrial funding on the results of clinical trials regarding chemotherapy in prostate cancer.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A systematic literature search was performed in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to identify clinical trials comparing chemotherapy with treatments such as hormone therapy, surgery, radiotherapy, and placebo in patients with metastatic or non-metastatic prostate cancer. Data were extracted by two reviewers on the financial resources and the positive or negative results of chemotherapy in each study. The quality of articles was evaluated and compared based on Cochrane Critical Appraisal Tool. The trials were divided into two groups; industry funded and those not funded by industry. Association of industry funding and positive outcome was presented as odds ratio.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In this study, out of the 91 studies, 80.2% were funded by pharmaceutical companies and 19.8% were funded by government agencies. The end result of 61.6% of the studies funded by pharmaceutical companies was an increase in survival due to chemotherapy, whereas only 27.8% of the studies sponsored by government agencies reported positive results (P-value=0.010). In fact, industry-funded trials more often presented statistically significant positive results for survival (OR: 4.17; CI, 1.34–12.99). In general, there was no significant difference in the degree of bias between the two groups.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>According to this study, despite of the similar quality of studies funded by pharmaceutical companies and government agencies, positive results were more common in studies related to pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, this point should be taken into account when making a decision on the best treatment approach.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9507,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cancer treatment and research communications\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cancer treatment and research communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468294223000618\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer treatment and research communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2468294223000618","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

临床试验越来越多地得到行业的支持,而以前的研究表明,行业支持的研究比其他资金来源的研究有更有利的结果。在本研究中,我们调查了工业资金与前列腺癌化疗临床试验结果的关系。方法在Cochrane图书馆、MEDLINE和EMBASE中进行系统的文献检索,以确定对转移性或非转移性前列腺癌患者进行化疗与激素治疗、手术、放疗和安慰剂等治疗的临床试验。两名审稿人提取了每项研究的财政资源和化疗的阳性或阴性结果的数据。采用Cochrane Critical evaluation Tool对文章质量进行评价和比较。试验分为两组;工业资助的和非工业资助的。行业资助与积极结果的关联以比值比表示。结果91项研究中,80.2%由制药公司资助,19.8%由政府机构资助。在制药公司资助的研究中,61.6%的最终结果是化疗导致的生存期增加,而在政府机构资助的研究中,只有27.8%的研究报告了阳性结果(p值=0.010)。事实上,行业资助的试验更经常出现统计学上显著的生存阳性结果(OR: 4.17;CI, 1.34 - -12.99)。总的来说,两组的偏倚程度没有显著差异。结论根据本研究,尽管由制药公司和政府机构资助的研究质量相似,但与制药公司相关的研究中阳性结果更为普遍。因此,在决定最佳治疗方法时应考虑到这一点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Pharmaceutical industry funding and chemotherapy trials for prostate cancer: A systematic review

Introduction

Clinical trials are increasingly supported by industries while previous studies have shown that industry-supported studies have more favorable results than studies with other sources of funding. In the present study, we investigated the association of industrial funding on the results of clinical trials regarding chemotherapy in prostate cancer.

Methods

A systematic literature search was performed in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, and EMBASE to identify clinical trials comparing chemotherapy with treatments such as hormone therapy, surgery, radiotherapy, and placebo in patients with metastatic or non-metastatic prostate cancer. Data were extracted by two reviewers on the financial resources and the positive or negative results of chemotherapy in each study. The quality of articles was evaluated and compared based on Cochrane Critical Appraisal Tool. The trials were divided into two groups; industry funded and those not funded by industry. Association of industry funding and positive outcome was presented as odds ratio.

Results

In this study, out of the 91 studies, 80.2% were funded by pharmaceutical companies and 19.8% were funded by government agencies. The end result of 61.6% of the studies funded by pharmaceutical companies was an increase in survival due to chemotherapy, whereas only 27.8% of the studies sponsored by government agencies reported positive results (P-value=0.010). In fact, industry-funded trials more often presented statistically significant positive results for survival (OR: 4.17; CI, 1.34–12.99). In general, there was no significant difference in the degree of bias between the two groups.

Conclusion

According to this study, despite of the similar quality of studies funded by pharmaceutical companies and government agencies, positive results were more common in studies related to pharmaceutical companies. Therefore, this point should be taken into account when making a decision on the best treatment approach.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
148
审稿时长
56 days
期刊介绍: Cancer Treatment and Research Communications is an international peer-reviewed publication dedicated to providing comprehensive basic, translational, and clinical oncology research. The journal is devoted to articles on detection, diagnosis, prevention, policy, and treatment of cancer and provides a global forum for the nurturing and development of future generations of oncology scientists. Cancer Treatment and Research Communications publishes comprehensive reviews and original studies describing various aspects of basic through clinical research of all tumor types. The journal also accepts clinical studies in oncology, with an emphasis on prospective early phase clinical trials. Specific areas of interest include basic, translational, and clinical research and mechanistic approaches; cancer biology; molecular carcinogenesis; genetics and genomics; stem cell and developmental biology; immunology; molecular and cellular oncology; systems biology; drug sensitivity and resistance; gene and antisense therapy; pathology, markers, and prognostic indicators; chemoprevention strategies; multimodality therapy; cancer policy; and integration of various approaches. Our mission is to be the premier source of relevant information through promoting excellence in research and facilitating the timely translation of that science to health care and clinical practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信