Industry sponsorship and research outcome

[Challenges of Investigator-initiated Clinical Trials to Support the New Drug Development]

A large number of investigator-initiated clinical trials (IIT) were conducted in China, some of them should play an important supporting role in new drug development. Due to the large number, small scale and uneven quality of IIT in China, especially a big gap between the IIT and industry-sponsored trials in terms of protocol design, quality management and ethical review, many IIT can't be used to support the new drug development. Therefore, it is necessary for regulatory authorities, sponsors, research institutions, ethics committees and researchers to improve their understanding of the role of IIT. In order to support the new drug development with high-quality IIT, formulating supervising system, establishing an effective quality management system, enhancing the training of researchers and improving the ability of ethical review should be implemented effectively.
.

Stimulant and non-stimulant drug therapy for people with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and epilepsy

BACKGROUND

Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) can co-occur in up to 40% of people with epilepsy. There is debate about the efficacy and tolerability of stimulant and non-stimulant drugs used to treat people with ADHD and co-occurring epilepsy.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of stimulant and non-stimulant drugs on children and adults with ADHD and co-occurring epilepsy in terms of seizure frequency and drug withdrawal rates (primary objectives), as well as seizure severity, ADHD symptoms, cognitive state, general behaviour, quality of life, and adverse effects profile (secondary objectives).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following databases on 12 October 2020: Cochrane Register of Studies (CRS Web), MEDLINE (Ovid, 1946 to 9 October 2020), CINAHL Plus (EBSCOhost, 1937 onwards). There were no language restrictions. CRS Web includes randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials from PubMed, Embase, ClinicalTrials.gov, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Specialised Registers of Cochrane Review Groups including Epilepsy.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials of stimulant and non-stimulant drugs for people of any age, gender or ethnicity with ADHD and co-occurring epilepsy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We selected articles and extracted data according to predefined criteria. We conducted primary analysis on an intention-to-treat basis. We presented outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), except for individual adverse effects where we quoted 99% CIs. We conducted best- and worst-case sensitivity analyses to deal with missing data. We carried out a risk of bias assessment for each included study using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and assessed the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified two studies that matched our inclusion criteria: a USA study compared different doses of the stimulant drug osmotic-release oral system methylphenidate (OROS-MPH) with a placebo in 33 children (mean age 10.5 ± 3.0 years), and an Iranian study compared the non-stimulant drug omega-3 taken in conjunction with risperidone and usual anti-seizure medication (ASM) with risperidone and ASM only in 61 children (mean age 9.24 ± 0.15 years). All children were diagnosed with epilepsy and ADHD according to International League Against Epilepsy and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, criteria, respectively. We assessed both studies to be at low risk of detection and reporting biases, but assessments varied from low to high risk of bias for all other domains. OROS-MPH No participant taking OROS-MPH experienced significant worsening of epilepsy, defined as: 1. a doubling of the highest 14-day or highest two-day seizure rate observed during the 12 months before the trial; 2. a generalised tonic-clonic seizure if none had been experienced in the previous two years; or 3. a clinically meaningful intensification in seizure duration or severity (33 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). However, higher doses of OROS-MPH predicted an increased daily risk of a seizure (P < 0.001; 33 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). OROS-MPH had a larger proportion of participants receiving 'much improved' or 'very much improved' scores for ADHD symptoms on the Clinical Global Impressions for ADHD-Improvement tool (33 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence). OROS-MPH also had a larger proportion of people withdrawing from treatment (RR 2.80; 95% CI 1.14 to 6.89; 33 participants, 1 study; moderate-certainty evidence). Omega-3 Omega-3 with risperidone and ASM were associated with a reduction in mean seizure frequency by 6.6 seizures per month (95% CI 4.24 to 8.96; 56 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) and an increase in the proportion of people achieving 50% or greater reduction in monthly seizure frequency (RR 2.79, 95% CI 0.84 to 9.24; 56 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) compared to people on risperidone and ASM alone. Omega-3 with risperidone and ASM also had a smaller proportion of people withdrawing from treatment (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.12 to 3.59; 61 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) but a larger proportion of people experiencing adverse drug events (RR 1.40, 95% CI 0.44 to 4.42; 56 participants, 1 study; low-certainty evidence) compared to people on risperidone and ASM alone.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In children with a dual-diagnosis of epilepsy and ADHD, there is some evidence that use of the stimulant drug OROS-MPH is not associated with significant worsening of epilepsy, but higher doses of it may be associated with increased daily risk of seizures; the evidence is of low-certainty. OROS-MPH is also associated with improvement in ADHD symptoms. However, this treatment was also associated with a large proportion of treatment withdrawal compared to placebo. In relation to the non-stimulant drug omega-3, there is some evidence for reduction in seizure frequency in children who are also on risperidone and ASM, compared to children who are on risperidone and ASM alone. Evidence is inconclusive whether omega-3 increases or decreases the risk of adverse drug events. We identified only two studies - one each for OROS-MPH and omega-3 - with low to high risk of bias. We assessed the overall certainty of evidence for the outcomes of both OROS-MPH and omega-3 as low to moderate. More studies are needed. Future studies should include: 1. adult participants; 2. a wider variety of stimulant and non-stimulant drugs, such as amphetamines and atomoxetine, respectively; and 3. additional important outcomes, such as seizure-related hospitalisations and quality of life. Clusters of studies which assess the same drug - and those that build upon the evidence base presented in this review on OROS-MPH and omega-3 - are needed to allow for meta-analysis of outcomes.

The effects of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists on adipose tissues in patients with type 2 diabetes: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Aims

Glucagon‑like peptide 1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) treatment can improve adipose distribution. We performed this meta-analysis to investigate whether GLP-1RAs preferentially reduce visceral adipose tissue (VAT) over subcutaneous adipose tissue (SAT) in patients with type 2 diabetes.

Materials and methods

We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library for randomised controlled trials explicitly reporting changes in VAT and SAT. A random-effects model was performed to estimate the weighted mean difference (MD) for VAT and SAT. Heterogeneity among the studies was assessed using I2 statistics, and publication bias was assessed using Egger’s tests. Meta-regression was performed to identify the correlation between changes in adipose tissues and changes in body weight and glycated haemoglobin level.

Results

Ten trials with 924 patients were enrolled in the meta-analysis. GLP-1RA treatment led to similar absolute area (cm2) reductions in VAT (MD -21.13 cm2, 95% CI [-29.82, -12.44]) and SAT (MD -22.89 cm2, 95% CI [-29.83, -15.95]). No significant publication bias was detected, and this result was stable in the sensitivity and subgroup analyses. Moreover, GLP-1RA treatment resulted in a greater reduction in VAT and SAT in the subgroup with a greater reduction in body weight. The absolute area reduction in VAT was significantly correlated with the reduction in body weight (r = 6.324, p = 0.035).

Conclusions

GLP-1RA treatment leads to significant and similar absolute reductions in VAT and SAT, and the reduction in adipose tissues may be correlated with the reduction in body weight.

Chinese Herbal Medicine for Mild Cognitive Impairment: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objectives

This study aims to explore the benefits and harms of Chinese Herbal Medicine (CHM) for mild cognitive impairment (MCI).

Methods

Electronic searching was conducted in two English and four Chinese databases till 2021 December. Randomized clinical trials on CHM compared to no intervention, placebo or other therapies for MCI were included.

Results

Forty-nine RCTs (48 finished trials and 1 protocol) were identified. The overall methodological quality of included trials was relatively low. This review found that compared to no intervention or placebo, CHM can significantly decrease the number of patients who progressed to dementia (RR 0.36, 95% CI 0.22-0.58) and increase the cognitive function assessed by MMSE (MD 1.96, 95% CI 1.41-2.50) and MoCA (MD 2.44, 95% CI 1.57-3.31). The subgroup analysis of different CHM showed that Ginko leaf tablets can significantly improve the cognitive function compared to no intervention or placebo when assessed by MMSE (MD 2.03, 95% CI 1.18-2.88) and MoCA (MD 3.11, 95% CI 1.90-4.33). Compared to western medicine, CHM can significantly increase the score of MMSE (MD 0.88 95% CI 0.46-1.30) and MoCA (MD 0.87, 95% CI 0.33-1.41), but there was no significant difference on the score of ADL (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.49 to 0.27). None of the RCTs reported on the quality of life. Of 22 RCTs that reported adverse events, there was no statistical difference between the CHM and the control group.

Conclusions

CHM, Ginko leaf extracts in particular, could help to prevent progression into dementia and to improve cognitive function and ability of daily living activities. More qualified RCTs were needed to confirm the conclusion due to the low quality of current trials.

Systematic Review Registration

Unique Identifier: CRD42020157148.

Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention in vaccine randomised clinical trials: a systematic review with meta-analysis and Trial Sequential Analysis

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention in randomised clinical trials in relation to human vaccine development.

DESIGN

Systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis assessing the certainty of evidence with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

DATA SOURCES

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, BIOSIS, Science Citation Index Expanded and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science until 29 June 2021, and Chinese databases until September 2021.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials irrespective of type, status and language of publication, with trial participants of any sex, age, ethnicity, diagnosis, comorbidity and country of residence.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed risk of bias with Cochrane's RoB tool 1. Dichotomous data were analysed as risk ratios (RRs) and continuous data as mean differences. We explored both fixed-effect and random-effects models, with 95% CI. Heterogeneity was quantified with I² statistic. We GRADE assessed the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

We included 102 randomised clinical trials (26 457 participants). Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention may have no effect on serious adverse events (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.43; very low certainty) and on all-cause mortality (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.41; very low certainty). No trial reported on quality of life. Aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention may increase adverse events (RR 1.13, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.20; very low certainty). We found no or little evidence of a difference between aluminium adjuvants versus placebo or no intervention when assessing serology with geometric mean titres or concentrations or participants' seroprotection.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on evidence at very low certainty, we were unable to identify benefits of aluminium adjuvants, which may be associated with adverse events considered non-serious.

Associations Between Aggregate NLP-Extracted Conflicts of Interest and Adverse Events by Drug Product

This study evaluates associations between aggregate conflicts of interest (COI) and drug safety. We used a machine-learning system to extract and classify COI from PubMed-indexed disclosure statements. Individual conflicts were classified as Type 1 (personal fees, travel, board memberships, and non-financial support), Type 2 (grants and research support), or Type 3 (stock ownership and industry employment). COI were aggregated by type compared to adverse events by product. Type 1 COI are associated with a 1.1-1.8% increase in the number of adverse events, serious events, hospitalizations, and deaths. Type 2 COI are associated with a 1.7-2% decrease in adverse events across severity levels. Type 3 COI are associated with an approximately 1% increase in adverse events, serious events, and hospitalizations, but have no significant association with adverse events resulting in death. The findings suggest that COI policies might be adapted to account the relative risks of different types of financial relationships.

