 |
|
How Conducting a Clinical Trial Affects Physicians' Guideline Adherence and Drug Preferences
Morten Andersen, MD, PhD;
Jakob Kragstrup, MD, PhD, DMSc;
Jens Søndergaard, MD, PhD
JAMA. 2006;295:2759-2764.
Context General practitioners are frequently involved in clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies but the effects of participation on their prescribing patterns have not been evaluated.
Objective To determine how conducting a company-sponsored clinical trial influenced physicians' adherence to international treatment recommendations and their prescribing of the pharmaceutical company's drugs.
Design, Setting, and Patients Observational cohort study in Funen County, Denmark, comparing 10 practices that were conducting a trial on asthma medicine with 165 control (non–trial-conducting) practices. The study population included 5439 patients treated with asthma drugs from the trial-conducting practices and 59 574 patients from the control practices. Practices conducted the trial between April 26, 2001, and October 7, 2002.
Main Outcome Measures Adherence to guidelines measured as use of inhaled corticosteroids among asthma patients. Prevalence of use of the company's drugs and the trial sponsor's share of the total volume of asthma drugs prescribed.
Results The baseline proportion of asthma patients using inhaled corticosteroids was 68.5% in trial-conducting and 69.1% in control practices. Conducting the trial did not influence guideline adherence (odds ratio [OR] after 2 years, 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.19). In trial-conducting practices, the sponsoring company's share of the total prescribed volume of asthma drugs increased compared with control practices (6.7%; 95% CI, 3.0%-11.7%). This could be attributed to a significantly higher preference for the company's inhaled corticosteroids (OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.04-1.54) and trends toward increased prescribing of the company’s other asthma drugs.
Conclusion Conducting a trial sponsored by a pharmaceutical company had no significant impact on physicians' adherence to international treatment recommendations but increased their use of the trial sponsor's drugs.
Author Affiliations: Research Unit for General Practice, University of Southern Denmark, Odense (Drs Andersen, Kragstrup, and Søndergaard); and Research Unit for General Practice, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark (Dr Søndergaard).
RELATED ARTICLE
Clinical Trial Investigators and Their Prescribing Patterns: Another Dimension to the Relationship Between Physician Investigators and the Pharmaceutical Industry
Bruce M. Psaty and Drummond Rennie
JAMA. 2006;295(23):2787-2790.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
|
The ADVANTAGE Seeding Trial: A Review of Internal Documents
Hill et al.
ANN INTERN MED 2008;149:251-258.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
Seeding Trials: Just Say "No"
Sox and Rennie
ANN INTERN MED 2008;149:279-280.
FULL TEXT
Phase IV research: innovation in need of ethics
van Thiel and van Delden
J. Med. Ethics 2008;34:415-416.
FULL TEXT
Time to Nip "Seeding Trials" in the Bud
Katz
Arch Dermatol 2008;144:403-404.
FULL TEXT
What Is Safe Enough?
DOC News 2006;3:12-12.
FULL TEXT
What's new in the other general journals.
Tonks
BMJ 2006;333:37-38.
FULL TEXT
Clinical Trial Investigators and Their Prescribing Patterns: Another Dimension to the Relationship Between Physician Investigators and the Pharmaceutical Industry
Psaty and Rennie
JAMA 2006;295:2787-2790.
FULL TEXT
|
