Litigation uncovers biased reporting of gabapentin trials
Research documents made public during legal proceedings against drug manufacturers provide useful insights into the subtle (and often advantageous) changes that can occur between the protocol stages of a trial and final publication. When researchers recently scrutinised industry sponsored trials evaluating off-label use of gabapentin, they found that in eight of 12 trials the primary outcome in the published paper was different from the primary outcome specified in the protocol. In five trials, primary outcomes specified in the protocol were missing from the published paper. In six trials, the published paper reported a completely new primary outcome. In two trials, the primary outcome specified in the protocol was relegated to a secondary outcome in the published paper. The treatment effect (measured by the P value) and the primary outcome matched in just one of nine trials that were published in full.
Secondary outcomes were even less consistent—122 of the 180 secondary outcomes listed in trial protocols were omitted from published reports.
This kind of selective reporting isn’t confined to industry sponsored trials, say the authors, but it generally distorts the published evidence in favour of the treatment under investigation—in this case gabapentin. Systematic reviews should be updated when protocols and unpublished trials are released through litigation. In the meantime, journal publication “should not be used as a marketing tool for off-label drug use.”
Resistant swine flu emerges in Canada
Doctors in Quebec⇑, Canada, report the emergence of pandemic influenza resistant to oseltamivir in a 59 year old man. He began taking oseltamivir as post-exposure prophylaxis after his son developed laboratory confirmed pandemic H1N1 influenza A (swine flu). Twenty four hours later the man developed symptoms himself. A nasopharyngeal aspirate taken at the end of the week contained the same pandemic strain of H1N1 that infected his son. But whereas the son’s virus had been …
Sign in
Personal subscribers, sign in here:
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
The decline in the breast cancer incidence is 1.2% and it is not significant.
Published 10 February 2012
'twas ever thus
Published 10 February 2012
The value of historic human remains
Published 10 February 2012
In Praise of British Literature
Published 10 February 2012
Is real shared decision making possible?
Published 10 February 2012
Most responses
Does anyone understand the government’s plan for the NHS? (17 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012
Bad medicine: medical nutrition (15 responses)
Published 18 Jan 2012
Shared decision making: really putting patients at the centre of healthcare (7 responses)
Published 27 Jan 2012
Why legislation is necessary for my health reforms (7 responses)
Published 1 Feb 2012
Search for evidence goes on (5 responses)
Published 17 Jan 2012