Industry influence in healthcare harms patients: myth or maxim?

Healthcare is a major global industry accounting for a significant proportion of government spending. Drug and medical device manufacturers are publicly traded companies with a responsibility to their shareholders to maximise profits by increasing sales. In order to achieve this, industry exerts influence over every part of healthcare including academic research, medical education, clinical guideline development, physician prescribing and through direct interactions with patients. In contrast, healthcare services seek to provide effective, safe and evidence-based treatments. This article examines interactions with industry across these domains and seeks to identify mutually beneficial relationships and potential conflict leading to patient harms. Case studies are used to illustrate these interactions. There is no single solution for improving healthcare's relationship with industry, although increased transparency has raised awareness of this issue. We briefly discuss some successful interventions that have been tried at national and regulatory level. While industry influence is widespread in healthcare and this has benefits for shareholders, healthcare practitioners have an ethical obligation to prioritise their patients' best interests. Industry interactions with healthcare professionals have a valid role in product development and distribution, but industry sponsorship of healthcare education and practice, guideline development or regulatory decision-making can have harmful consequences for patients. Healthcare practitioners need to carefully consider these issues when deciding whether to collaborate with industry.

Educational aims

To explore the many areas where industry influences healthcare and the subsequent effects on patient care. Case studies are used to illustrate examples of beneficial and harmful effects of this influence.To raise awareness of the effects of industry influence and for readers to consider their own potential conflicts of interest.To suggest potential ways to improve the current system with a focus on solutions which have successfully been trialled already.

Identifying environmental factors that influence immune response to SARS-CoV-2: Systematic evidence map protocol

BACKGROUND

Widespread environmental contamination can directly interact with human immune system functions. Environmental effects on the immune system may influence human susceptibility to respiratory infections as well as the severity of infectious diseases, such as the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Furthermore, the efficacy of vaccines to respiratory diseases may be impacted by environmental exposures through immune perturbations. Given the quick pace of research about COVID-19 and associated risk factors, it is critical to identify and curate the streams of evidence quickly and effectively.

OBJECTIVE

We developed this systematic evidence map protocol to identify and organize existing human and animal literature on high-priority environmental chemical classes (Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, pesticides, phthalates, quaternary ammonium compounds, and air pollutants) and their potential to influence three key outcomes: (1) susceptibility to respiratory infection, including SARS-CoV-2 (2) severity of the resultant disease progression, and (3) impact on vaccine efficacy. The result of this project will be an online, interactive database which will show what evidence is currently available between involuntary exposures to select environmental chemicals and immune health effects, data gaps that require further research, and data rich areas that may support further analysis.

SEARCH AND STUDY ELIGIBILITY

We will search PubMed for epidemiological or toxicological literature on select toxicants from each of the chemical classes and each of the three outcomes listed above.

STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS OF METHODS

For each study, two independent reviewers will conduct title and abstract screening as well as full text review for data extraction of study characteristics. Study quality will not be evaluated in this evidence mapping. The main findings from the systematic evidence map will be visualized using a publicly available and interactive database hosted on Tableau Public.

The Invisible Hand of Industry

Over the last decades, federal funding for medical research has decreased, while industry funding has increased. The majority of clinical trials are now industry funded. Involvement of industry raises documented concerns of reporting and publication bias, data suppression, and conclusions that may more favorably align with funder motivations rather than study results. However, industry involvement may also lead to scientific innovation, efficiency, and a more rapid timeline to bring new developments to patients. Through a careful review of a manuscript, the reader can understand the nature of industry involvement and interpret the results in this context.

Effect of antidepressants on functioning and quality of life outcomes in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Functioning and quality of life (QOL) are typical outcomes assessed in children and adolescents with major depressive disorder (MDD); however, meta-analytical evidence remains scarce. The aim of this meta-analysis was to assess functioning and QOL antidepressant outcomes in this population. Eight electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, LILACS, and ProQuest Dissertation Abstracts) were searched for double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to July 31, 2020. RCTs that compared antidepressants with placebo for treating functioning and QOL in children and adolescents with MDD were included. Primary outcomes were mean change scores of functioning and QOL scales from baseline to post-treatment. Subgroup and sensitivity analyses were conducted to examine whether results were affected by moderator variables (e.g., medication type, age, sample size, and treatment duration). From 7284 publications, we included 17 RCTs (all 17 assessed functioning and 4 assessed QOL outcomes) including 2537 participants. Antidepressants showed significant positive effects on functioning (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.17, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.09-0.25, p < 0.0001) but not on QOL (SMD = 0.11, 95% CI = -0.02 to 0.24, p = 0.093), with no significant heterogeneity. The subgroup analysis showed that second-generation antidepressants (especially fluoxetine, escitalopram, and nefazodone), but not first-generation antidepressants, led to significant improvements in functioning. Antidepressants (especially second generation) improve functioning but not QOL in children and adolescents with MDD. However, well-designed clinical studies using large samples are needed to confirm these findings.

Midterm osteolysis-induced aseptic failure of the M6-C™ cervical total disc replacement secondary to polyethylene wear debris

BACKGROUND

According to published meta-analyses, cervical total disc replacement (CTDR) seems to be superior to anterior cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF) in most clinical parameters. Despite short-term clinical success of CTDR, there are concerns regarding long-term durability of these prostheses.

METHODS

This prospective study involved 382 patients who received standalone CTDR or a hybrid procedure (ACDF/CTDR). A retrospective comparison between different CTDR devices was conducted regarding patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), failure scenarios, and revision surgeries. The M6-C™ Artificial Cervical Disc (Orthofix, Lewisville, Texas) cohort was compared to the other CTDR devices clinically. Etiological reasons for revision, and the surgical technique of the revision was investigated.

RESULTS

Fifty-three patients received M6-C CTDR. Eighteen patients (34%) were revised at an average of 67 months postoperatively for wear-induced osteolysis. There were three additional cases of pending revision. The PROMs of the two groups were similar, indicating that the failure mode (wear-induced osteolysis) is often asymptomatic. The demographics of the two groups were also similar, with more women undergoing revision surgery than men. There were three one-level CTDR, four two-level hybrids, seven three-level hybrids, and three four-level hybrids revised anteriorly. Sixteen patients underwent removal of the prosthesis and were treated according to the extent of osteolysis. There were four vertebrectomies, six revisions to ACDF, and six revisions to another CTDR. One patient underwent supplemental fixation using a posterior approach. The other CTDR cohort had an incidence of 3.3% at the equivalent time, and none of these were due to osteolysis or wear-related events.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a concerning midterm failure rate related to ultra-high-molecular-weight-polyethylene wear-induced osteolysis in the M6-C. Patients implanted with the M6-C prosthesis should be contacted, informed, and clinically and radiologically assessed.

A cross-sectional examination of conflict-of-interest disclosures of physician-authors publishing in high-impact US medical journals

OBJECTIVE

To assess the accuracy of self-reported financial conflict-of-interest (COI) disclosures in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) within the requisite disclosure period prior to article submission.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional investigation.

DATA SOURCES

Original clinical-trial research articles published in NEJM (n=206) or JAMA (n=188) from 1 January 2017 to 31 December 2017; self-reported COI disclosure forms submitted to NEJM or JAMA with the authors' published articles; Open Payments website (from database inception; latest search: August 2019).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Financial data reported to Open Payments from 2014 to 2016 (a time period that included all subjects' requisite disclosure windows) were compared with self-reported disclosure forms submitted to the journals. Payments selected for analysis were defined by Open Payments as 'general payments.' Payment types were categorised as 'disclosed,' 'undisclosed,' 'indeterminate' or 'unrelated'.

RESULTS

Thirty-one articles from NEJM and 31 articles from JAMA met inclusion criteria. The physician-authors (n=118) received a combined total of US$7.48 million. Of the 106 authors (89.8%) who received payments, 86 (81.1%) received undisclosed payments. The top 23 most highly compensated received US$6.32 million, of which US$3.00 million (47.6%) was undisclosed.

CONCLUSIONS

High payment amounts, as well as high proportions of undisclosed financial compensation, regardless of amount received, comprised potential COIs for two influential US medical journals. Further research is needed to explain why such high proportions of general payments were undisclosed and whether journals that rely on self-reported COI disclosure need to reconsider their policies.

Broad Medical Uncertainty and the ethical obligation for openness

This paper argues that there exists a collective epistemic state of 'Broad Medical Uncertainty' (BMU) regarding the effectiveness of many medical interventions. We outline the features of BMU, and describe some of the main contributing factors. These include flaws in medical research methodologies, bias in publication practices, financial and other conflicts of interest, and features of how evidence is translated into practice. These result in a significant degree of uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of many medical treatments and unduly optimistic beliefs about the benefit/harm profiles of such treatments. We argue for an ethical presumption in favour of openness regarding BMU as part of a 'Corrective Response'. We then consider some objections to this position (the 'Anti-Corrective Response'), including concerns that public honesty about flaws in medical research could undermine trust in healthcare institutions. We suggest that, as it stands, the Anti-Corrective Response is unconvincing.

Control interventions in randomised trials among people with mental health disorders

BACKGROUND

Control interventions in randomised trials provide a frame of reference for the experimental interventions and enable estimations of causality. In the case of randomised trials assessing patients with mental health disorders, many different control interventions are used, and the choice of control intervention may have considerable impact on the estimated effects of the treatments being evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of typical control interventions in randomised trials with patients with mental health disorders. The difference in effects between control interventions translates directly to the impact a control group has on the estimated effect of an experimental intervention. We aimed primarily to assess the difference in effects between (i) wait-list versus no-treatment, (ii) usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment, and (iii) placebo interventions (all placebo interventions combined or psychological, pharmacological, and physical placebos individually) versus wait-list or no-treatment. Wait-list patients are offered the experimental intervention by the researchers after the trial has been finalised if it offers more benefits than harms, while no-treatment participants are not offered the experimental intervention by the researchers.

SEARCH METHODS

In March 2018, we searched MEDLINE, PsycInfo, Embase, CENTRAL, and seven other databases and six trials registers.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised trials assessing patients with a mental health disorder that compared wait-list, usual care, or placebo interventions with wait-list or no-treatment .

