Publication of clinical trials supporting successful new drug applications: a literature analysis

Background

The United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approves new drugs based on sponsor-submitted clinical trials. The publication status of these trials in the medical literature and factors associated with publication have not been evaluated. We sought to determine the proportion of trials submitted to the FDA in support of newly approved drugs that are published in biomedical journals that a typical clinician, consumer, or policy maker living in the US would reasonably search.

Methods and Findings

We conducted a cohort study of trials supporting new drugs approved between 1998 and 2000, as described in FDA medical and statistical review documents and the FDA approved drug label. We determined publication status and time from approval to full publication in the medical literature at 2 and 5 y by searching PubMed and other databases through 01 August 2006. We then evaluated trial characteristics associated with publication. We identified 909 trials supporting 90 approved drugs in the FDA reviews, of which 43% (394/909) were published. Among the subset of trials described in the FDA-approved drug label and classified as “pivotal trials” for our analysis, 76% (257/340) were published. In multivariable logistic regression for all trials 5 y postapproval, likelihood of publication correlated with statistically significant results (odds ratio [OR] 3.03, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.78–5.17); larger sample sizes (OR 1.33 per 2-fold increase in sample size, 95% CI 1.17–1.52); and pivotal status (OR 5.31, 95% CI 3.30–8.55). In multivariable logistic regression for only the pivotal trials 5 y postapproval, likelihood of publication correlated with statistically significant results (OR 2.96, 95% CI 1.24–7.06) and larger sample sizes (OR 1.47 per 2-fold increase in sample size, 95% CI 1.15–1.88). Statistically significant results and larger sample sizes were also predictive of publication at 2 y postapproval and in multivariable Cox proportional models for all trials and the subset of pivotal trials.

Conclusions

Over half of all supporting trials for FDA-approved drugs remained unpublished ≥ 5 y after approval. Pivotal trials and trials with statistically significant results and larger sample sizes are more likely to be published. Selective reporting of trial results exists for commonly marketed drugs. Our data provide a baseline for evaluating publication bias as the new FDA Amendments Act comes into force mandating basic results reporting of clinical trials.     

Impact of reporting bias in network meta-analysis of antidepressant placebo-controlled trials

Background

Indirect comparisons of competing treatments by network meta-analysis (NMA) are increasingly in use. Reporting bias has received little attention in this context. We aimed to assess the impact of such bias in NMAs.

Methods

We used data from 74 FDA-registered placebo-controlled trials of 12 antidepressants and their 51 matching publications. For each dataset, NMA was used to estimate the effect sizes for 66 possible pair-wise comparisons of these drugs, the probabilities of being the best drug and ranking the drugs. To assess the impact of reporting bias, we compared the NMA results for the 51 published trials and those for the 74 FDA-registered trials. To assess how reporting bias affecting only one drug may affect the ranking of all drugs, we performed 12 different NMAs for hypothetical analysis. For each of these NMAs, we used published data for one drug and FDA data for the 11 other drugs.

Findings

Pair-wise effect sizes for drugs derived from the NMA of published data and those from the NMA of FDA data differed in absolute value by at least 100% in 30 of 66 pair-wise comparisons (45%). Depending on the dataset used, the top 3 agents differed, in composition and order. When reporting bias hypothetically affected only one drug, the affected drug ranked first in 5 of the 12 NMAs but second (n = 2), fourth (n = 1) or eighth (n = 2) in the NMA of the complete FDA network.

Conclusions

In this particular network, reporting bias biased NMA-based estimates of treatments efficacy and modified ranking. The reporting bias effect in NMAs may differ from that in classical meta-analyses in that reporting bias affecting only one drug may affect the ranking of all drugs.     

Outcome reporting bias in randomized trials funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research

Background

The reporting of outcomes within published randomized trials has previously been shown to be incomplete, biased and inconsistent with study protocols. We sought to determine whether outcome reporting bias would be present in a cohort of government-funded trials subjected to rigorous peer review.

