Display options
Share it on

PLoS One. 2013 Dec 23;8(12):e84951. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084951. eCollection 2013.

The effects of industry sponsorship on comparator selection in trial registrations for neuropsychiatric conditions in children.

PloS one

Adam G Dunn, Kenneth D Mandl, Enrico Coiera, Florence T Bourgeois

Affiliations

  1. Centre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, University of New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  2. Children's Hospital Informatics Program at Harvard-MIT Health Sciences and Technology, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America ; Division of Emergency Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America ; Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
  3. Division of Emergency Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America ; Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.

PMID: 24376857 PMCID: PMC3871546 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084951

Abstract

Pediatric populations continue to be understudied in clinical drug trials despite the increasing use of pharmacotherapy in children, particularly with psychotropic drugs. Most pertinent to the clinical selection of drug interventions are trials directly comparing drugs against other drugs. The aim was to measure the prevalence of active drug comparators in neuropsychiatric drug trials in children and identify the effects of funding source on comparator selection. We analyzed the selection of drugs and drug comparisons in clinical trials registered between January 2006 and May 2012. Completed and ongoing interventional trials examining treatments for six neuropsychiatric conditions in children were included. Networks of drug comparisons for each condition were constructed using information about the trial study arms. Of 421 eligible trial registrations, 228 (63,699 participants) were drug trials addressing ADHD (106 trials), autism spectrum disorders (47), unipolar depression (16), seizure disorders (38), migraines and other headaches (15), or schizophrenia (11). Active drug comparators were used in only 11.0% of drug trials while 44.7% used a placebo control and 44.3% no drug or placebo comparator. Even among conditions with well-established pharmacotherapeutic options, almost all drug interventions were compared to a placebo. Active comparisons were more common among trials without industry funding (17% vs. 8%, p=0.04). Trials with industry funding differed from non-industry trials in terms of the drugs studied and the comparators selected. For 73% (61/84) of drugs and 90% (19/21) of unique comparisons, trials were funded exclusively by either industry or non-industry. We found that industry and non-industry differed when choosing comparators and active drug comparators were rare for both groups. This gap in pediatric research activity limits the evidence available to clinicians treating children and suggests a need to reassess the design and funding of pediatric trials in order to optimize the information derived from pediatric participation in clinical trials.

References

  1. Lancet. 1999 Sep;354 Suppl 2:SII21-4 - PubMed
  2. Ecology. 1971 Jul;52(4):577-586 - PubMed
  3. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012 Apr;91(4):685-91 - PubMed
  4. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol. 2005 Feb;15(1):26-37 - PubMed
  5. Eur J Clin Invest. 2010 Feb;40(2):172-82 - PubMed
  6. Biol Psychiatry. 2001 Jun 1;49(11):887-93 - PubMed
  7. Arch Intern Med. 2012 Feb 13;172(3):237-44 - PubMed
  8. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2002 May;41(5):514-21 - PubMed
  9. Ambul Pediatr. 2006 Mar-Apr;6(2):79-83 - PubMed
  10. JAMA. 2010 Mar 10;303(10):951-8 - PubMed
  11. PLoS Med. 2008 Aug 12;5(8):e166 - PubMed
  12. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007 Feb;60(2):118-23 - PubMed
  13. BMJ. 2012 Oct 22;345:e6512 - PubMed
  14. PLoS Med. 2005 Mar;2(3):e72 - PubMed
  15. Pediatrics. 2008 Nov;122(5):e1053-61 - PubMed
  16. N Engl J Med. 2002 Oct 31;347(18):1462-70 - PubMed
  17. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2005 Apr;61(2):165-7 - PubMed
  18. PLoS One. 2010 Sep 30;5(9): - PubMed
  19. PLoS One. 2012;7(1):e28820 - PubMed
  20. BMJ. 2007 Dec 15;335(7632):1227 - PubMed
  21. Pediatrics. 2011 Sep;128(3):e639-44 - PubMed
  22. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011 Aug;64(8):830-42 - PubMed
  23. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Apr 1;148(7):544-53 - PubMed
  24. N Engl J Med. 2009 Sep 24;361(13):1230-3 - PubMed
  25. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003 Jan;157(1):17-25 - PubMed
  26. Ann Intern Med. 2000 Sep 19;133(6):455-63 - PubMed
  27. Lancet. 2004 Aug 28-Sep 3;364(9436):803-11 - PubMed
  28. Pediatrics. 2012 Mar;129(3):e771-84 - PubMed
  29. Pediatrics. 2012 Aug;130(2):285-92 - PubMed
  30. Pediatrics. 2008 May;121(5):1002-9 - PubMed
  31. Lancet. 2009 Jan 3;373(9657):31-41 - PubMed
  32. Lancet. 2000 Aug 19;356(9230):635-8 - PubMed
  33. Pediatrics. 2012 Nov;130(5):e1269-77 - PubMed
  34. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2012 Sep;21(9):997-1004 - PubMed
  35. BMJ. 2011 Sep 06;343:d4849 - PubMed
  36. Biol Psychiatry. 2004 Jul 1;56(1):3-9 - PubMed
  37. Stat Methods Med Res. 2008 Jun;17(3):279-301 - PubMed
  38. Ann Intern Med. 2008 May 6;148(9):702-3 - PubMed
  39. JAMA Pediatr. 2013 Mar 1;167(3):300-2 - PubMed
  40. Soc Sci Med. 2011 Apr;72(7):1064-8 - PubMed
  41. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2010 Mar;164(3):283-8 - PubMed

MeSH terms

Publication Types

Grant support