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Titles, abstracts, and full texts were reviewed for eligibility. Review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane's risk of bias tool. GRADE was used to assess the quality of the evidence. We contacted researchers working in the field to ask for data from additional published and unpublished trials. A pre-planned decision hierarchy was used to select one benefit and one harm outcome from each trial. For the assessment of benefits, we summarised continuous data as standardised mean differences (SMDs) and dichotomous data as risk ratios (RRs). We used risk differences (RDs) for the assessment of adverse events. We used random-effects models for all statistical analyses. We used subgroup analysis to explore potential causes for heterogeneity (e.g. type of placebo) and sensitivity analyses to explore the robustness of the primary analyses (e.g. fixed-effect model).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 96 randomised trials (4200 participants), ranging from 8 to 393 participants in each trial. 83 trials (3614 participants) provided usable data. The trials included 15 different mental health disorders, the most common being anxiety (25 trials), depression (16 trials), and sleep-wake disorders (11 trials). All 96 trials were assessed as high risk of bias partly because of the inability to blind participants and personnel in trials with two control interventions. The quality of evidence was rated low to very low, mostly due to risk of bias, imprecision in estimates, and heterogeneity. Only one trial compared wait-list versus no-treatment directly but the authors were not able to provide us with any usable data on the comparison. Five trials compared usual care versus wait-list or no-treatment and found a SMD -0.33 (95% CI -0.83 to 0.16, I² = 86%, 523 participants) on benefits. The difference between all placebo interventions combined versus wait-list or no-treatment was SMD -0.37 (95% CI -0.49 to -0.25, I² = 41%, 65 trials, 2446 participants) on benefits. There was evidence of some asymmetry in the funnel plot (Egger's test P value of 0.087). Almost all the trials were small. Subgroup analysis found a moderate effect in favour of psychological placebos SMD -0.49 (95% CI -0.64 to -0.30; I² = 53%, 39 trials, 1656 participants). The effect of pharmacological placebos versus wait-list or no-treatment on benefits was SMD -0.14 (95% CI -0.39 to 0.11, 9 trials, 279 participants) and the effect of physical placebos was SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.35 to -0.08, I² = 0%, 17 trials, 896 participants). We found large variations in effect sizes in the psychological and pharmacological placebo comparisons. For specific mental health disorders, we found significant differences in favour of all placebos for sleep-wake disorders, major depressive disorder, and anxiety disorders, but the analyses were imprecise due to sparse data. We found no significant differences in harms for any of the comparisons but the analyses suffered from sparse data. When using a fixed-effect model in a sensitivity analysis on the comparison for usual care versus wait-list and no-treatment, the results were significant with an SMD of -0.46 (95 % CI -0.64 to -0.28). We reported an alternative risk of bias model where we excluded the blinding domains seeing how issues with blinding may be seen as part of the review investigation itself. However, this did not markedly change the overall risk of bias profile as most of the trials still included one or more unclear bias domains.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found marked variations in effects between placebo versus no-treatment and wait-list and between subtypes of placebo with the same comparisons. Almost all the trials were small with considerable methodological and clinical variability in factors such as mental health population, contents of the included control interventions, and outcome domains. All trials were assessed as high risk of bias and the evidence quality was low to very low. When researchers decide to use placebos or usual care control interventions in trials with people with mental health disorders it will often lead to lower estimated effects of the experimental intervention than when using wait-list or no-treatment controls. The choice of a control intervention therefore has considerable impact on how effective a mental health treatment appears to be. Methodological guideline development is needed to reach a consensus on future standards for the design and reporting of control interventions in mental health intervention research.

Did an introduction of CONSORT for abstracts guidelines improve reporting quality of randomised controlled trials' abstracts on Helicobacter pylori infection? Observational study

OBJECTIVE

To determine abstracts' adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Abstracts (CONSORT-A) statement and to explore the factors associated with reporting quality.

DESIGN

An observational study.

SETTING

Abstracts of randomised controlled trials published between 2010 and 2019, found searching the MEDLINE database.

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 451 abstracts of the clinical trials on Helicobacter pylori infections were included.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Abstracts' reporting quality was determined by assessing their adherence to 17-item CONSORT-A checklist, with overall score being calculated as the sum of items that were adequately reported for each abstract. Additional factors that might influence the reporting quality of the abstracts were analysed, with univariate and multivariate linear regression used to determine how those factors influenced the overall reporting quality.

RESULTS

Included abstracts had an overall median quality score of 8/17 (IQR 7-9). Large proportions of abstracts adequately reported interventions, participants, objectives, numbers randomised and conclusions (97.1, 99.3, 89.1. 94.7 and 98.4% of abstracts, respectively). Trial design, randomisation, blinding and funding were severely under-reported with only 8.0, 2.7, 11.0 and 2.0% of abstracts reporting each item. Overall quality scores for H. pylori abstracts were higher in association with CONSORT-A endorsement (B=5.698; 95% CI 1.781 to 9.615), pharmacological interventions (B=4.063; 95% CI 0.224 to 7.902), multicentre settings (B=5.057; 95% CI 2.370 to 7.743), higher numbers of participants (B=3.607; 95% CI 1.272 to 5.942), hospital settings (B=4.827; 95% CI 1.753 to 7.901) and longer abstracts (B=3.878; 95% CI 0.787 to 6.969 for abstracts with 251-300 words and B=7.404; 95% CI 3.930 to 10.878 for abstracts with more than 300 words).

CONCLUSIONS

The overall reporting quality of abstracts was inadequate. The endorsement of CONSORT-A guidelines by more journals might improve the standards of reporting.

Trends of sources of clinical research funding from 1990 to 2020: a meta-epidemiological study

Evidence has raised concerns regarding the association between funding sources and doubtful data. Our main outcome was to analyze trends on funding sources in articles published from 1990 to 2020 in the more influential journals of internal and general medicine. In this meta-epidemiological study, we included peer-reviewed studies from the 10 highest impact journals in general and internal medicine published between January 1990 and February 2020 based on published original research according to the 2018 InCites Journal of Citation Reports, these consisted of the following: The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, JAMA, BMJ, JAMA Internal Medicine, Annals of Internal Medicine, PLOS Medicine, Cachexia, BMC Medicine, and Mayo Clinic Proceedings Two reviewers working in duplicate extracted data regarding year of publication, study design, and sources of funding. In total, 496 articles were found; of these, 311 (62.7%) were observational studies, 167 (33.7%) were experimental, and 16 (3.2%) were secondary analyses. Percentages of grant sources through the years were predominantly from government (60%), industry (23.83%), and non-governmental (16.06%) organizations. The percentage of industry subsidies tended to decrease, but this was not significant in a linear regression model (r=0.02, p≥0.05). Government and non-government funding sources showed a trend to decrease in the same univariate analysis with both significant associations (r=0.21, p≤0.001 and r=0.10, p≤0.001, respectively). The main funding source in medical research has consistently been government aid. Despite previous reported data, no association was found between the source of funding and statistically significant results favoring study authors' hypothesis.

When one says yes and the other says no; does calcineurin participate in physiologic cardiac hypertrophy?

Developing engaging activities that build skills for understanding and appreciating research is important for undergraduate and postgraduate science students. Comparing and contrasting opposing research studies does this, and more: it also appropriately for these cohorts challenges higher level cognitive processing. Here, we present and discuss one such scenario, that of calcineurin in the heart and its response to exercise training. This scenario is further accentuated by the existence of only two studies. The background is that regular aerobic endurance exercise training stimulates the heart to physiologically adapt to chronically increase its ability to produce a greater cardiac output to meet the increased demand for oxygenated blood in working muscles, and this happens by two main mechanisms: 1) increased cardiac contractile function and 2) physiologic hypertrophy. The major underlying mechanisms have been delineated over the last decades, but one aspect has not been resolved: the potential role of calcineurin in modulating physiologic hypertrophy. This is partly because the existing research has provided opposing and contrasting findings, one line showing that exercise training does activate cardiac calcineurin in conjunction with myocardial hypertrophy, but another line showing that exercise training does not activate cardiac calcineurin even if myocardial hypertrophy is blatantly occurring. Here, we review and present the current evidence in the field and discuss reasons for this controversy. We present real-life examples from physiology research and discuss how this may enhance student engagement and participation, widen the scope of learning, and thereby also further facilitate higher level cognitive processing.

The Impact of Industry Funding on Randomized Controlled Trials of Biologic Therapies

Background: There has been substantial interest from the pharmaceutical industry to study and develop new biologic agents. Previous studies outside of the biologics field have demonstrated that industry funding has the potential to impact the design and findings of clinical trials. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of industry funding on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the efficacy of biologic therapies. Methods: A review of all RCTs involving biologic therapies in top impact factor medical journals from January 2018 to December 2020 was performed. The relationship between industry funding and the presence of statistically significant primary outcomes and the use of active comparators were analyzed. Results: Among the 157 RCTs included, 120 (76%) were industry funded and 37 (24%) declared no industry funding. Industry-funded studies were significantly more likely to report a statistically significant positive primary outcome compared to studies without industry funding (85% vs. 67%, χ² = 5.867, p = 0.015) and were significantly more likely to utilize placebo or no comparator than non-industry-funded trials (78% vs. 49%, χ² = 4.430, p = 0.035). Conclusions: Industry-funded trials investigating biologic therapies are more likely to yield statistically significant positive outcomes and use placebo comparators when compared to non-industry-funded biologic therapy trials in high-impact medical journals.

Effectiveness of Written Dietary Advice for Improving Blood Lipids in Primary Care Adults-A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial (MYDICLIN)

Lifestyle management is the first line of treatment for moderately elevated blood lipids in healthy individuals. We investigated the effectiveness of providing food-based written advice for lowering low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol (intervention) or triglycerides (control) in a pragmatic randomized controlled trial with two parallel arms from 2018-2019 at a rural primary health care center. We sent feedback letters after 3 weeks and 6 months. Out of the 113 adult primary care patients randomized, 112 completed the study. There were no differences between the intervention and control groups for changes in LDL cholesterol after 3 weeks (mean ± standard deviation -0.21 ± 0.38 vs. -0.11 ± 0.34 mmol/L, p = 0.45) or 6 months (-0.05 ± 0.47 vs. 0.02 ± 0.41 mmol/L, p = 0.70) (primary outcome). Following the advice to consume plant sterols and turmeric was associated with a reduction in LDL cholesterol after 3 weeks. Following the advice to consume less carbohydrates was associated with reduced triglycerides. In the intervention arm, 14 individuals (25%) reduced their LDL cholesterol by ≥10% after three weeks. Their reduction was attenuated but maintained after six months (-7.1 ± 9.2% or -0.31 ± 0.38 mmol/L, p = 0.01 compared with baseline). They differed only in higher adherence to the advice regarding turmeric. In conclusion, this undemanding intervention had little effect on blood lipids for most individuals.