Methods

We compared protocols for randomized trials approved for funding by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (formerly the Medical Research Council of Canada) from 1990 to 1998 with subsequent reports of the trials identified in journal publications. Characteristics of reported and unreported outcomes were recorded from the protocols and publications. Incompletely reported outcomes were defined as those with insufficient data provided in publications for inclusion in meta-analyses. An overall odds ratio measuring the association between completeness of reporting and statistical significance was calculated stratified by trial. Finally, primary outcomes specified in trial protocols were compared with those reported in publications.

Results

We identified 48 trials with 68 publications and 1402 outcomes. The median number of participants per trial was 299, and 44% of the trials were published in general medical journals. A median of 31% (10th–90th percentile range 5%–67%) of outcomes measured to assess the efficacy of an intervention (efficacy outcomes) and 59% (0%–100%) of those measured to assess the harm of an intervention (harm outcomes) per trial were incompletely reported. Statistically significant efficacy outcomes had a higher odds than nonsignificant efficacy outcomes of being fully reported (odds ratio 2.7; 95% confidence interval 1.5–5.0). Primary outcomes differed between protocols and publications for 40% of the trials.

Interpretation

Selective reporting of outcomes frequently occurs in publications of high-quality government-funded trials.Selective reporting of results from randomized trials can occur either at the level of end points within published studies (outcome reporting bias)¹ or at the level of entire trials that are selectively published (study publication bias).² Outcome reporting bias has previously been demonstrated in a broad cohort of published trials approved by a regional ethics committee.¹ The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) — the primary federal funding agency, known before 2000 as the Medical Research Council of Canada (MRC) — recognized the need to address this issue and conducted an internal review process in 2002 to evaluate the reporting of results from its funded trials. The primary objectives were to determine (a) the prevalence of incomplete outcome reporting in journal publications of randomized trials; (b) the degree of association between adequate outcome reporting and statistical significance; and (c) the consistency between primary outcomes specified in trial protocols and those specified in subsequent journal publications.     

Reporting Bias in Drug Trials Submitted to the Food and Drug Administration: Review of Publication and Presentation

Background

Previous studies of drug trials submitted to regulatory authorities have documented selective reporting of both entire trials and favorable results. The objective of this study is to determine the publication rate of efficacy trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in approved New Drug Applications (NDAs) and to compare the trial characteristics as reported by the FDA with those reported in publications.

Methods and Findings

This is an observational study of all efficacy trials found in approved NDAs for New Molecular Entities (NMEs) from 2001 to 2002 inclusive and all published clinical trials corresponding to the trials within the NDAs. For each trial included in the NDA, we assessed its publication status, primary outcome(s) reported and their statistical significance, and conclusions. Seventy-eight percent (128/164) of efficacy trials contained in FDA reviews of NDAs were published. In a multivariate model, trials with favorable primary outcomes (OR = 4.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.33–17.1, p = 0.018) and active controls (OR = 3.4, 95% CI 1.02–11.2, p = 0.047) were more likely to be published. Forty-one primary outcomes from the NDAs were omitted from the papers. Papers included 155 outcomes that were in the NDAs, 15 additional outcomes that favored the test drug, and two other neutral or unknown additional outcomes. Excluding outcomes with unknown significance, there were 43 outcomes in the NDAs that did not favor the NDA drug. Of these, 20 (47%) were not included in the papers. The statistical significance of five of the remaining 23 outcomes (22%) changed between the NDA and the paper, with four changing to favor the test drug in the paper (p = 0.38). Excluding unknowns, 99 conclusions were provided in both NDAs and papers, nine conclusions (9%) changed from the FDA review of the NDA to the paper, and all nine did so to favor the test drug (100%, 95% CI 72%–100%, p = 0.0039).

Conclusions

Many trials were still not published 5 y after FDA approval. Discrepancies between the trial information reviewed by the FDA and information found in published trials tended to lead to more favorable presentations of the NDA drugs in the publications. Thus, the information that is readily available in the scientific literature to health care professionals is incomplete and potentially biased.     

