No evidence of industry sponsorship bias in statin trialsBMJ 2014; 349 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.g6579 (Published 04 November 2014) Cite this as: BMJ 2014;349:g6579
- 1LSE Health, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK
- 2School of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Studies of industry sponsorship bias must take account of real differences between products and doses. We have shown previously that higher dose statins achieve greater cholesterol reductions from baseline than lower dose ones.4
Taking account of dose differences, and thereby comparing like with like, there is no systematic difference between the results from industry sponsored and non-industry sponsored trials.2
Thus, dose differences explain the previously reported discrepancies between industry and non-industry sponsored statin trials. Literature summaries that do not consider dose differences would yield biased estimates in favour of industry sponsored products.
We disagree that funding should be an independent risk factor for bias in the Cochrane risk of bias tool.5 This tool has a strong empirical foundation and covers the primary methodological domains that are associated with systematically different findings. In the absence of known methodological limitations, we believe there is no reason to conclude that an industry sponsored trial is by default biased.
We agree that companies almost exclusively sponsor trials that have favourable conclusions for their products. Many industry sponsored trials use a lower dose of the competitor’s drug. However, such low doses may not be inappropriate by default. As our study shows, several statin trials funded by non-industry sources included the same dose comparisons as those in industry sponsored trials.
No doubt industry’s tendency to trial its products against weaker alternatives is a marketing strategy designed to encourage prescribers to favour sponsored products; however, as our analysis confirms, industry trials have high internal validity, and there is no evidence that the results themselves are systematically biased.
Cite this as: BMJ 2014;349:g6579
Competing interests: None declared.
Full response at: www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g5949/rr/777539.
Log in using your username and password
Log in through your institution
Register for a free trial to thebmj.com to receive unlimited access to all content on thebmj.com for 14 days.
Sign up for a free trial