Descriptions and interpretations of the ACCORD-lipid trial in the news and biomedical literature: A cross-sectional analysis

Nicholas S. Downing, Theresa Cheng, Harlan M. Krumholz, Nilay D Shah, Joseph S. Ross

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

6 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The lipid component of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD-Lipid) trial was a landmark, publicly funded study demonstrating that fenofibrate, when added to statin therapy, was not associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes among patients with diabetes mellitus. We performed a cross-sectional study of all articles describing the results of ACCORD-Lipid in the news and biomedical literature in the 15 months following its publication. For articles published in biomedical journals, we determined whether there was an association between authors' conflicts of interest and trial interpretation. We identified 67 news articles and 141 biomedical journal articles discussing ACCORD-Lipid. Approximately 30% of news and biomedical journal articles described fenofibrate as ineffective, whereas nearly 20% concluded it was effective. Among articles making a recommendation, approximately 50% of news and 67% of biomedical journal articles supported continued fibrate use. Authors with conflicts of interest were more likely to describe fenofibrate as effective (27.1% vs 8.9%; relative risk, 3.03; 95% CI, 1.22-7.50; P = .008) and support continued fibrate use (77.4% vs 45.8%; 1.69; 1.07-2.67; P = .006). The ACCORD-Lipid trial was described inconsistently in news and biomedical journal articles, possibly creating uncertainty among patients and physicians. In addition, conflicts of interest were associated with more favorable trial interpretation.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1176-1182
Number of pages7
JournalJAMA Internal Medicine
Volume174
Issue number7
DOIs
StatePublished - 2014

Fingerprint

Fenofibrate
Cross-Sectional Studies
Conflict of Interest
Lipids
Fibric Acids
Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors
Uncertainty
Publications
Diabetes Mellitus
Physicians
Therapeutics

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Internal Medicine

Cite this

Descriptions and interpretations of the ACCORD-lipid trial in the news and biomedical literature : A cross-sectional analysis. / Downing, Nicholas S.; Cheng, Theresa; Krumholz, Harlan M.; Shah, Nilay D; Ross, Joseph S.

In: JAMA Internal Medicine, Vol. 174, No. 7, 2014, p. 1176-1182.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Downing, Nicholas S. ; Cheng, Theresa ; Krumholz, Harlan M. ; Shah, Nilay D ; Ross, Joseph S. / Descriptions and interpretations of the ACCORD-lipid trial in the news and biomedical literature : A cross-sectional analysis. In: JAMA Internal Medicine. 2014 ; Vol. 174, No. 7. pp. 1176-1182.
@article{8eebb8e4faaa499485f289048779f18d,
title = "Descriptions and interpretations of the ACCORD-lipid trial in the news and biomedical literature: A cross-sectional analysis",
abstract = "The lipid component of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD-Lipid) trial was a landmark, publicly funded study demonstrating that fenofibrate, when added to statin therapy, was not associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes among patients with diabetes mellitus. We performed a cross-sectional study of all articles describing the results of ACCORD-Lipid in the news and biomedical literature in the 15 months following its publication. For articles published in biomedical journals, we determined whether there was an association between authors' conflicts of interest and trial interpretation. We identified 67 news articles and 141 biomedical journal articles discussing ACCORD-Lipid. Approximately 30{\%} of news and biomedical journal articles described fenofibrate as ineffective, whereas nearly 20{\%} concluded it was effective. Among articles making a recommendation, approximately 50{\%} of news and 67{\%} of biomedical journal articles supported continued fibrate use. Authors with conflicts of interest were more likely to describe fenofibrate as effective (27.1{\%} vs 8.9{\%}; relative risk, 3.03; 95{\%} CI, 1.22-7.50; P = .008) and support continued fibrate use (77.4{\%} vs 45.8{\%}; 1.69; 1.07-2.67; P = .006). The ACCORD-Lipid trial was described inconsistently in news and biomedical journal articles, possibly creating uncertainty among patients and physicians. In addition, conflicts of interest were associated with more favorable trial interpretation.",
author = "Downing, {Nicholas S.} and Theresa Cheng and Krumholz, {Harlan M.} and Shah, {Nilay D} and Ross, {Joseph S.}",
year = "2014",
doi = "10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1371",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "174",
pages = "1176--1182",
journal = "JAMA Internal Medicine",
issn = "2168-6106",
publisher = "American Medical Association",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Descriptions and interpretations of the ACCORD-lipid trial in the news and biomedical literature

T2 - A cross-sectional analysis

AU - Downing, Nicholas S.

AU - Cheng, Theresa

AU - Krumholz, Harlan M.

AU - Shah, Nilay D

AU - Ross, Joseph S.

PY - 2014

Y1 - 2014

N2 - The lipid component of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD-Lipid) trial was a landmark, publicly funded study demonstrating that fenofibrate, when added to statin therapy, was not associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes among patients with diabetes mellitus. We performed a cross-sectional study of all articles describing the results of ACCORD-Lipid in the news and biomedical literature in the 15 months following its publication. For articles published in biomedical journals, we determined whether there was an association between authors' conflicts of interest and trial interpretation. We identified 67 news articles and 141 biomedical journal articles discussing ACCORD-Lipid. Approximately 30% of news and biomedical journal articles described fenofibrate as ineffective, whereas nearly 20% concluded it was effective. Among articles making a recommendation, approximately 50% of news and 67% of biomedical journal articles supported continued fibrate use. Authors with conflicts of interest were more likely to describe fenofibrate as effective (27.1% vs 8.9%; relative risk, 3.03; 95% CI, 1.22-7.50; P = .008) and support continued fibrate use (77.4% vs 45.8%; 1.69; 1.07-2.67; P = .006). The ACCORD-Lipid trial was described inconsistently in news and biomedical journal articles, possibly creating uncertainty among patients and physicians. In addition, conflicts of interest were associated with more favorable trial interpretation.

AB - The lipid component of the Action to Control Cardiovascular Risk in Diabetes (ACCORD-Lipid) trial was a landmark, publicly funded study demonstrating that fenofibrate, when added to statin therapy, was not associated with improved cardiovascular outcomes among patients with diabetes mellitus. We performed a cross-sectional study of all articles describing the results of ACCORD-Lipid in the news and biomedical literature in the 15 months following its publication. For articles published in biomedical journals, we determined whether there was an association between authors' conflicts of interest and trial interpretation. We identified 67 news articles and 141 biomedical journal articles discussing ACCORD-Lipid. Approximately 30% of news and biomedical journal articles described fenofibrate as ineffective, whereas nearly 20% concluded it was effective. Among articles making a recommendation, approximately 50% of news and 67% of biomedical journal articles supported continued fibrate use. Authors with conflicts of interest were more likely to describe fenofibrate as effective (27.1% vs 8.9%; relative risk, 3.03; 95% CI, 1.22-7.50; P = .008) and support continued fibrate use (77.4% vs 45.8%; 1.69; 1.07-2.67; P = .006). The ACCORD-Lipid trial was described inconsistently in news and biomedical journal articles, possibly creating uncertainty among patients and physicians. In addition, conflicts of interest were associated with more favorable trial interpretation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84904128310&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84904128310&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1371

DO - 10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1371

M3 - Article

C2 - 24796406

AN - SCOPUS:84904128310

VL - 174

SP - 1176

EP - 1182

JO - JAMA Internal Medicine

JF - JAMA Internal Medicine

SN - 2168-6106

IS - 7

ER -