Nonregistration,discontinuation, and nonpublication of randomized trials: A repeated metaresearch analysis

BackgroundWe previously found that 25% of 1,017 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved between 2000 and 2003 were discontinued prematurely, and 44% remained unpublished at a median of 12 years follow-up. We aimed to assess a decade later (1) whether rates of completion and publication have increased; (2) the extent to which nonpublished RCTs can be identified in trial registries; and (3) the association between reporting quality of protocols and premature discontinuation or nonpublication of RCTs.Methods and findingsWe included 326 RCT protocols approved in 2012 by research ethics committees in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada in this metaresearch study. Pilot, feasibility, and phase 1 studies were excluded. We extracted trial characteristics from each study protocol and systematically searched for corresponding trial registration (if not reported in the protocol) and full text publications until February 2022. For trial registrations, we searched the (i) World Health Organization: International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP); (ii) US National Library of Medicine (ClinicalTrials.gov); (iii) European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EUCTR); (iv) ISRCTN registry; and (v) Google. For full text publications, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. We recorded whether RCTs were registered, discontinued (including reason for discontinuation), and published. The reporting quality of RCT protocols was assessed with the 33-item SPIRIT checklist. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between the independent variables protocol reporting quality, planned sample size, type of control (placebo versus other), reporting of any recruitment projection, single-center versus multicenter trials, and industry versus investigator sponsoring, with the 2 dependent variables: (1) publication of RCT results; and (2) trial discontinuation due to poor recruitment.Of the 326 included trials, 19 (6%) were unregistered. Ninety-eight trials (30%) were discontinued prematurely, most often due to poor recruitment (37%; 36/98). One in 5 trials (21%; 70/326) remained unpublished at 10 years follow-up, and 21% of unpublished trials (15/70) were unregistered. Twenty-three of 147 investigator-sponsored trials (16%) reported their results in a trial registry in contrast to 150 of 179 industry-sponsored trials (84%).The median proportion of reported SPIRIT items in included RCT protocols was 69% (interquartile range 61% to 77%). We found no variables associated with trial discontinuation; however, lower reporting quality of trial protocols was associated with nonpublication (odds ratio, 0.71 for each 10% increment in the proportion of SPIRIT items met; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.92; p = 0.009). Study limitations include that the moderate sample size may have limited the ability of our regression models to identify significant associations.ConclusionsWe have observed that rates of premature trial discontinuation have not changed in the past decade. Nonpublication of RCTs has declined but remains common; 21% of unpublished trials could not be identified in registries. Only 16% of investigator-sponsored trials reported results in a trial registry. Higher reporting quality of RCT protocols was associated with publication of results. Further efforts from all stakeholders are needed to improve efficiency and transparency of clinical research.

Benjamin Speich and colleagues investigate whether rates of trial completion and publication have increased over the past decade, the extent to which non-published trials can be identified in registries, and the association between reporting quality of protocols and premature discontinuation or non-publication of trials.     

Prevalence of Suicide Attempts among College Students in China: A Meta-Analysis

BackgroundSuicide is the leading cause of death among 15–34 year olds in China, but no national data are available on the suicide and suicide attempts rates of college students, a sub-group of youth with 23 million. Several studies have reported the prevalence of suicide attempts among college students, however, no meta-analysis pooling the prevalence of suicide attempts is found.ResultsA total of 29 eligible studies, with 88,225 college students, were finally included. The maximum and minimum reported prevalences of suicide attempts among college students in China were 0.4% and 10.5%, respectively. The pooled prevalence of suicide attempts was 2.8% (95%CI: 2.3%–3.3%). Subgroup analyses showed that the pooled estimate of prevalence of life time suicide attempts was 2.7% (95%CI: 2.1%–3.3%), and 12-month suicide attempts was 2.9% (95%CI: 2.0%–3.8%). The prevalence for males was 2.4% (95%CI: 1.8%–3.0%), and for females was 2.7% (95%CI: 1.9%–3.7%). The prevalences among college students in grade 1 through 4 were 2.8% (95%CI: 1.7%–3.8%), 1.8% (95%CI: 1.2%–2.3%), 2.0% (95%CI: 0.8%–3.1%), and 2.9% (95%CI: 0.1%–6.7%), respectively. The prevalences among college students from rural and urban areas were 5.1% (95%CI: 2.8%–7.5%) and 3.7% (95%CI: 1.4%–5.9%), respectively.Conclusions2.8% prevalence of suicide attempts and more than 600,000 suicide attempters among college students indicate that suicide attempt among college students is an important public health problem in China. More attention should be paid to the current situation.     