Interventions for the management of transient tachypnoea of the newborn - an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Transient tachypnoea of the newborn (TTN) is characterised by tachypnoea and signs of respiratory distress. It is caused by delayed clearance of lung fluid at birth. TTN typically appears within the first two hours of life in term and late preterm newborns. Although it is usually a self-limited condition, admission to a neonatal unit is frequently required for monitoring, the provision of respiratory support, and drugs administration. These interventions might reduce respiratory distress during TTN and enhance the clearance of lung liquid. The goals are reducing the effort required to breathe, improving respiratory distress, and potentially shortening the duration of tachypnoea. However, these interventions might be associated with harm in the infant.

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this overview was to evaluate the benefits and harms of different interventions used in the management of TTN.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on 14 July 2021 for ongoing and published Cochrane Reviews on the management of TTN in term (> 37 weeks' gestation) or late preterm (34 to 36 weeks' gestation) infants. We included all published Cochrane Reviews assessing the following categories of interventions administered within the first 48 hours of life: beta-agonists (e.g. salbutamol and epinephrine), corticosteroids, diuretics, fluid restriction, and non-invasive respiratory support. The reviews compared the above-mentioned interventions to placebo, no treatment, or other interventions for the management of TTN. The primary outcomes of this overview were duration of tachypnoea and the need for mechanical ventilation. Two overview authors independently checked the eligibility of the reviews retrieved by the search and extracted data from the included reviews using a predefined data extraction form. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion with a third overview author. Two overview authors independently assessed the methodological quality of the included reviews using the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) tool. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of evidence for effects of interventions for TTN management. As all of the included reviews reported summary of findings tables, we extracted the information already available and re-graded the certainty of evidence of the two primary outcomes to ensure a homogeneous assessment. We provided a narrative summary of the methods and results of each of the included reviews and summarised this information using tables and figures.

MAIN RESULTS

We included six Cochrane Reviews, corresponding to 1134 infants enrolled in 18 trials, on the management of TTN in term and late preterm infants, assessing salbutamol (seven trials), epinephrine (one trial), budesonide (one trial), diuretics (two trials), fluid restriction (four trials), and non-invasive respiratory support (three trials). The quality of the included reviews was high, with all of them fulfilling the critical domains of the AMSTAR 2. The certainty of the evidence was very low for the primary outcomes, due to the imprecision of the estimates (few, small included studies) and unclear or high risk of bias. Salbutamol may reduce the duration of tachypnoea compared to placebo (mean difference (MD) -16.83 hours, 95% confidence interval (CI) -22.42 to -11.23, 2 studies, 120 infants, low certainty evidence). We did not identify any review that compared epinephrine or corticosteroids to placebo and reported on the duration of tachypnoea. However, one review reported on "trend of normalisation of respiratory rate", a similar outcome, and found no differences between epinephrine and placebo (effect size not reported). The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of diuretics compared to placebo (MD -1.28 hours, 95% CI -13.0 to 10.45, 2 studies, 100 infants, very low certainty evidence). We did not identify any review that compared fluid restriction to standard fluid rates and reported on the duration of tachypnoea. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared to free-flow oxygen therapy (MD -21.1 hours, 95% CI -22.9 to -19.3, 1 study, 64 infants, very low certainty evidence); the effect of nasal high-frequency (oscillation) ventilation (NHFV) compared to CPAP (MD -4.53 hours, 95% CI -5.64 to -3.42, 1 study, 40 infants, very low certainty evidence); and the effect of nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation (NIPPV) compared to CPAP on duration of tachypnoea (MD 4.30 hours, 95% CI -19.14 to 27.74, 1 study, 40 infants, very low certainty evidence). Regarding the need for mechanical ventilation, the evidence is very uncertain for the effect of salbutamol compared to placebo (risk ratio (RR) 0.60, 95% CI 0.13 to 2.86, risk difference (RD) 10 fewer, 95% CI 50 fewer to 30 more per 1000, 3 studies, 254 infants, very low certainty evidence); the effect of epinephrine compared to placebo (RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.08 to 5.88, RD 70 fewer, 95% CI 460 fewer to 320 more per 1000, 1 study, 20 infants, very low certainty evidence); and the effect of corticosteroids compared to placebo (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.05 to 5.38, RD 40 fewer, 95% CI 170 fewer to 90 more per 1000, 1 study, 49 infants, very low certainty evidence). We did not identify a review that compared diuretics to placebo and reported on the need for mechanical ventilation. The evidence is very uncertain regarding the effect of fluid restriction compared to standard fluid administration (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.24 to 2.23, RD 20 fewer, 95% CI 70 fewer to 40 more per 1000, 3 studies, 242 infants, very low certainty evidence); the effect of CPAP compared to free-flow oxygen (RR 0.30, 95% CI 0.01 to 6.99, RD 30 fewer, 95% CI 120 fewer to 50 more per 1000, 1 study, 64 infants, very low certainty evidence); the effect of NIPPV compared to CPAP (RR 4.00, 95% CI 0.49 to 32.72, RD 150 more, 95% CI 50 fewer to 350 more per 1000, 1 study, 40 infants, very low certainty evidence); and the effect of NHFV versus CPAP (effect not estimable, 1 study, 40 infants, very low certainty evidence). Regarding our secondary outcomes, duration of hospital stay was the only outcome reported in all of the included reviews. One trial on fluid restriction reported a lower duration of hospitalisation in the restricted-fluids group, but with very low certainty of evidence. The evidence was very uncertain for the effects on secondary outcomes for the other five reviews. Data on potential harms were scarce, as all of the trials were underpowered to detect possible increases in adverse events such as pneumothorax, arrhythmias, and electrolyte imbalances. No adverse effects were reported for salbutamol; however, this medication is known to carry a risk of tachycardia, tremor, and hypokalaemia in other settings.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This overview summarises the evidence from six Cochrane Reviews of randomised trials regarding the effects of postnatal interventions in the management of TTN. Salbutamol may reduce the duration of tachypnoea slightly. We are uncertain as to whether salbutamol reduces the need for mechanical ventilation. We are uncertain whether epinephrine, corticosteroids, diuretics, fluid restriction, or non-invasive respiratory support reduces the duration of tachypnoea and the need for mechanical ventilation, due to the extremely limited evidence available. Data on harms were lacking.

Sunshine on KOLs: assessment of the nature, extent and evolution of financial ties between the leaders of professional medical associations and the pharmaceutical industry in France from 2014 to 2019: a retrospective study

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the financial relationships between key opinion leader (KOL) or non-KOL physicians and pharmaceutical and device companies in France.

DESIGN

Retrospective and descriptive study.

SETTING

All doctors practising in France, with a focus on 548 KOLs (board members of the professional medical associations that published guidelines in 2018-2019, identified on the associations' websites between 2018 and 2020). Ties were collected from the 'Transparency in Healthcare' database.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

The number and the value of gifts from 2014 to 2019, and of remunerations and contractual agreements from 2017 to 2019.

RESULTS

KOLs represented 0.24% of the total number of physicians in France. The total value of gifts declared in the French database for all physicians amounted to €818M (US$936M, £741M). At least one gift was declared for 83% of KOLs. KOLs' gifts represented 0.68% of the total number of gifts to physicians and 1.5% of the total value of gifts, with a mean of €3700 per capita per year.The total value of contractual agreements declared for all physicians amounted to €125M. Contractual agreements involving the KOLs represented 0.72% of the number of contractual agreements with physicians and 2.5% of the value of the agreements, with a mean of €1900 per capita per year.A total of €156M in remunerations were declared for all physicians. KOL remunerations represented 2.3% of the number of physician remunerations and 4.4% of the total value of the remunerations paid to physicians, with a mean of €4100 per capita per year.Almost all professional medical associations (99%) had at least one KOL in their board with a financial tie to the industry, but the amount varied widely among the associations.

CONCLUSION

Financial relationships between KOLs and the industry in France are extensive. KOLs have much more financial ties than non-KOL practitioners.

Ten years later: a review of the US 2009 institute of medicine report on conflicts of interest and solutions for further reform

Conflicts of interest (COIs) in healthcare are increasingly discussed in the literature, yet these relationships continue to influence healthcare. Research has consistently shown that financial COIs shape prescribing practices, medical education and guideline recommendations. In 2009, the Institute of Medicine (IOM, now the National Academy of Medicine) published Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research, Practice, and Education-one of the most comprehensive reviews of empirical research on COIs in medicine. Ten years after publication of theIOM's report, we review the current state of COIs within medicine. We also provide specific recommendations for enhancing scientific integrity in medical research, practice, education and editorial practices.

Association Between Conflicts of Interest and Authors' Positions on Harms of Varenicline: a Cross-Sectional Analysis

BACKGROUND

Few studies have investigated the relationship between industry funding/conflicts of interest and authors' positions in opinion pieces on drug safety. Harmful effects of varenicline, a treatment for smoking cessation, have been highly contested.

OBJECTIVE

To examine the association between pharmaceutical industry funding/authors' financial conflicts of interest and position on varenicline in opinion articles, especially in relation to the minimization of harms; to assess whether opinion pieces on drug safety issues written by authors with conflicts of interest are more frequently cited in the news or social media.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis.

PARTICIPANTS

English language opinion pieces and narrative reviews about varenicline published between May 2006 and February 2019.

MAIN MEASURES

Odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals; the Mann-Whitney two-sample statistic was used to test for differences in Altmetric scores, a measure of media attention.

KEY RESULTS

Of the 221 included articles, 30.3% (67) disclosed the funding source and 62.9% (139) disclosed authors' conflicts of interest. Authors of opinion pieces on varenicline who reported financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry (as a conflict of interest or funding source) were more likely to minimise the cardiovascular and psychiatric risk of varenicline compared to those without conflicts of interest or industry funding (OR: 4.00; 95% CI: 1.32 to 12.16 for cardiovascular risk; OR: 8.51; 95% CI: 3.79 to 19.11 for psychiatric risk). These associations persisted in sensitivity analyses. No statistically significant difference in Altmetric score was found between articles with (mean 15.83, median 3) and without (mean 11.90, median 1) conflicts of interest, indicating similar media attention (p-value=0.11).

