Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 18, 2025

In Silico Clinical Trials for Cardiovascular Disease
Published on: May 27, 2022
Characteristics and Impact of Randomized Trials on Drugs or Devices in Cardiovascular Medicine
Marco Spagnolo1, Claudio Laudani1, Antonio Greco1
1Division of Cardiology, C.A.S.T., Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria Policlinico "G. Rodolico-San Marco", University of Catania, Via S. Sofia, 78, 95100, Catania, Italy.
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.
Insights
Cardiology clinical trials involving drugs, not devices, are cited more often but are also stopped early. These citation differences are primarily due to factors like simultaneous publication and positive results, not the intervention type itself.
Area of Science:
- Cardiovascular Medicine
- Clinical Trial Methodology
- Medical Research Impact
Background:
- Clinical trials are crucial for medical progress but differ in methods and regulations based on intervention type (drugs vs. devices).
- Understanding factors influencing trial impact is essential for advancing cardiovascular medicine.
Purpose of the Study:
- To investigate whether the type of intervention (drug or device) influences the impact of randomized trials in cardiovascular medicine.
- To compare citation counts, mentions, and study conduct metrics between drug and device trials.
Main Methods:
- Analysis of late-breaking randomized controlled trials in cardiology (2015-2021).
- Primary endpoint: total citations. Secondary endpoints: citations at 1-2 years, total mentions, study conduct metrics.
- Statistical analysis included regression models and sensitivity analyses to adjust for confounders and explore outcome effects.
Main Results:
- Drug trials (59.4%) showed higher median citations than device trials (40.6%), a trend consistent at 1 and 2 years.
- Drug trials were more frequently stopped prematurely (8.8% vs. 1.9%).
- After adjusting for confounders, citation differences were not significant, but premature stoppage remained higher for drug trials.
Conclusions:
- While drug trials receive more citations and mentions, this is largely influenced by factors like simultaneous publication and positive results, not solely the intervention type.
- Drug trials are more prone to early termination, irrespective of the treatment's efficacy.
- Positive study outcomes significantly impact citation rates and the likelihood of early trial cessation.
More Related Videos
00:04A Clinical Trial Assessing the Safety, Efficacy, and Delivery of Olive-Oil-Based Three-Chamber Bags for Parenteral Nutrition
Published on: September 20, 2019
02:47Author Spotlight: Exercise Test for Evaluation of the Functional Efficacy of the Pig Cardiovascular System
Published on: May 12, 2023
Related Concept Videos
Randomized Experiments
Simple randomization
Simple...
Clinical Trials
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...
Blinding
Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
Hazard Ratio
For example, in a clinical trial...
Cardiovascular Drugs: Classification based on Therapeutic Indications