Publication Bias in Antipsychotic Trials: An Analysis of Efficacy Comparing the Published Literature to the US Food and Drug Administration Database

Background

Publication bias compromises the validity of evidence-based medicine, yet a growing body of research shows that this problem is widespread. Efficacy data from drug regulatory agencies, e.g., the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), can serve as a benchmark or control against which data in journal articles can be checked. Thus one may determine whether publication bias is present and quantify the extent to which it inflates apparent drug efficacy.

Methods and Findings

FDA Drug Approval Packages for eight second-generation antipsychotics—aripiprazole, iloperidone, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, risperidone long-acting injection (risperidone LAI), and ziprasidone—were used to identify a cohort of 24 FDA-registered premarketing trials. The results of these trials according to the FDA were compared with the results conveyed in corresponding journal articles. The relationship between study outcome and publication status was examined, and effect sizes derived from the two data sources were compared. Among the 24 FDA-registered trials, four (17%) were unpublished. Of these, three failed to show that the study drug had a statistical advantage over placebo, and one showed the study drug was statistically inferior to the active comparator. Among the 20 published trials, the five that were not positive, according to the FDA, showed some evidence of outcome reporting bias. However, the association between trial outcome and publication status did not reach statistical significance. Further, the apparent increase in the effect size point estimate due to publication bias was modest (8%) and not statistically significant. On the other hand, the effect size for unpublished trials (0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.39) was less than half that for the published trials (0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.54), a difference that was significant.

Conclusions

The magnitude of publication bias found for antipsychotics was less than that found previously for antidepressants, possibly because antipsychotics demonstrate superiority to placebo more consistently. Without increased access to regulatory agency data, publication bias will continue to blur distinctions between effective and ineffective drugs. Please see later in the article for the Editors'' Summary     

Does Publication Bias Inflate the Apparent Efficacy of Psychological Treatment for Major Depressive Disorder? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of US National Institutes of Health-Funded Trials

Background

The efficacy of antidepressant medication has been shown empirically to be overestimated due to publication bias, but this has only been inferred statistically with regard to psychological treatment for depression. We assessed directly the extent of study publication bias in trials examining the efficacy of psychological treatment for depression.

Methods and Findings

We identified US National Institutes of Health grants awarded to fund randomized clinical trials comparing psychological treatment to control conditions or other treatments in patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder for the period 1972–2008, and we determined whether those grants led to publications. For studies that were not published, data were requested from investigators and included in the meta-analyses. Thirteen (23.6%) of the 55 funded grants that began trials did not result in publications, and two others never started. Among comparisons to control conditions, adding unpublished studies (Hedges’ g = 0.20; CI_95% -0.11~0.51; k = 6) to published studies (g = 0.52; 0.37~0.68; k = 20) reduced the psychotherapy effect size point estimate (g = 0.39; 0.08~0.70) by 25%. Moreover, these findings may overestimate the "true" effect of psychological treatment for depression as outcome reporting bias could not be examined quantitatively.

Conclusion

The efficacy of psychological interventions for depression has been overestimated in the published literature, just as it has been for pharmacotherapy. Both are efficacious but not to the extent that the published literature would suggest. Funding agencies and journals should archive both original protocols and raw data from treatment trials to allow the detection and correction of outcome reporting bias. Clinicians, guidelines developers, and decision makers should be aware that the published literature overestimates the effects of the predominant treatments for depression.     

Relationship between Sponsorship and Failure Rate of Dental Implants: A Systematic Approach

Background

The number of dental implant treatments increases annually. Dental implants are manufactured by competing companies. Systematic reviews and meta-analysis have shown a clear association between pharmaceutical industry funding of clinical trials and pro-industry results. So far, the impact of industry sponsorship on the outcomes and conclusions of dental implant clinical trials has never been explored. The aim of the present study was to examine financial sponsorship of dental implant trials, and to evaluate whether research funding sources may affect the annual failure rate.