CONCLUSIONS

We found that authors with financial ties to drug companies were more likely to publish opinion pieces that minimised harms of varenicline. These results raise questions about journals' editorial policies to accept reviews of treatments from authors with financial relationships with manufacturers.

Postoperative pain treatment after lumbar discectomy. A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Patients undergoing lumbar discectomy usually suffer from moderate to severe pain during the postoperative period. Multimodal, or balanced analgesia, is the leading treatment principle for managing postoperative pain. The rationale is to achieve optimal pain treatment through additive or synergistic effects of several non-opioid analgesics, and thereby, reducing the need for postoperative opioids, facilitating early mobilization and functional rehabilitation. For discectomy surgery, evidence of both the benefit and harm of different analgesic interventions is unclear.

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review aims to investigate the benefits and harms of analgesic interventions in adult patients after lumbar discectomy.

METHODS

This protocol for a systematic review is written according to The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. We will search The Cochrane Library's CENTRAL, PubMed, EMBASE, and ClinicalTrails.gov for published and ongoing trials. All randomized clinical trials assessing the postoperative analgesics effect of an intervention with a control or no-intervention group undergoing lumbar discectomy will be included. Two authors will independently screen trials for inclusion using Covidence, extract data and assess the risk of bias using Cochrane's risk-of-bias 2 tool. We will analyse the data using Review Manager and Trial Sequential Analysis. Meta-analysis will be performed according to the Cochrane guidelines. We will present our primary findings in a 'summary of findings' table and evaluate the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

DISCUSSION

This systematic review will assess the benefits and harms of analgesic interventions after lumbar discectomy and have the potential to improve best practices and advance research.

Incorporation of TILs in daily breast cancer care: how much evidence can we bear?

One of the most important developments in the breast cancer field has been an improved understanding of prognostic and predictive biomarkers, of which TILs are increasingly gaining importance. The evaluation of TILs by light microscopy on a H&E-stained section is workable in a daily practice setting. Reproducibility of reporting TILs is good, but heterogeneity is a cause of variation. TILs provide clinicians with important prognostic information for patients with TNBC, as early-stage TNBC with high TILs have > 98% 5-year survival and TILs predict benefit to immunotherapy. Importantly, while TILs do not have level of evidence IA, TILs should be used as a prognostic factor with caution and with other accepted prognostic variables, such as tumour size and lymph node status, to inform clinicians and patients on their treatment options. A framework on how to use the TILs in daily practice is proposed, including a co-assessment with PD-L1 for its predictive role to immunotherapy.

Determinants of COVID-19-related lethality in multiple sclerosis: a meta-regression of observational studies

Objective

To identify risk factors for an increased lethality of COVID-19 in patients with multiple sclerosis (MS).

Methods

We searched scientific databases to identify cohort studies with the number of deaths in patients with MS. We fitted inverse-variance weighted meta-regressions with random-effects models to identify potential moderators (determinants) of COVID-19-related lethality (outcome).

Results

After an independent screening, 18 articles satisfied the eligibility criteria; all data were collected before anti-SARS-COV-2 vaccination was available. Out of 5,634 patients, 111 died, yielding a pooled death rate of 1.97% (95% confidence intervals 1.61–2.33). There was a substantial heterogeneity between the included studies (Q₁₇ = 66.9, p < 0.001; I² = 77.5%), but no relevant publication bias (p = 0.085). Higher lethality was observed in studies including older patients (β = 0.80, p = 0.025) and in studies with higher proportions of patients with comorbidity (β = 0.17, p = 0.046), progressive disease course (β = 0.15, p = 0.027), and current treatment with anti-CD20 agents (β = 0.18, p < 0.001). Otherwise, higher proportions of patients treated with interferon beta (β = – 0.16, p < 0.001) and teriflunomide (β = – 0.11, p = 0.035) were associated with lower lethality. These estimates did not change even in both multivariable meta-regressions including adjustment variables and leave-one-out sensitivity analyses.

Conclusion

Except for age and comorbidities, risk factors in common with the general population, we identified MS-specific determinants influencing the lethality of COVID-19. Our findings suggest the implementation of a risk mitigation plan for patients with progressive MS and for those treated with anti-CD20 agents.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00415-021-10951-6.

Pimavanserin in the Treatment of Parkinson's Disease Psychosis: Meta-analysis and Meta-regression of Randomized Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Up to 60 percent of patients with Parkinson's disease (PD) develop Parkinson's disease psychosis (PDP). PDP is associated with a significant economic burden. The management of PDP has been divided into two approaches-one focuses on decreasing the doses of anti-Parkinsonian medications and the other involves prescribing atypical antipsychotics. Of these atypical antipsychotics, pimavanserin is United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved specifically for the treatment of PDP.

OBJECTIVE

The goal was to evaluate the safety and efficacy of pimavanserin in the treatment of PDP based on data from randomized clinical trials.

METHODS

All the articles, which assessed pimavanserin's effect on the treatment of PDP, were retrieved from Google Scholar, PubMed, and abstracts from annual scientific sessions. The data on dose, therapy duration, patient numbers, and study duration were collected. These data were analyzed with random effect modeling using the inverse variance method and the Mantel-Haenszel method.

RESULTS

Four studies comparing pimavanserin to a placebo provided data on 680 patients (263 placebo, 417 pimavanserin). Treatment with pimavanserin was associated with a significant reduction in scores using the Scale of Assessment of Positive Symptoms, Hallucinations, and Delusion (SAPS-H+D) (mean difference [MD]: -1.55 [-2.71, -0.379], p=0.009). The groups had similar composite scores for Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale II and III (UPDRS II and III) (MD: 0.093 [-1.28, 1.46], p=0.89). Interestingly, pimavanserin was protective against orthostatic hypotension (risk ratio: 0.33 [0.30, 0.37], p<0.001). All other adverse events were similarly distributed across both groups.

CONCLUSION

There was a significant improvement in psychosis symptoms in patients with PD who took pimavanserin. Pimavanserin was also shown to be protective against orthostatic hypotension.

Dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in open science: a scoping review

Open Science holds the promise to make scientific endeavours more inclusive, participatory, understandable, accessible and re-usable for large audiences. However, making processes open will not per se drive wide reuse or participation unless also accompanied by the capacity (in terms of knowledge, skills, financial resources, technological readiness and motivation) to do so. These capacities vary considerably across regions, institutions and demographics. Those advantaged by such factors will remain potentially privileged, putting Open Science's agenda of inclusivity at risk of propagating conditions of 'cumulative advantage'. With this paper, we systematically scope existing research addressing the question: 'What evidence and discourse exists in the literature about the ways in which dynamics and structures of inequality could persist or be exacerbated in the transition to Open Science, across disciplines, regions and demographics?' Aiming to synthesize findings, identify gaps in the literature and inform future research and policy, our results identify threats to equity associated with all aspects of Open Science, including Open Access, Open and FAIR Data, Open Methods, Open Evaluation, Citizen Science, as well as its interfaces with society, industry and policy. Key threats include: stratifications of publishing due to the exclusionary nature of the author-pays model of Open Access; potential widening of the digital divide due to the infrastructure-dependent, highly situated nature of open data practices; risks of diminishing qualitative methodologies as 'reproducibility' becomes synonymous with quality; new risks of bias and exclusion in means of transparent evaluation; and crucial asymmetries in the Open Science relationships with industry and the public, which privileges the former and fails to fully include the latter.

[Risk of Publication Bias in Therapeutic Interventions for COVID-19Risco de viés de publicação em intervenções terapêuticas para a COVID-19]

En este artículo se describe el sesgo de publicación, sus causas más frecuentes, sus características, las herramientas regulatorias para evitarlo y algunas técnicas estadísticas para analizarlo. Se explican y aplican estas técnicas a tres intervenciones terapéuticas relacionadas con la enfermedad por el coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19, por su sigla en inglés): corticoides, ivermectina y tocilizumab; se detectó riesgo de sesgo de publicación para ivermectina y tocilizumab. Las revisiones sistemáticas y los metaanálisis son diseños de investigación secundaria que constituyen una referencia para guiar la toma de decisiones. Son propensos a distintos tipos de sesgo, que es una desviación sistemática en los resultados. Aun desarrollados con rigor metodológico, su validez puede verse amenazada por el sesgo de publicación. Este se define como el acto de ocultar o retrasar la publicación, retener datos surgidos de los estudios de investigación, o ambos. Hasta la mitad de los ensayos controlados que se realizan permanecen sin publicarse. Durante la pandemia por virus H1N1, el sesgo de publicación de estudios financiados por la industria llevó a recomendar y comprar en gran escala el fármaco oseltamivir que, luego se supo, no tenía efectos beneficiosos relevantes. Dos tercios del financiamiento de los estudios clínicos para COVID-19 provienen de la industria farmacéutica. En el contexto de la pandemia actual por COVID-19, se publican estudios a un ritmo acelerado, por lo que resulta de gran trascendencia conocer e identificar el sesgo de publicación. Para reducir el sesgo de publicación es necesario regular el registro y la publicación de ensayos clínicos, pero esto requiere una coordinación de los países y organismos internacionales. Es importante sospechar e intentar identificar el sesgo de publicación para la toma de decisiones.

Accessibility and quality of drug company disclosures of payments to healthcare professionals and organisations in 37 countries: a European policy review

OBJECTIVES

To examine the accessibility and quality of drug company payment data in Europe.

DESIGN

Comparative policy review of payment data in countries with different regulatory approaches to disclosure.

SETTING

37 European countries.

PARTICIPANTS

European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, its trade group and their drug company members; eurosfordocs.eu, an independent database integrating payments disclosed by companies and trade groups; regulatory bodies overseeing payment disclosure.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Regulatory approaches to disclosure (self-regulation, public regulation, combination of the two); data accessibility (format, structure, searchability, customisable summary statistics, downloadability) and quality (spectrum of disclosed characteristics, payment aggregation, inclusion of taxes, recipient or donor identifiers).

RESULTS

Of 30 countries with self-regulation, five had centralised databases, with Disclosure UK displaying the highest accessibility and quality. In 23 of the remaining countries with self-regulation and available data, disclosures were published in the portable document format (PDF) on individual company websites, preventing the public from understanding payment patterns. Eurosfordocs.eu had greater accessibility than any industry-run database, but the match between the value of payments integrated in eurosfordocs.eu and summarised separately by industry in seven countries ranged between 56% and 100% depending on country. Eurosfordocs.eu shared quality shortcomings with the underlying industry data, including ambiguities in identifying payments and their recipients. Public regulation was found in 15 countries, used either alone (3), in combination (4) or in parallel with (8) self-regulation. Of these countries, 13 established centralised databases with widely ranging accessibility and quality, and sharing some shortcomings with the industry-run databases. The French database, Transparence Santé, had the highest accessibility and quality, exceeding that of Disclosure UK.

