Selective reporting in trials of high risk cardiovascular devices: cross sectional comparison between premarket approval summaries and published reports

被引:27
作者
Chang, Lee [1 ]
Dhruva, Sanket S. [2 ]
Chu, Janet [3 ]
Bero, Lisa A. [4 ]
Redberg, Rita F. [5 ]
机构
[1] Massachusetts Gen Hosp, Dept Med, Boston, MA 02114 USA
[2] Univ Calif Davis, Div Cardiovasc Med, Sacramento, CA 95817 USA
[3] Univ Calif San Francisco, Sch Med, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
[4] Univ Sydney, Charles Perkins Ctr, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
[5] Univ Calif San Francisco, Div Cardiol, San Francisco, CA 94143 USA
来源
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL | 2015年 / 350卷
关键词
MEDICAL DEVICES; PUBLICATION; CLINICALTRIALS.GOV; ACCESS; STENT; TIME;
D O I
10.1136/bmj.h2613
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
OBJECTIVE To investigate characteristics of clinical trials and results on safety and effectiveness reported in US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents for recently approved high risk cardiovascular devices compared with the characteristics and results reported in peer reviewed publications. DESIGN A search of the publicly available FDA database was performed for all cardiovascular devices that received premarket approval from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2010. For each study listed in the premarket approval documents, a Medline search was conducted to obtain the corresponding publication. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Clinical trial characteristics, primary endpoints, and safety and efficacy results in the FDA documents and corresponding publications. RESULTS 106 cardiovascular devices received premarket approval from 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2010. FDA premarket approval documents for these devices contained 177 studies, of which 86 (49%) had been published by 1 January 2013. These 86 publications corresponded to 60 distinct devices. The mean time from FDA approval to publication in a peer reviewed journal was 6.5 months (range -4.8-7.5 years). In 22 (26%) of the 86 compared studies the number of participants enrolled in the study differed in the FDA summary and the corresponding publications. Of 152 primary endpoints identified in the FDA documents, in the corresponding publications three (2%) were labeled as secondary, 43 (28%) were unlabeled, and 15 (10%) were not found. Among the primary results, 69 (45%) were identical, 35 (23%) were similar, 17 (11%) were substantially different, and 31 (20%) could not be compared. CONCLUSIONS Many clinical trials for high risk cardiovascular devices approved by the FDA remain unpublished. Even when trials are published, the study population, primary endpoints, and results can differ substantially from data submitted to the FDA.
引用
收藏
页数:7
相关论文
共 28 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], LAL IH STENT GRAFT S
  • [2] [Anonymous], XIENCE V RAP EXCH RX
  • [3] [Anonymous], FREEZ CARD CRYOABL C
  • [4] Patient Access to Medical Devices - A Comparison of U.S. and European Review Processes
    Basu, Saptarshi
    Hassenplug, John C.
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2012, 367 (06) : 485 - 488
  • [5] Reporting of Results in ClinicalTrials.gov and High-Impact Journals
    Becker, Jessica E.
    Krumholz, Harlan M.
    Ben-Josef, Gal
    Ross, Joseph S.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2014, 311 (10): : 1063 - 1065
  • [6] Inclusion of Comparative Effectiveness Data in High-Risk Cardiovascular Device Studies at the Time of Premarket Approval
    Chen, Connie E.
    Dhruva, Sanket S.
    Redberg, Rita F.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2012, 308 (17): : 1740 - 1742
  • [7] Strength of Study Evidence Examined by the FDA in Premarket Approval of Cardiovascular Devices
    Dhruva, Sanket S.
    Bero, Lisa A.
    Redberg, Rita F.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2009, 302 (24): : 2679 - 2685
  • [8] The Imperative to Share Clinical Study Reports: Recommendations from the Tamiflu Experience
    Doshi, Peter
    Jefferson, Tom
    Del Mar, Chris
    [J]. PLOS MEDICINE, 2012, 9 (04)
  • [9] Comparison of protocols and registry entries to published reports for randomised controlled trials
    Dwan, Kerry
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Cresswell, Lynne
    Blundell, Michaela
    Gamble, Carrol L.
    Williamson, Paula R.
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2011, (01):
  • [10] Open Clinical Trial Data for All? A View from Regulators
    Eichler, Hans-Georg
    Abadie, Eric
    Breckenridge, Alasdair
    Leufkens, Hubert
    Rasi, Guido
    [J]. PLOS MEDICINE, 2012, 9 (04)