Methods and Findings

A systematic approach was used to identify systematic reviews published between January 1993 and December 2008 that specifically deal with the length of survival of dental implants. Primary articles were extracted from these reviews. The failure rate of the dental implants included in the trials was calculated. Data on publication year, Impact Factor, prosthetic design, periodontal status reporting, number of dental implants included in the trials, methodological quality of the studies, presence of a statistical advisor, and financial sponsorship were extracted by two independent reviewers (kappa  = 0.90; CI_95% [0.77–1.00]). Univariate quasi-Poisson regression models and multivariate analysis were used to identify variables that were significantly associated with failure rates. Five systematic reviews were identified from which 41 analyzable trials were extracted. The mean annual failure rate estimate was 1.09%.(CI_95% [0.84–1.42]). The funding source was not reported in 63% of the trials (26/41). Sixty-six percent of the trials were considered as having a risk of bias (27/41). Given study age, both industry associated (OR = 0.21; CI_95% [0.12–0.38]) and unknown funding source trials (OR = 0.33; (CI_95% [0.21–0.51]) had a lower annual failure rates compared with non-industry associated trials. A conflict of interest statement was disclosed in 2 trials.

Conclusions

When controlling for other factors, the probability of annual failure for industry associated trials is significantly lower compared with non-industry associated trials. This bias may have significant implications on tooth extraction decision making, research on tooth preservation, and governmental health care policies.     

Identification of additional trials in prospective trial registers for cochrane systematic reviews

Background

Publication and selective outcome reporting bias are a threat to the validity of systematic reviews. Extensive searching for additional trials in prospective trial registers could reduce this problem. We have evaluated how authors of Cochrane systematic reviews currently make use of trial registers as an additional source for the identification of potentially eligible trials.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We included 210 systematic Cochrane reviews of interventions published between 2008 and 2010 of which the protocol was first published in 2008. When prospective trial registers were searched we recorded the names of the register(s), the authors'' motive(s) and if they yielded any extra trials.In 80 reviews (38.1%) the authors had searched in one or more prospective trial register(s) of which 55% had searched in overlapping search portals and individual registers. Most frequently assessed were the MetaRegister (66.3%) and Clinicaltrials.gov (60%) which is in sharp contrast of other registers or portals like the WHO ICTRP Search Portal (20%). Reported motives to use registers were to identify ongoing trials (83.3%), to identify unpublished outcomes or trials (23.5%), to identify recently published trials (11.8%), or to identify any relevant trial (3.9%).In 28 reviews (35%) the authors had selected (ongoing) trials identified in trial registers as potentially eligible.

Discussion

Trial registers as an additional source of information are gaining acknowledgement amongst Cochrane reviewers. Nevertheless, searches seem to be inefficient as overlapping databases are frequently consulted, while the WHO ICTRP Search Portal that includes the data from all approved registers worldwide is being underused. Moreover, the emphasis is now on the identification of ongoing trials, although the prospective registers offer a broader potential. Further familiarity of registers and guidance how to search and to report will help to implement this as a common method and utilize the full potential of prospective trial registers for systematic reviews.     

Feasibility and Inter-Rater Reliability of Physical Performance Measures in Acutely Admitted Older Medical Patients

ObjectivePhysical performance measures can be used to predict functional decline and increased dependency in older persons. However, few studies have assessed the feasibility or reliability of such measures in hospitalized older patients. Here we assessed the feasibility and inter-rater reliability of four simple measures of physical performance in acutely admitted older medical patients.DesignDuring the first 24 hours of hospitalization, the following were assessed twice by different raters in 52 (≥ 65 years) patients admitted for acute medical illness: isometric hand grip strength, 4-meter gait speed, 30-s chair stand and Cumulated Ambulation Score. Relative reliability was expressed as weighted kappa for the Cumulated Ambulation Score or as intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC_1,1) and lower limit of the 95%-confidence interval (LL_95%) for grip strength, gait speed, and 30-s chair stand. Absolute reliability was expressed as the standard error of measurement and the smallest real difference as a percentage of their respective means (SEM% and SRD%).ResultsThe primary reasons for admission of the 52 included patients were infectious disease and cardiovascular illness. The mean± SD age was 78±8.3 years, and 73.1% were women. All patients performed grip strength and Cumulated Ambulation Score testing, 81% performed the gait speed test, and 54% completed the 30-s chair stand test (46% were unable to rise without using the armrests). No systematic bias was found between first and second tests or between raters. The weighted kappa for the Cumulated Ambulation Score was 0.76 (0.60–0.92). The ICC1,1 values were as follows: grip strength, 0.95 (LL_95% 0.92); gait speed, 0.92 (LL_95% 0.73), and 30-s chair stand, 0.82 (LL_95% 0.67). The SEM% values for grip strength, gait speed, and 30-s chair stand were 8%, 7%, and 18%, and the SRD_95% values were 22%, 17%, and 49%.ConclusionIn acutely admitted older medical patients, grip strength, gait speed, and the Cumulated Ambulation Score measurements were feasible and showed high inter-rater reliability when administered by different raters. The feasibility and inter-rater reliability of the 30-s chair stand were moderate, complicating the use of the 30-s chair stand in acutely admitted older medical patients. However, the predefined modified version of the chair stand test was both feasible and with high inter-rater reliability in this population.     

