Antipsychotic Trials Biased Towards Sponsor’s Drug, Study Suggests
Executive Summary
Clinical trial protocols for head-to-head comparisons of antipsychotic drugs should be reviewed by regulatory authorities like FDA to eliminate potential sources of bias, according to a recent analysis published in the American Journal of Psychiatry
You may also be interested in...
Companies find their products are best
Industry-sponsored head-to-head statin trials are 20 times more likely to favor the sponsor's drug than a comparator, an article in the June issue of the Public Library of Science states. In an evaluation of 192 randomized controlled trials, Lisa Bero, University of California-San Francisco, et al., also finds that company-sponsored trials are 35 times more likely to reach a conclusion in favor of the sponsor's product. Antipsychotic trials have been found to be similarly biased (1"The Pink Sheet" Feb. 6, 2006, p. 9)...
Companies find their products are best
Industry-sponsored head-to-head statin trials are 20 times more likely to favor the sponsor's drug than a comparator, an article in the June issue of the Public Library of Science states. In an evaluation of 192 randomized controlled trials, Lisa Bero, University of California-San Francisco, et al., also finds that company-sponsored trials are 35 times more likely to reach a conclusion in favor of the sponsor's product. Antipsychotic trials have been found to be similarly biased (1"The Pink Sheet" Feb. 6, 2006, p. 9)...
Industry-Funded Trials Often Use Improper Comparators, JAMA Editorial Says
Industry-sponsored comparative trials are often ineffective at answering clinically relevant questions due to the use of substandard comparators, according to a commentary in the April 12 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association.