CONCLUSIONS

The accessibility and quality of payment data disclosed in European countries are typically low, hindering investigation of financial conflicts of interest. Some improvements are straightforward but reaching the standards characterising the widely researched US Open Payments database requires major regulatory change.

Implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for chronic pain in adults

BACKGROUND

Implanted spinal neuromodulation (SNMD) techniques are used in the treatment of refractory chronic pain. They involve the implantation of electrodes around the spinal cord (spinal cord stimulation (SCS)) or dorsal root ganglion (dorsal root ganglion stimulation (DRGS)), and a pulse generator unit under the skin. Electrical stimulation is then used with the aim of reducing pain intensity.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy, effectiveness, adverse events, and cost-effectiveness of implanted spinal neuromodulation interventions for people with chronic pain.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, Web of Science (ISI), Health Technology Assessments, ClinicalTrials.gov and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry from inception to September 2021 without language restrictions, searched the reference lists of included studies and contacted experts in the field.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SNMD interventions with placebo (sham) stimulation, no treatment or usual care; or comparing SNMD interventions + another treatment versus that treatment alone. We included participants ≥ 18 years old with non-cancer and non-ischaemic pain of longer than three months duration. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were disability, analgesic medication use, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and health economic outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened database searches to determine inclusion, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias for prespecified results using the Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. Outcomes were evaluated at short- (≤ one month), medium- four to eight months) and long-term (≥12 months). Where possible we conducted meta-analyses. We used the GRADE system to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 15 unique published studies that randomised 908 participants, and 20 unique ongoing studies. All studies evaluated SCS. We found no eligible published studies of DRGS and no studies comparing SCS with no treatment or usual care. We rated all results evaluated as being at high risk of bias overall. For all comparisons and outcomes where we found evidence, we graded the certainty of the evidence as low or very low, downgraded due to limitations of studies, imprecision and in some cases, inconsistency. Active stimulation versus placebo SCS versus placebo (sham) Results were only available at short-term follow-up for this comparison. Pain intensity Six studies (N = 164) demonstrated a small effect in favour of SCS at short-term follow-up (0 to 100 scale, higher scores = worse pain, mean difference (MD) -8.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) -15.67 to -1.78, very low certainty). The point estimate falls below our predetermined threshold for a clinically important effect (≥10 points). No studies reported the proportion of participants experiencing 30% or 50% pain relief for this comparison. Adverse events (AEs) The quality and inconsistency of adverse event reporting in these studies precluded formal analysis. Active stimulation + other intervention versus other intervention alone SCS + other intervention versus other intervention alone (open-label studies) Pain intensity Mean difference Three studies (N = 303) demonstrated a potentially clinically important mean difference in favour of SCS of -37.41 at short term (95% CI -46.39 to -28.42, very low certainty), and medium-term follow-up (5 studies, 635 participants, MD -31.22 95% CI -47.34 to -15.10 low-certainty), and no clear evidence for an effect of SCS at long-term follow-up (1 study, 44 participants, MD -7 (95% CI -24.76 to 10.76, very low-certainty). Proportion of participants reporting ≥50% pain relief We found an effect in favour of SCS at short-term (2 studies, N = 249, RR 15.90, 95% CI 6.70 to 37.74, I2 0% ; risk difference (RD) 0.65 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.74, very low certainty), medium term (5 studies, N = 597, RR 7.08, 95 %CI 3.40 to 14.71, I2 = 43%; RD 0.43, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.73, low-certainty evidence), and long term (1 study, N = 87, RR 15.15, 95% CI 2.11 to 108.91 ; RD 0.35, 95% CI 0.2 to 0.49, very low certainty) follow-up. Adverse events (AEs) Device related No studies specifically reported  device-related adverse events at short-term follow-up. At medium-term follow-up, the incidence of lead failure/displacement (3 studies N = 330) ranged from 0.9 to 14% (RD 0.04, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.11, I2 64%, very low certainty). The incidence of infection (4 studies, N = 548) ranged from 3 to 7% (RD 0.04, 95%CI 0.01, 0.07, I2 0%, very low certainty). The incidence of reoperation/reimplantation (4 studies, N =5 48) ranged from 2% to 31% (RD 0.11, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.21, I2 86%, very low certainty). One study (N = 44) reported a 55% incidence of lead failure/displacement (RD 0.55, 95% CI 0.35, 0 to 75, very low certainty), and a 94% incidence of reoperation/reimplantation (RD 0.94, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.07, very low certainty) at five-year follow-up. No studies provided data on infection rates at long-term follow-up. We found reports of some serious adverse events as a result of the intervention. These included autonomic neuropathy, prolonged hospitalisation, prolonged monoparesis, pulmonary oedema, wound infection, device extrusion and one death resulting from subdural haematoma. Other No studies reported the incidence of other adverse events at short-term follow-up. We found no clear evidence of a difference in otherAEs at medium-term (2 studies, N = 278, RD -0.05, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.06, I2 0%) or long term (1 study, N = 100, RD -0.17, 95% CI -0.37 to 0.02) follow-up. Very limited evidence suggested that SCS increases healthcare costs. It was not clear whether SCS was cost-effective.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found very low-certainty evidence that SCS may not provide clinically important benefits on pain intensity compared to placebo stimulation. We found low- to very low-certainty evidence that SNMD interventions may provide clinically important benefits for pain intensity when added to conventional medical management or physical therapy. SCS is associated with complications including infection, electrode lead failure/migration and a need for reoperation/re-implantation. The level of certainty regarding the size of those risks is very low. SNMD may lead to serious adverse events, including death. We found no evidence to support or refute the use of DRGS for chronic pain.

The disinformation playbook: how industry manipulates the science-policy process-and how to restore scientific integrity

For decades, corporate undermining of scientific consensus has eroded the scientific process worldwide. Guardrails for protecting science-informed processes, from peer review to regulatory decision making, have suffered sustained attacks, damaging public trust in the scientific enterprise and its aim to serve the public good. Government efforts to address corporate attacks have been inadequate. Researchers have cataloged corporate malfeasance that harms people's health across diverse industries. Well-known cases, like the tobacco industry's efforts to downplay the dangers of smoking, are representative of transnational industries, rather than unique. This contribution schematizes industry tactics to distort, delay, or distract the public from instituting measures that improve health-tactics that comprise the "disinformation playbook." Using a United States policy lens, we outline steps the scientific community should take to shield science from corporate interference, through individual actions (by scientists, peer reviewers, and editors) and collective initiatives (by research institutions, grant organizations, professional associations, and regulatory agencies).

Reporting and methodological quality of systematic literature reviews evaluating the associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking behaviors: a systematic quality review

Introduction

Several published systematic reviews have examined the potential associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking, but their methodological and/or reporting quality have not yet been assessed. This systematic quality review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2 to evaluate the quality of systematic reviews investigating potential associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking.

Materials and methods

PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched from 01 January 2007 to 24 June 2020. Methodological quality was assessed using AMSTAR 2, and reporting quality was assessed using PRISMA guidelines.

Results

Of 331 potentially relevant systematic reviews, 20 met predefined inclusion criteria. Most reviews (n = 15; 75%) reported on e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking cessation, while three reported on e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking initiation (15%); and two reported on cigarette smoking initiation and cessation (10%). According to AMSTAR 2 guidelines, 18 of the 20 reviews (90%) were “critically low” in overall confidence of the results, while two were ranked “low.” Additionally, reporting quality varied across the reviews, with only 60% reporting at least half of the PRISMA items.

Discussion

Methodological limitations were identified across reviews examining potential associations between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking behaviors, indicating that findings from these reviews should be interpreted with caution.

Conclusions

Future systematic reviews in this field should strive to adhere to AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA guidelines, to provide high quality syntheses of the available data with transparent and complete reporting.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12954-021-00570-9.

Efficacy of Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitors on Cognitive Function in Alzheimer's Disease. Review of Reviews

Alzheimer’s disease (AD) is the most common form of dementia over the age of 65. It is estimated that 115.4 million people will be affected by AD by 2050. Acetylcholinesterase inhibitors (AChEI) are the only available and approved treatment for AD. The aim of the present study was to analyse the evidence on the efficacy of the AChEI in the treatment of cognitive symptoms of Alzheimer’s disease. For that purpose, a review of review of the systematic reviews (SRs) on this topic was carried out by Web of Science, PubMed, and The Cochrane Library, among others, were searched until 24 September 2021. Thirteen of the 1773 articles evaluated the efficacy of AChEI on cognitive function and/or general condition and/or behavioural disturbances of patients with mild to moderate AD. Methodological quality and risk of bias were rated using the ROBIS scale. The quality of the identified studies was high for nine of them, unclear for two, and finally only in two of the 13 studies did we detect low quality. Overall, AChEI showed very low efficacy in improving cognition in patients with mild to moderate AD. Better results were obtained in improving global state, with donepezil being the most effective treatment. No improvements in behavioural disturbances were found. Few high-quality reviews provide clear evidence of the effects of AChEI on cognition, global change, behaviour, and mortality. The data suggest that AChEI stabilize or slow cognitive deterioration, improving global status. In addition, data indicate that the use of AChEI decreases mortality in patients with mild to moderate AD. However, there is no evidence that they improve patient behaviour. Donepezil is the best therapeutic alternative at a dose of 10 mg/day.

Beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction

BACKGROUND

Cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death globally. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), 7.4 million people died from ischaemic heart disease in 2012, constituting 15% of all deaths. Beta-blockers are recommended and are often used in patients with heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. However, it is currently unclear whether beta-blockers should be used in patients without heart failure after acute myocardial infarction. Previous meta-analyses on the topic have shown conflicting results. No previous systematic review using Cochrane methods has assessed the effects of beta-blockers in patients without heart failure after acute myocardial infarction.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of beta-blockers compared with placebo or no treatment in patients without heart failure and with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than 40% in the non-acute phase after myocardial infarction.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index - Expanded, BIOSIS Citation Index, the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, ClinicalTrials.gov, European Medicines Agency, Food and Drug Administration, Turning Research Into Practice, Google Scholar, and SciSearch from their inception to February 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised clinical trials assessing effects of beta-blockers versus control (placebo or no treatment) in patients without heart failure after myocardial infarction, irrespective of publication type and status, date, and language. We excluded trials randomising participants with diagnosed heart failure at the time of randomisation.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We followed our published protocol, with a few changes made, and methodological recommendations provided by Cochrane and Jakobsen and colleagues. Two review authors independently extracted data. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and major cardiovascular events (composite of cardiovascular mortality and non-fatal myocardial reinfarction). Our secondary outcomes were quality of life, angina, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction during follow-up. We assessed all outcomes at maximum follow-up. We systematically assessed risks of bias using seven bias domains and we assessed the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 25 trials randomising a total of 22,423 participants (mean age 56.9 years). All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias. In all, 24 of 25 trials included a mixed group of participants with ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST myocardial infarction, and no trials provided separate results for each type of infarction. One trial included participants with only ST-elevation myocardial infarction. All trials except one included participants younger than 75 years of age. Methods used to exclude heart failure were various and were likely insufficient. A total of 21 trials used placebo, and four trials used no intervention, as the comparator. All patients received usual care; 24 of 25 trials were from the pre-reperfusion era (published from 1974 to 1999), and only one trial was from the reperfusion era (published in 2018). The certainty of evidence was moderate to low for all outcomes. Our meta-analyses show that beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention probably reduce the risks of all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.81, 97.5% confidence interval (CI) 0.73 to 0.90; I² = 15%; 22,085 participants, 21 trials; moderate-certainty evidence) and myocardial reinfarction (RR 0.76, 98% CI 0.69 to 0.88; I² = 0%; 19,606 participants, 19 trials; moderate-certainty evidence). Our meta-analyses show that beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention may reduce the risks of major cardiovascular events (RR 0.72, 97.5% CI 0.69 to 0.84; 14,994 participants, 15 trials; low-certainty evidence) and cardiovascular mortality (RR 0.73, 98% CI 0.68 to 0.85; I² = 47%; 21,763 participants, 19 trials; low-certainty evidence). Hence, evidence seems to suggest that beta-blockers versus placebo or no treatment may result in a minimum reduction of 10% in RR for risks of all-cause mortality, major cardiovascular events, cardiovascular mortality, and myocardial infarction. However, beta-blockers compared with placebo or no intervention may not affect the risk of angina (RR 1.04, 98% CI 0.93 to 1.13; I² = 0%; 7115 participants, 5 trials; low-certainty evidence). No trials provided data on serious adverse events according to good clinical practice from the International Committee for Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH-GCP), nor on quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Beta-blockers probably reduce the risks of all-cause mortality and myocardial reinfarction in patients younger than 75 years of age without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction. Beta-blockers may further reduce the risks of major cardiovascular events and cardiovascular mortality compared with placebo or no intervention in patients younger than 75 years of age without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction. These effects could, however, be driven by patients with unrecognised heart failure. The effects of beta-blockers on serious adverse events, angina, and quality of life are unclear due to sparse data or no data at all. All trials and outcomes were at high risk of bias, and incomplete outcome data bias alone could account for the effect seen when major cardiovascular events, angina, and myocardial infarction are assessed. The evidence in this review is of moderate to low certainty, and the true result may depart substantially from the results presented here. Future trials should particularly focus on patients 75 years of age and older, and on assessment of serious adverse events according to ICH-GCP and quality of life. Newer randomised clinical trials at low risk of bias and at low risk of random errors are needed if the benefits and harms of beta-blockers in contemporary patients without heart failure following acute myocardial infarction are to be assessed properly. Such trials ought to be designed according to the SPIRIT statement and reported according to the CONSORT statement.

How Scientists Perceive CRISPR's Translational Promise and the Implications for Individuals with Genetic Conditions

CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) somatic genome editing, an important promissory technology, presents a case study of the movement of basic scientists into translational research. In this paper, we explore how scientists experience the pulls of CRISPR's power and the pushes of economic and societal pressures in adopting new translational roles. Given basic scientists' emerging contact with and influence upon individuals with genetic conditions, we also examine how scientists understand the perspectives of affected populations, both as potential subjects of early experiments and as the patients who could receive future treatments. Finally, we consider the ethical implications of our findings and call for innovative approaches to translational research that help scientists engage with people with genetic conditions in early translational research.

Paracetamol, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and glucocorticoids for postoperative pain: A protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Multimodal analgesia is the leading principle for managing postoperative pain. Recent guidelines recommend combinations of paracetamol and a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) for most surgeries. Glucocorticoids have been used for decades due to their potent anti-inflammatory and antipyretic properties. Subsequently, glucocorticoids may improve postoperative analgesia. We will perform a systematic review to assess benefits and harms of adding glucocorticoids to paracetamol and NSAIDs. We expect to uncover pros and cons of the addition of glucocorticoid to the basic standard regimen of paracetamol and NSAIDs for postoperative analgesia.

METHOD

This protocol for a systematic review was written according to the The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guidelines. We will search for trials in the following electronic databases: Medline, CENTRAL, CDSR and Embase. Two authors will independently screen trials for inclusion using Covidence, extract data and assess risk of bias using Cochrane's ROB 2 tool. We will analyse data using Review Manager and Trial Sequential Analysis. Meta-analysis will be performed according to the Cochrane guidelines and results will be validated according to the eight-step procedure suggested by Jakobsen et al We will present our primary findings in a 'summary of findings' table. We will evaluate the overall certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

DISCUSSION

This review will aim to explore the combination of glucocorticoids together with paracetamol and NSAIDs for postoperative pain. We will attempt to provide reliable evidence regarding the role of glucocorticoids as part of a multimodal analgesic regimen in combination with paracetamol and NSAID.

Intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation versus no intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation for laparoscopic cholecystectomy

BACKGROUND

Pain is one of the important reasons for delayed discharge after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Use of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic for laparoscopic cholecystectomy may be a way of reducing pain. A previous version of this Cochrane Review found very low-certainty evidence on the benefits and harms of the intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of intraperitoneal instillation of local anaesthetic agents in people undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, and three other databases to 19 January 2021 together with reference checking of studies retrieved. We also searched five online clinical trials registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials to 10 September 2021. We contacted study authors to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We only considered randomised clinical trials (irrespective of language, blinding, publication status, or relevance of outcome measure) comparing local anaesthetic intraperitoneal instillation versus placebo, no intervention, or inactive control during laparoscopic cholecystectomy, for the review. We excluded non-randomised studies, and studies where the method of allocating participants to a treatment was not strictly random (e.g. date of birth, hospital record number, or alternation).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors collected the data independently. Primary outcomes included all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and quality of life. Secondary outcomes included length of stay, pain, return to activity and work, and non-serious adverse events. The analysis included both fixed-effect and random-effects models using RevManWeb. We performed subgroup, sensitivity, and meta-regression analyses. For each outcome, we calculated the risk ratio (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed risk of bias using predefined domains, graded the certainty of the evidence using GRADE, and presented outcome results in a summary of findings table.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighty-five completed trials were included, of which 76 trials contributed data to one or more of the outcomes. This included a total of 4957 participants randomised to intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation (2803 participants) and control (2154 participants). Most trials only included participants undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy and those who were at low anaesthetic risk (ASA I and II). The most commonly used local anaesthetic agent was bupivacaine. Methods of instilling the local anaesthetic varied considerably between trials; this included location and timing of application. The control groups received 0.9% normal saline (69 trials), no intervention (six trials), or sterile water (two trials). One trial did not specify the control agent used. None of the trials provided information on follow-up beyond point of discharge from hospital. Only two trials were at low risk of bias. Seven trials received external funding, of these three were assessed to be at risk of conflicts of interest, a further 17 trials declared no funding. We are very uncertain about the effect intraperitoneal local anaesthetic versus control on mortality; zero mortalities in either group (8 trials; 446 participants; very low-certainty evidence); serious adverse events (RR 1.07; 95% CI 0.49 to 2.34); 13 trials; 988 participants; discharge on same day of surgery (RR 1.43; 95% CI 0.64 to 3.20; 3 trials; 242 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We found that intraperitoneal local anaesthetic probably results in a small reduction in length of hospital stay (MD -0.10 days; 95% CI -0.18 to -0.01; 12 trials; 936 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). No trials reported data on health-related quality of life, return to normal activity or return to work. Pain scores, as measured by visual analogue scale (VAS), were lower in the intraperitoneal local anaesthetic instillation group compared to the control group at both four to eight hours (MD -0.99 cm VAS; 95% CI -1.19 to -0.79; 57 trials; 4046 participants; low-certainty of evidence) and nine to 24 hours (MD -0.68 cm VAS; 95% CI -0.88 to -0.49; 52 trials; 3588 participants; low-certainty of evidence). In addition, we found two trials that were still ongoing, and one trial that was completed but with no published results. All three trials are registered on the WHO trial register.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain about the effect estimate of intraperitoneal local anaesthetic for laparoscopic cholecystectomy on all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, and proportion of patients discharged on the same day of surgery because the certainty of evidence was very low. Due to inadequate reporting, we cannot exclude an increase in adverse events. We found that intraperitoneal local anaesthetic probably results in a small reduction in length of stay in hospital after surgery. We found that intraperitoneal local anaesthetic may reduce pain at up to 24 hours for low-risk patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Future randomised clinical trials should be at low risk of systematic and random errors, should fully report mortality and side effects, and should focus on clinical outcomes such as quality of life.

Conduct and reporting of formula milk trials: systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the conduct and reporting of formula trials.

DESIGN

Systematic review.

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2020.

REVIEW METHODS

Intervention trials comparing at least two formula products in children less than three years of age were included, but not trials of human breast milk or fortifiers of breast milk. Data were extracted in duplicate and primary outcome data were synthesised for meta-analysis with a random effects model weighted by the inverse variance method. Risk of bias was evaluated with Cochrane risk of bias version 2.0, and risk of undermining breastfeeding was evaluated according to published consensus guidance. Primary outcomes of the trials included in the systematic review were identified from clinical trial registries, protocols, or trial publications.

