心血管内科药物或器械随机试验的特点和影响。

IF 2.8 4区 医学 Q2 CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs Pub Date : 2024-08-01 DOI:10.1007/s40256-024-00670-4
Marco Spagnolo, Claudio Laudani, Antonio Greco, Daniele Giacoppo, Davide Capodanno
{"title":"心血管内科药物或器械随机试验的特点和影响。","authors":"Marco Spagnolo,&nbsp;Claudio Laudani,&nbsp;Antonio Greco,&nbsp;Daniele Giacoppo,&nbsp;Davide Capodanno","doi":"10.1007/s40256-024-00670-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Clinical trials, essential for medical advancement, vary significantly in methodology and regulatory pathways depending on the type of therapeutic intervention (i.e., drugs or devices). This study aimed to determine whether the drug or device intervention types influence the impact of randomized trials in cardiovascular medicine.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>We analyzed late-breaking randomized controlled trials presented at major cardiology conferences from 2015 to 2021. The primary endpoint was the total number of citations obtained. Secondary endpoints included the number of citations at 1 and 2 years, number of total and 1-year mentions, and several metrics of study conduct and publication. Statistical analysis included tests for comparisons of continuous or categorical variables, based on their distribution, as appropriate. To adjust the results for potential confounders, univariable and multivariable regression models were utilized. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore both the effect of neutral or positive study outcomes on the comparative impact of drug versus device trials and the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the primary endpoint.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 382 eligible randomized trials, 227 (59.4%) were trials of drugs and 155 (40.6%) were trials of devices. Drug trials had a higher median number of total citations compared to device studies (93 [interquartile range {IQR} 48–137] vs. 82 [IQR 39–192]; <i>p</i> = 0.025). This difference was consistent at 1 and 2 years and was also observed in the number of total mentions and mentions at 1 year. All the metrics of study conduct and publication were similar, except for drug studies being more often stopped prematurely (8.8 vs. 1.9%; <i>p</i> = 0.006). After adjusting for multiple potential confounders, the difference in citations and mentions was no longer statistically significant. However, drug trials remained more likely to be stopped prematurely (adjusted odds ratio = 1.15; 95% confidence interval 1.03–1.28; <i>p</i> = 0.009). Positive study outcomes significantly influenced the number of citations and the likelihood of a trial being stopped prematurely.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Drug trials are often stopped early and receive more citations and mentions than device trials. However, these differences are mainly due to factors other than the treatment itself. Studies published simultaneously tend to get more attention, and drug trials with positive results are cited more often than those with neutral results.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":7652,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs","volume":"24 5","pages":"651 - 661"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11344709/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Characteristics and Impact of Randomized Trials on Drugs or Devices in Cardiovascular Medicine\",\"authors\":\"Marco Spagnolo,&nbsp;Claudio Laudani,&nbsp;Antonio Greco,&nbsp;Daniele Giacoppo,&nbsp;Davide Capodanno\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40256-024-00670-4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><p>Clinical trials, essential for medical advancement, vary significantly in methodology and regulatory pathways depending on the type of therapeutic intervention (i.e., drugs or devices). This study aimed to determine whether the drug or device intervention types influence the impact of randomized trials in cardiovascular medicine.</p><h3>Methods</h3><p>We analyzed late-breaking randomized controlled trials presented at major cardiology conferences from 2015 to 2021. The primary endpoint was the total number of citations obtained. Secondary endpoints included the number of citations at 1 and 2 years, number of total and 1-year mentions, and several metrics of study conduct and publication. Statistical analysis included tests for comparisons of continuous or categorical variables, based on their distribution, as appropriate. To adjust the results for potential confounders, univariable and multivariable regression models were utilized. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore both the effect of neutral or positive study outcomes on the comparative impact of drug versus device trials and the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the primary endpoint.</p><h3>Results</h3><p>Of 382 eligible randomized trials, 227 (59.4%) were trials of drugs and 155 (40.6%) were trials of devices. Drug trials had a higher median number of total citations compared to device studies (93 [interquartile range {IQR} 48–137] vs. 82 [IQR 39–192]; <i>p</i> = 0.025). This difference was consistent at 1 and 2 years and was also observed in the number of total mentions and mentions at 1 year. All the metrics of study conduct and publication were similar, except for drug studies being more often stopped prematurely (8.8 vs. 1.9%; <i>p</i> = 0.006). After adjusting for multiple potential confounders, the difference in citations and mentions was no longer statistically significant. However, drug trials remained more likely to be stopped prematurely (adjusted odds ratio = 1.15; 95% confidence interval 1.03–1.28; <i>p</i> = 0.009). Positive study outcomes significantly influenced the number of citations and the likelihood of a trial being stopped prematurely.</p><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Drug trials are often stopped early and receive more citations and mentions than device trials. However, these differences are mainly due to factors other than the treatment itself. Studies published simultaneously tend to get more attention, and drug trials with positive results are cited more often than those with neutral results.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":7652,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs\",\"volume\":\"24 5\",\"pages\":\"651 - 661\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11344709/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40256-024-00670-4\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40256-024-00670-4","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CARDIAC & CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:临床试验是医学进步的关键,但由于治疗干预的类型(即药物或器械)不同,临床试验的方法和监管途径也大相径庭。本研究旨在确定药物或器械干预类型是否会影响心血管医学随机试验的影响:我们分析了 2015 年至 2021 年期间在主要心脏病学会议上发表的最新随机对照试验。主要终点是获得的引用总数。次要终点包括1年和2年的引用次数、总提及次数和1年提及次数,以及研究行为和发表的若干指标。统计分析包括根据变量的分布情况对连续变量或分类变量进行比较测试。为了根据潜在的混杂因素调整结果,采用了单变量和多变量回归模型。此外,还进行了敏感性分析,以探讨中性或阳性研究结果对药物与器械试验的比较影响,以及冠状病毒疾病2019(COVID-19)大流行对主要终点的影响:在382项符合条件的随机试验中,227项(59.4%)为药物试验,155项(40.6%)为器械试验。与器械研究相比,药物试验的总引用次数中位数更高(93 [四分位间范围{IQR} 48-137] 对 82 [IQR 39-192];P = 0.025)。这一差异在 1 年和 2 年时保持一致,在总提及次数和 1 年时提及次数方面也观察到了这一差异。除了药物研究更常被提前终止(8.8% 对 1.9%;P = 0.006)外,所有研究进行和发表的指标都相似。在对多种潜在混杂因素进行调整后,引用率和提及率的差异不再具有统计学意义。然而,药物试验仍更有可能被提前终止(调整后的几率比=1.15;95% 置信区间为 1.03-1.28;p = 0.009)。积极的研究结果对引用次数和试验被提前终止的可能性有很大影响:结论:与器械试验相比,药物试验通常会提前停止,并获得更多的引用和提及。结论:与器械试验相比,药物试验往往停止得更早,被引用和提及的次数也更多。然而,这些差异主要是由治疗方法本身以外的因素造成的。同时发表的研究报告往往会受到更多关注,结果积极的药物试验比结果中性的试验更常被引用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Characteristics and Impact of Randomized Trials on Drugs or Devices in Cardiovascular Medicine

