IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0058711.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Treatment Success in Cancer: Industry Compared to Publicly Sponsored Randomized Controlled Trials

Author

Listed:
  • Benjamin Djulbegovic
  • Ambuj Kumar
  • Branko Miladinovic
  • Tea Reljic
  • Sanja Galeb
  • Asmita Mhaskar
  • Rahul Mhaskar
  • Iztok Hozo
  • Dongsheng Tu
  • Heather A Stanton
  • Christopher M Booth
  • Ralph M Meyer

Abstract

Objective: To assess if commercially sponsored trials are associated with higher success rates than publicly-sponsored trials. Study Design and Settings: We undertook a systematic review of all consecutive, published and unpublished phase III cancer randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and the NCIC Clinical Trials Group (CTG). We included all phase III cancer RCTs assessing treatment superiority from 1980 to 2010. Three metrics were assessed to determine treatment successes: (1) the proportion of statistically significant trials favouring the experimental treatment, (2) the proportion of the trials in which new treatments were considered superior according to the investigators, and (3) quantitative synthesis of data for primary outcomes as defined in each trial. Results: GSK conducted 40 cancer RCTs accruing 19,889 patients and CTG conducted 77 trials enrolling 33,260 patients. 42% (99%CI 24 to 60) of the results were statistically significant favouring experimental treatments in GSK compared to 25% (99%CI 13 to 37) in the CTG cohort (RR = 1.68; p = 0.04). Investigators concluded that new treatments were superior to standard treatments in 80% of GSK compared to 44% of CTG trials (RR = 1.81; p

Suggested Citation

  • Benjamin Djulbegovic & Ambuj Kumar & Branko Miladinovic & Tea Reljic & Sanja Galeb & Asmita Mhaskar & Rahul Mhaskar & Iztok Hozo & Dongsheng Tu & Heather A Stanton & Christopher M Booth & Ralph M Meye, 2013. "Treatment Success in Cancer: Industry Compared to Publicly Sponsored Randomized Controlled Trials," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(3), pages 1-15, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0058711
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0058711
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0058711
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0058711&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0058711?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0058711. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.