Annals of Oncology 13:470-473, 2002
© 2002 European Society for Medical Oncology
Does a drug do better when it is new?
Laboratory of Clinical Research in Oncology, Department of Oncology, M. Negri Institute, Milan, Italy
Received 27 April 2001; revised 22 August 2001. accepted 19 September 2001 .
Background
When assessing a new, promising therapeutic approach, a clinician’s perception of a drug’s effectiveness may be shaped by different kinds of phenomena, and among them, a favorable attitude towards new treatments, and as a result a tendency to overestimate their efficacy (wish bias).
Materials and methods
A retrospective study of published randomized clinical trials of doxorubicin-based chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer was carried out. Global (complete plus partial) response rate over time with allowance for type of drug regimen (mono- or polychemotherapy) and prior adjuvant therapies was assessed in the doxorubicin-containing arm using multivariate logistic regression analysis.
Results
Twenty-nine studies published from 1975 to 1999 were retrieved for a total of 2234 women with advanced breast cancer enrolled in the doxorubicin-containing arms. There was a significant decrease in response rate to doxorubicin as first-line treatment over time that resisted adjustment for important differences in therapeutic management [odds ratio for global response = 0.89, 95% con-fidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 0.99].
Conclusions
Although only one drug (doxorubicin) in one clinical context (advanced breast cancer) has been analyzed, our findings support the use of double blind methodology whenever possible when assessing subjective endpoints and encourage further studies aimed at defining the clinical relevance of a wish bias in medicine.
Key words: advanced breast cancer, chemotherapy, wish bias
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  H. W. Grunwald, C. D. Storm, and G. M. Jacobson When Is Standard Treatment Sufficiently Active to Make Use of a Placebo-Controlled Trial Unethical? J. Oncol. Pract, March 1, 2009; 5(2): 74 - 75. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Littlejohns and K. Chalkidou Evidence for health policy Journal of Research in Nursing, March 1, 2006; 11(2): 110 - 117. [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Velasco-Garrido and R. Busse Whose 'wish bias'? Ann. Onc., July 1, 2003; 14(7): 1154 - 1154. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
R. Fossati, C. Confalonieri, G. Apolone, S. Cavuto, and S. Garattini Reply to Letter to the Editor "Whose 'wish bias'?", by M. Velasco-Garrido & R. Busse (Ann Oncol 2003; 14: 1154) Ann. Onc., July 1, 2003; 14(7): 1154 - 1155. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|