Proposed best practice for statisticians in the reporting and publication of pharmaceutical industry-sponsored clinical trials.

In this paper we set out what we consider to be a set of best practices for statisticians in the reporting of pharmaceutical industry-sponsored clinical trials. We make eight recommendations covering: author responsibilities and recognition; publication timing; conflicts of interest; freedom to act; full author access to data; trial registration and independent review. These recommendations are made in the context of the prominent role played by statisticians in the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of pharmaceutical sponsored trials and the perception of the reporting of these trials in the wider community.

Making available information from studies sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry: some current practices.

Since the web-based registry ClinicalTrials.gov was launched on 29 February 2000, the pharmaceutical industry has made available an increasing amount of information about the clinical trials that it sponsors. The process has been spurred on by a number of factors including a wish by the industry to provide greater transparency regarding clinical trial data; and has been both aided and complicated by the number of institutions that have a legitimate interest in guiding and defining what should be made available. This article reviews the history of this process of making information about clinical trials publicly available. It provides a reader's guide to the study registries and the databases of results; and looks at some indicators of consistency in the posting of study information.

The potential for bias in reporting of industry-sponsored clinical trials.

Concerns about potentially misleading reporting of pharmaceutical industry research have surfaced many times. The potential for duality (and thereby conflict) of interest is only too clear when you consider the sums of money required for the discovery, development and commercialization of new medicines. As the ability of major, mid-size and small pharmaceutical companies to innovate has waned, as evidenced by the seemingly relentless decline in the numbers of new medicines approved by Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency year-on-year, not only has the cost per new approved medicine risen: so too has the public and media concern about the extent to which the pharmaceutical industry is open and honest about the efficacy, safety and quality of the drugs we manufacture and sell. In 2005 an Editorial in Journal of the American Medical Association made clear that, so great was their concern about misleading reporting of industry-sponsored studies, henceforth no article would be published that was not also guaranteed by independent statistical analysis. We examine the precursors to this Editorial, as well as its immediate and lasting effects for statisticians, for the manner in which statistical analysis is carried out, and for the industry more generally.

Enhanced synergy between fluticasone propionate and salmeterol inhaled from a single inhaler versus separate inhalers.

BACKGROUND: The coadministration of long-acting inhaled beta(2)-agonists and inhaled corticosteroids is the most effective treatment for persistent asthma. OBJECTIVE: This meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy of fluticasone propionate and salmeterol inhaled from a single inhaler (combination therapy) or from separate inhalers (concurrent therapy). METHODS: Four similarly designed double-blind studies individually confirmed equivalence between combination and concurrent therapy on the basis of the primary efficacy measure (morning peak expiratory flow [PEF]). Each study showed a consistent trend in favor of combination therapy. Individual patient data from these studies were combined to provide overall estimates of treatment effect for morning PEF and other efficacy measures. RESULTS: Fixed-effects meta-analysis showed a significant advantage for combination therapy compared with concurrent therapy in morning PEF (mean difference between groups in change from baseline over 12 weeks of 5.4 L/min; P =.006; 95% CI = 1.5-9.2). Logistic regression analysis showed that the odds of achieving a greater than 15 or greater than 30 L/min improvement with combination therapy were increased by approximately 40% compared with those after concurrent therapy (15 L/min: odds ratio = 1.42, P =.008, 95% CI = 1.1-1.8; 30 L/min: odds ratio = 1.40, P =.006, 95% CI = 1.1-1.8), representing an additional 7% to 9% and 5% to 14% more patients, respectively, on combination therapy responding compared with those on concurrent therapy. CONCLUSION: The meta-analysis indicates that the fluticasone propionate plus salmeterol combination offers the potential for increased clinical efficacy over concurrent use of the same doses of the same 2 drugs. After administration from a single inhaler, fluticasone propionate and salmeterol might codeposit in the airways. It is hypothesized that this codeposition offers an increased opportunity for synergistic interaction to occur.