A framework for prospective,adaptive meta-analysis (FAME) of aggregate data from randomised trials

BackgroundThe vast majority of systematic reviews are planned retrospectively, once most eligible trials have completed and reported, and are based on aggregate data that can be extracted from publications. Prior knowledge of trial results can introduce bias into both review and meta-analysis methods, and the omission of unpublished data can lead to reporting biases. We present a collaborative framework for prospective, adaptive meta-analysis (FAME) of aggregate data to provide results that are less prone to bias. Also, with FAME, we monitor how evidence from trials is accumulating, to anticipate the earliest opportunity for a potentially definitive meta-analysis.MethodologyWe developed and piloted FAME alongside 4 systematic reviews in prostate cancer, which allowed us to refine the key principles. These are to: (1) start the systematic review process early, while trials are ongoing or yet to report; (2) liaise with trial investigators to develop a detailed picture of all eligible trials; (3) prospectively assess the earliest possible timing for reliable meta-analysis based on the accumulating aggregate data; (4) develop and register (or publish) the systematic review protocol before trials produce results and seek appropriate aggregate data; (5) interpret meta-analysis results taking account of both available and unavailable data; and (6) assess the value of updating the systematic review and meta-analysis. These principles are illustrated via a hypothetical review and their application to 3 published systematic reviews.ConclusionsFAME can reduce the potential for bias, and produce more timely, thorough and reliable systematic reviews of aggregate data.

Jayne Tierney and coauthors discuss FAME, an approach for adaptive meta-analysis of data from randomised trials.     

Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Impact of Chemical-Based Mollusciciding for Control of Schistosoma mansoni and S. haematobium Transmission

Background

Programs for schistosomiasis control are advancing worldwide, with many benefits noted in terms of disease reduction. Yet risk of reinfection and recurrent disease remain, even in areas with high treatment coverage. In the search for means to better prevent new Schistosoma infections, attention has returned to an older strategy for transmission control, i.e., chemical mollusciciding, to suppress intermediate host snail species responsible for S. mansoni and S. haematobium transmission. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to summarize prior experience in molluscicide-based control of Bulinus and Biomphalaria spp. snails, and estimate its impact on local human Schistosoma infection.

Methodology/Principal Findings

The review was registered at inception with PROSPERO (CRD42013006869). Studies were identified by online database searches and hand searches of private archives. Eligible studies included published or unpublished mollusciciding field trials performed before January 2014 involving host snails for S. mansoni or S. haematobium, with a primary focus on the use of niclosamide. Among 63 included papers, there was large variability in terms of molluscicide dosing, and treatment intervals varied from 3–52 weeks depending on location, water source, and type of application. Among 35 studies reporting on prevalence, random effects meta-analysis indicated that, on average, odds of infection were reduced 77% (OR 0.23, CI_95% 0.17, 0.31) during the course of mollusciciding, with increased impact if combined with drug therapy, and progressively greater impact over time. In 17 studies reporting local incidence, risk of new infection was reduced 64% (RR 0.36 CI_95% 0.25, 0.5), but additional drug treatment did not appear to influence incidence effects.

Conclusion/Significance

While there are hurdles to implementing molluscicide control, its impact on local transmission is typically strong, albeit incomplete. Based on past experience, regular focal mollusciciding is likely to contribute significantly to the move toward elimination of schistosomiasis in high risk areas.     

