Association between randomised trial evidence and global burden of disease: cross sectional study (Epidemiological Study of Randomized Trials--ESORT)

Abstract

Objectives To determine whether an association exists between the number of published randomised controlled trials and the global burden of disease, whether certain diseases are under-investigated relative to their burden, and whether the relation between the output of randomised trials and global burden of disease can be explained by the relative disease burden in high and low income regions. Design Cross sectional investigation. Study sample All primary reports of randomised trials published in December 2012 and indexed in PubMed by 17 November 2013. Main outcome measures Number of trials conducted and number of participants randomised for each of 239 different diseases or injuries; variation in each outcome explainable by total disability adjusted life years (a measure of the overall burden of each disease) and the ratio of disability adjusted life years in low income to high income regions (a measure of whether a disease is more likely to affect people living in high income regions) quantified using multivariable regression. Results 4190 abstracts were reviewed and 1351 primary randomised trials identified, of which 1097 could be classified using the global burden of disease taxonomy. Total disability adjusted life years was poorly associated with number of randomised trials and number of participants randomised in univariable analysis (Spearman’s r =0.35 and 0.33, respectively), although it was a significant predictor in the univariable and multivariable models (P<0.001). Diseases for which the burden was predominantly located in low income regions had sevenfold fewer trials per million disability adjusted life years than diseases predominantly located in high income regions. However, only 26% of the variation in number of trials among diseases could be explained by total disability adjusted life years and the ratio of disability adjusted life years in low income regions to high income regions. Many high income type diseases (for example, neck pain, glomerulonephritis) have proportionally fewer randomised trials compared with low income type diseases (for example, vitamin A deficiency). Conclusions Overall, a weak association existed between global burden of disease and number of published randomised trials. A global observatory for research is needed to monitor and reduce the discordance between the output of randomised trials and global burden of disease.

Global, regional, and national disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) for 315 diseases and injuries and healthy life expectancy (HALE), 1990–2015: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2015

“…DALYs and other health-gap metrics are one of many potential inputs when setting health policy and investment priorities, but major research organisations and funders such as the US National Institutes of Health and others note the use of DALYs to inform budgeting decisions 43, 44, 45, 46. Beyond health metrics, many other inputs are required for decision making, ranging from the effectiveness of different adoptable policies and programmes, to key social, cultural, and ethical considerations.…”

White spots in pharmaceutical pipelines–EMA identifies potential areas of unmet medical needs

“…This is all the more necessary as in 2015, an analysis of randomized clinical trials in the Clinicaltrials.gov database confirmed that there was a weak association existing between global burden of disease and number of published randomized trials [20].…”

Filling the glass of evidence‐based medicine

“…Attempts to provide recommendations for rarely encountered scenarios, attracting few if any adequately powered RCT, will also lower the rate of evidence-based recommendations. 10 So how to proceed? Using this yardstick, about 80% or more of our daily practice is supported by RCT or compelling nonrandomised evidence.…”

“…8 Third, the ongoing shortfall in practice-based evidence often reflects factors beyond the control of EBM: lack of equipoise among clinicians who hold strong beliefs about the effects of interventions and who will not allow their patients to be recruited into RCT; 9 and the skewing of the research agenda, in part by commercial interests, towards cardiovascular disease and cancer, ignoring equally prevalent conditions such as musculoskeletal disease and depression which impact considerably on quality of life and function. 10 So how to proceed? First, the absence in many guidelines of an explicit system for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations calls for wider acceptance of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system.…”