Introduction

Clinical trials, essential for medical advancement, vary significantly in methodology and regulatory pathways depending on the type of therapeutic intervention (i.e., drugs or devices). This study aimed to determine whether the drug or device intervention types influence the impact of randomized trials in cardiovascular medicine.

Methods

We analyzed late-breaking randomized controlled trials presented at major cardiology conferences from 2015 to 2021. The primary endpoint was the total number of citations obtained. Secondary endpoints included the number of citations at 1 and 2 years, number of total and 1-year mentions, and several metrics of study conduct and publication. Statistical analysis included tests for comparisons of continuous or categorical variables, based on their distribution, as appropriate. To adjust the results for potential confounders, univariable and multivariable regression models were utilized. Additionally, sensitivity analyses were conducted to explore both the effect of neutral or positive study outcomes on the comparative impact of drug versus device trials and the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the primary endpoint.

Results

Of 382 eligible randomized trials, 227 (59.4%) were trials of drugs and 155 (40.6%) were trials of devices. Drug trials had a higher median number of total citations compared to device studies (93 [interquartile range {IQR} 48–137] vs. 82 [IQR 39–192]; p = 0.025). This difference was consistent at 1 and 2 years and was also observed in the number of total mentions and mentions at 1 year. All the metrics of study conduct and publication were similar, except for drug studies being more often stopped prematurely (8.8 vs. 1.9%; p = 0.006). After adjusting for multiple potential confounders, the difference in citations and mentions was no longer statistically significant. However, drug trials remained more likely to be stopped prematurely (adjusted odds ratio = 1.15; 95% confidence interval 1.03–1.28; p = 0.009). Positive study outcomes significantly influenced the number of citations and the likelihood of a trial being stopped prematurely.

Conclusions

Drug trials are often stopped early and receive more citations and mentions than device trials. However, these differences are mainly due to factors other than the treatment itself. Studies published simultaneously tend to get more attention, and drug trials with positive results are cited more often than those with neutral results.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
3.30%
发文量
38
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Promoting rational therapy within the discipline of cardiology, the American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs covers all aspects of the treatment of cardiovascular disorders, particularly the place in therapy of newer and established agents. Via a program of reviews and original clinical research articles, the journal addresses major issues relating to treatment of these disorders, including the pharmacology, efficacy and adverse effects of the major classes of drugs; information on newly developed drugs and drug classes; the therapeutic implications of latest research into the aetiology of cardiovascular disorders; and the practical management of specific clinical situations. The American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs offers a range of additional enhanced features designed to increase the visibility, readership and educational value of the journal’s content. Each article is accompanied by a Key Points summary, giving a time-efficient overview of the content to a wide readership. Articles may be accompanied by plain language summaries to assist patients, caregivers and others in understanding important medical advances. The journal also provides the option to include various other types of enhanced features including slide sets, videos and animations. All enhanced features are peer reviewed to the same high standard as the article itself. Peer review is conducted using Editorial Manager®, supported by a database of international experts. This database is shared with other Adis journals.
期刊最新文献
Cost Effectiveness of Catheter Ablation Versus Antiarrhythmic Drugs for Atrial Fibrillation: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Pharmacokinetic Drug-Drug Interaction between Cilostazol and Rosuvastatin in Healthy Participants. Use of Direct Anticoagulants in Kidney Transplant Recipients: Review of the Current Evidence and Emerging Perspectives. Impact of Antibacterials on the Quality of Anticoagulation Control in Patients Initiating Warfarin Therapy. Sacubitril-Valsartan Lowers Atrial Fibrillation Recurrence and Left Atrial Volume Post-catheter Ablation: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1