Adverse Effects of Cholinesterase Inhibitors in Dementia,According to the Pharmacovigilance Databases of the United-States and Canada

This survey analyzes two national pharmacovigilance databases in order to determine the major adverse reactions observed with the use of cholinesterase inhibitors in dementia. We conducted a statistical analysis of the Food and Drug Administration Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) and the Canada Vigilance Adverse Reaction Database (CVARD) concerning the side effects of cholinesterase inhibitors. The statistics calculated for each adverse event were the frequency and the reporting odds ratios (ROR). A total of 9877 and 2247 reports were extracted from the FAERS and CVARD databases, respectively. A disproportionately higher frequency of reports of death as an adverse event for rivastigmine, compared to the other acetylcholinesterase inhibiting drugs, was observed in both the FAERS (ROR = 3.42; CI_95% = 2.94–3.98; P<0.0001) and CVARD (ROR = 3.67; CI_95% = 1.92–7.00; P = 0.001) databases. While cholinesterase inhibitors remain to be an important therapeutic tool against Alzheimer’s disease, the disproportionate prevalence of fatal outcomes with rivastigmine compared with alternatives should be taken into consideration.     

Prediction of all-cause mortality with copeptin in cardio-cerebrovascular patients: A meta-analysis of prospective studies

BackgroundMeasurement of the biomarker copeptin may help identify disease severity and risk of mortality for a various diseases. This study sought to determine the relationship between copeptin and all-cause mortality of patients with cardio-cerebrovascular disease.MethodsDatabase of Medline and Web of Science were searched for studies with data involving the baseline copeptin levels and subsequent all-cause mortality outcomes. The pooled HRs of all-cause mortality were calculated and presented with 95%CIs. Subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis were conducted to explore the possible sources of heterogeneity.ResultsData from 14,395 participants were derived from 28 prospective studies. Higher copeptin significantly increased the risk of all-cause mortality (per unit copeptin: HR = 1.020, 95%CI = 1.004–1.036; log unit copeptin: HR = 2.884, 95%CI = 1.844–4.512; categorical copeptin: HR = 3.371, 95%CI = 2.077–5.472). Subgroup analysis indicated that the risk of all-cause death was higher in cerebrovascular patients (per unit copeptin: HR = 2.537, 95%CI = 0.956–6.731; log unit copeptin: HR = 3.419, 95%CI = 2.391–4.888) than cardiovascular patients (per unit copeptin: HR = 1.011, 95%CI = 1.002–1.020; log unit copeptin: HR = 2.009, 95%CI = 1.119–3.608).ConclusionCopeptin is associated with all-cause mortality of patients with cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease. Our study suggests that copeptin seems to be a promising novel biomarker for prediction of mortality in cardio-cerebrovascular patients, especially for cerebrovascular patients.     

Reporting of Positive Results in Randomized Controlled Trials of Mindfulness-Based Mental Health Interventions

BackgroundA large proportion of mindfulness-based therapy trials report statistically significant results, even in the context of very low statistical power. The objective of the present study was to characterize the reporting of “positive” results in randomized controlled trials of mindfulness-based therapy. We also assessed mindfulness-based therapy trial registrations for indications of possible reporting bias and reviewed recent systematic reviews and meta-analyses to determine whether reporting biases were identified.MethodsCINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and SCOPUS databases were searched for randomized controlled trials of mindfulness-based therapy. The number of positive trials was described and compared to the number that might be expected if mindfulness-based therapy were similarly effective compared to individual therapy for depression. Trial registries were searched for mindfulness-based therapy registrations. CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL, EMBASE, ISI, MEDLINE, PsycInfo, and SCOPUS were also searched for mindfulness-based therapy systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Results108 (87%) of 124 published trials reported ≥1 positive outcome in the abstract, and 109 (88%) concluded that mindfulness-based therapy was effective, 1.6 times greater than the expected number of positive trials based on effect size d = 0.55 (expected number positive trials = 65.7). Of 21 trial registrations, 13 (62%) remained unpublished 30 months post-trial completion. No trial registrations adequately specified a single primary outcome measure with time of assessment. None of 36 systematic reviews and meta-analyses concluded that effect estimates were overestimated due to reporting biases.ConclusionsThe proportion of mindfulness-based therapy trials with statistically significant results may overstate what would occur in practice.     

An Assessment of the Methodological Quality of Published Network Meta-Analyses: A Systematic Review

ObjectiveTo assess the methodological quality of published network meta-analysis.DesignSystematic review.MethodsWe searched the medical literature for network meta-analyses of pharmaceuticals. We assessed general study characteristics, study transparency and reproducibility, methodological approach, and reporting of findings. We compared studies published in journals with lower impact factors with those published in journals with higher impact factors, studies published prior to January 1^st, 2013 with those published after that date, and studies supported financially by industry with those supported by non-profit institutions or that received no support.ResultsThe systematic literature search identified 854 citations. Three hundred and eighteen studies met our inclusion criteria. The number of network meta-analyses has grown rapidly, with 48% of studies published since January 2013. The majority of network meta-analyses were supported by a non-profit institution or received no support (68%). We found considerable inconsistencies among reviewed studies. Eighty percent reported search terms, 61% a network diagram, 65% sufficient data to replicate the analysis, and 90% the characteristics of included trials. Seventy percent performed a risk of bias assessment of included trials, 40% an assessment of model fit, and 56% a sensitivity analysis. Among studies with a closed loop, 69% examined the consistency of direct and indirect evidence. Sixty-four percent of studies presented the full matrix of head-to-head treatment comparisons. For Bayesian studies, 41% reported the probability that each treatment was best, 31% reported treatment ranking, and 16% included the model code or referenced publicly-available code. Network meta-analyses published in higher impact factors journals and those that did not receive industry support performed better across the assessment criteria. We found few differences between older and newer studies.ConclusionsThere is substantial variation in the network meta-analysis literature. Consensus among guidelines is needed improve the methodological quality, transparency, and consistency of study conduct and reporting.     

Drug-induced orthostatic hypotension: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BackgroundDrug-induced orthostatic hypotension (OH) is common, and its resulting cerebral hypoperfusion is linked to adverse outcomes including falls, strokes, cognitive impairment, and increased mortality. The extent to which specific medications are associated with OH remains unclear.Methods and findingsWe conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the extent to which specific drug groups are associated with OH. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Science databases were searched from inception through 23 November 2020. Placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on any drug reporting on OH as an adverse effect in adults (≥18 years) were eligible. Three authors extracted data on the drug, OH, dose, participant characteristics, and study setting. The revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to appraise evidence. Summary odds ratios (ORs) were estimated for OH using fixed effects Mantel–Haenszel statistics. We conducted subgroup analysis on validity of OH measurement, drug dose, risk of bias, age, and comorbidity. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool was used to summarise the certainty of evidence. Of 36,940 citations, 69 eligible RCTs were included in the meta-analysis comprising 27,079 participants. Compared with placebo, beta-blockers and tricyclic antidepressants were associated with increased odds of OH (OR 7.76 [95% CI 2.51, 24.03]; OR 6.30 [95% CI 2.86, 13.91]). Alpha-blockers, antipsychotics, and SGLT-2 inhibitors were associated with up to 2-fold increased odds of OH, compared to placebo. There was no statistically significant difference in odds of OH with vasodilators (CCBs, ACE inhibitors/ARBs, SSRIs), compared to placebo. Limitations of this study are as follows: data limited to placebo-controlled studies, (excluding head-to-head trials), many RCTs excluded older participants; therefore results may be amplified in older patients in the clinical setting. The study protocol is publicly available on PROSPERO (CRD42020168697).ConclusionsMedications prescribed for common conditions (including depression, diabetes, and lower urinary tract symptoms) were associated with significantly increased odds of OH. Drugs causing sympathetic inhibition were associated with significantly increased odds of OH, while most vasodilators were associated with small nonsignificant differences in odds of OH, compared to placebo. Drugs targeting multiple parts of the orthostatic blood pressure (BP) reflex pathway (e.g. sympathetic inhibition, vasodilation, cardio-inhibitory effects) may carry cumulative risk, suggesting that individuals with polypharmacy could benefit from postural BP monitoring.

Cini Bhanu and colleagues evaluate the extent to which different drug groups are associated with orthostatic hypertension in this systematic review and meta-analysis.