RESULTS

22 201 titles were screened and 307 trials were identified that were published between 2006 and 2020, of which 73 (24%) trials in 13 197 children were prospectively registered. Another 111 unpublished but registered trials in 17 411 children were identified. Detailed analysis was undertaken for 125 trials (23 757 children) published since 2015. Seventeen (14%) of these recently published trials were conducted independently of formula companies, 26 (21%) were prospectively registered with a clear aim and primary outcome, and authors or sponsors shared prospective protocols for 11 (9%) trials. Risk of bias was low in five (4%) and high in 100 (80%) recently published trials, mainly because of inappropriate exclusions from analysis and selective reporting. For 68 recently published superiority trials, a pooled standardised mean difference of 0.51 (range -0.43 to 3.29) was calculated with an asymmetrical funnel plot (Egger's test P<0.001), which reduced to 0.19 after correction for asymmetry. Primary outcomes were reported by authors as favourable in 86 (69%) trials, and 115 (92%) abstract conclusions were favourable. One of 38 (3%) trials in partially breastfed infants reported adequate support for breastfeeding and 14 of 87 (16%) trials in non-breastfed infants confirmed the decision not to breastfeed was firmly established before enrolment in the trial.

CONCLUSIONS

The results show that formula trials lack independence or transparency, and published outcomes are biased by selective reporting.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018091928.

Comparison of Publication of Pediatric Probiotic vs Antibiotic Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov

IMPORTANCE

The published evidence in support of probiotic use is conflicting, which may be a result of selective publication of probiotic trials.

OBJECTIVES

To compare the proportion of registered trials that evaluate pediatric probiotics vs those that evaluate antibiotics that are published and to identify study-related factors associated with publication status.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study evaluated eligible trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, an online clinical trials registry, from July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2016. Eligible studies included participants younger than 18 years, evaluated a probiotic or 1 of the 5 most commonly prescribed antibiotics in children and adolescents, and randomized study participants. All searches were updated and finalized as of September 9, 2020.

EXPOSURES

Probiotic or antibiotic.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcome was study publication status. In addition, exposure status (probiotic vs antibiotic), trial result, and funding source were assessed for independent association with publication status. Whether study design elements, publication journal impact factor, and the interval from study completion to publication differed by exposure status were also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 401 unique trials (265 probiotic and 136 antibiotic) met eligibility criteria. A greater proportion of antibiotic compared with probiotic studies were published (83 [61.0%] vs 119 [44.9%]; difference, 16.1% [95% CI, 5.8%-25.9%]). After adjustment for funding source, blinding, and purpose, studies evaluating an antibiotic were more likely to be published (odds ratio, 2.1 [95% CI, 1.3-3.4]). No other covariates included in the model were independently associated with publication status. Antibiotic trials, compared with probiotic trials, were more likely to have a therapeutic purpose (114 [83.8%] vs 117 [44.2%]; difference, 39.6% [95% CI, 31.1%-48.3%]) and to be multicenter (46 [33.8%] vs 46 [17.4%]; difference, 16.5% [95% CI, 7.5%-25.7%]). The median impact factor of the journals in which the studies were published was higher for the antibiotic trials (7.2 [IQR, 2.8-20.5] vs 3.0 [IQR, 2.3-4.2]; P < .001). The median number of days to publication did not differ between the probiotic and antibiotic trials (683 [IQR, 441-1036] vs 801 [IQR, 550-1183]; P = .24).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that probiotic studies are less likely to be published than antibiotic trials. No other study characteristics were associated with publication status. This finding raises concerns regarding the results of meta-analyses of probiotic trials.

Assessment of Risk of Bias in Osteosarcoma and Ewing's Sarcoma Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review

Aim: The aim of this study was to systematically assess the risk of bias in osteosarcoma and Ewing’s sarcoma (ES) randomized controlled trials (RCT) and to examine the relationships between bias and conflict of interest/industry sponsorship. Methods: An OVID-MEDLINE search was performed (1976–2019). Using the Cochrane Collaboration guidelines, two reviewers independently assessed the prevalence of risk of bias in different RCT design domains. The relationship between conflicts of interest and industry funding with the frequency of bias was examined. Results: 73 RCTs met inclusion criteria. Prevalence of low-risk bias domains was 47.3%, unclear-risk domains 47.8%, and 4.9% of the domains had a high-risk of bias. Domains with the highest risk of bias were blinding of participants/personnel and outcome assessors, followed by randomization and allocation concealment. Overtime, frequency of unclear-risk of bias domains decreased (χ² = 5.32, p = 0.02), whilst low and high-risk domains increased (χ² = 8.13, p = 0.004). Studies with conflicts of interest and industry sponsorships were 4.2 and 3.1 times more likely to have design domains with a high-risk of bias (p < 0.05). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that sources of potential bias are prevalent in both osteosarcoma and ES RCTs. Studies with financial conflicts of interest and industry sponsors were significantly more likely to have domains with a high-risk of bias. Improvements in reporting and adherence to proper methodology will reduce the risk of bias and improve the validity of the results of RCTs in osteosarcoma and ES.

Risk of harm in synthetic and biological intervention trials in patients with inflammatory arthritis: protocol for a metaepidemiological study focusing on contextual factors

INTRODUCTION

Inflammatory arthritis (IA) conditions, including rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis and axial spondyloarthritis, are characterised by inflammatory infiltration of the joints. Biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARDs) and targeted synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (tsDMARDs), respectively, reduce the effects of proinflammatory cytokines and immune cells to ameliorate disease. However, immunosuppression can be associated with high rates of serious adverse events (SAEs), including serious infections, and maybe an increased risk of malignancies and cardiovascular events. Currently, there is no empirical evidence on the extent to which contextual factors and risk of bias (RoB) domains may modify these harm signals in randomised trials.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will search MEDLINE (via PubMed) for systematic reviews published since April 2015 and all Cochrane reviews. From these reviews, randomised trials will be eligible if they include patients with an IA condition with at least one group randomly allocated to bDMARD and/or tsDMARD treatments. A predefined form will be used for extracting data on population characteristics (eg, baseline characteristics or eligibility criteria, such as medication background) and specific harm outcome measures, such as number of withdrawals, numbers of patients discontinuing due to adverse events and number of patients having SAEs. RoB in individual trials will be assessed using a modified Cochrane RoB tool. We will estimate the potentially causal harm effects related to the experimental intervention compared with control comparator as risk ratios, and heterogeneity across randomised comparisons will be assessed statistically and evaluated as inconsistency using the I² Index. Our metaregression analyses will designate population and trial characteristics and each RoB domain as independent variables, whereas the three harm domains will serve as dependent variables.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for this study. Results will be disseminated through publication in international peer-reviewed journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020171124.

Are Corporations Re-Defining Illness and Health? The Diabetes Epidemic, Goal Numbers, and Blockbuster Drugs

While pharmaceutical industry involvement in producing, interpreting, and regulating medical knowledge and practice is widely accepted and believed to promote medical innovation, industry-favouring biases may result in prioritizing corporate profit above public health. Using diabetes as our example, we review successive changes over forty years in screening, diagnosis, and treatment guidelines for type 2 diabetes and prediabetes, which have dramatically expanded the population prescribed diabetes drugs, generating a billion-dollar market. We argue that these guideline recommendations have emerged under pervasive industry influence and persisted, despite weak evidence for their health benefits and indications of serious adverse effects associated with many of the drugs they recommend. We consider pharmaceutical industry conflicts of interest in some of the research and publications supporting these revisions, and in related standard-setting committees and oversight panels. We raise concern over the long-term impact of these multifaceted involvements. Rather than accept industry conflicts of interest as normal, needing only to be monitored and managed, we suggest challenging that normalcy, and ask: what are the real costs of tolerating such industry participation? We urge the development of a broader focus to fully understand and curtail the systemic nature of industry's influence over medical knowledge and practice.

The quality of clinical trials in neuroendocrine tumours; have we learnt from our mistakes? An evaluation of phase II and phase III clinical trials

The quality and reporting of neuroendocrine tumour (NET) clinical trials has previously been found to be heterogeneous impairing trial interpretability. We aimed to perform an updated review of the quality of phase II/III clinical trials in NET to assess if trial design and reporting have improved since 2011. We performed a PubMed search for phase II/III trials evaluating systemic anticancer therapies or liver-directed therapies published between 2011 and 2018. Data collected comprised administrative data, study population characteristics, endpoints, reporting and statistical design parameters, and results. Sixty studies were included (5218 patients): 50 phase II and 10 phase III trials. Study populations were heterogeneous: 52% of trials allowed tumours from various primary sites, 28% allowed both well- and poorly-differentiated tumour morphology or did not specify, and 57% did not report proliferative indices and/or tumour grade in ≥80% of the study population. Only 36% of trials mandated radiological disease progression on participant enrolment using a validated measure. Statistical design and primary endpoint were clearly defined in 67% and 88% of trials, respectively. Toxicity (88%), radiological response rate (85%) and progression-free survival/time to progression (82%) were well reported in a majority of trials, but health-related quality of life was included in the minority. Of the randomised trials (n = 11), study populations were more homogeneous and study design was more often clearly defined; however, only 45% mandated radiological progression at baseline as measured per Response Evaluation Criteria In Solid Tumours, and reporting of health-related quality of life (55%) remained suboptimal. The design and reporting of NET clinical trials, predominantly of single-arm phase II trials, remains suboptimal and has not considerably improved over time despite the growth in our knowledge of the biology and unique characteristics of NETs. Higher quality is seen in randomised trials, although certain design and reporting elements remain inadequate in some studies. We must prioritise the design and conduct of NET clinical trials to effectively inform future research and guide practice change.

Vitamin D supplementation for chronic liver diseases in adults

BACKGROUND

Vitamin D deficiency is often reported in people with chronic liver diseases. Improving vitamin D status could therefore be beneficial for people with chronic liver diseases.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of vitamin D supplementation in adults with chronic liver diseases.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. We also searched ClinicalTrials.gov  and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We scanned bibliographies of relevant publications and enquired experts and pharmaceutical companies as to additional trials. All searches were up to November 2020.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised clinical trials that compared vitamin D at any dose, duration, and route of administration versus placebo or no intervention in adults with chronic liver diseases. Vitamin D could have been administered as supplemental vitamin D (vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol) or vitamin D₂ (ergocalciferol)), or an active form of vitamin D (1α-hydroxyvitamin D (alfacalcidol), 25-hydroxyvitamin D (calcidiol), or 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D (calcitriol)).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 randomised clinical trials with 1979 adult participants. This review update added 12 trials with 945 participants. We assessed all trials as at high risk of bias. All trials had a parallel-group design. Eleven trials were conducted in high-income countries and 16 trials in middle-income countries. Ten trials included participants with chronic hepatitis C, five trials participants with liver cirrhosis, 11 trials participants with non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, and one trial liver transplant recipients. All of the included trials reported the baseline vitamin D status of participants. Participants in nine trials had baseline serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D levels at or above vitamin D adequacy (20 ng/mL), whilst participants in the remaining 18 trials were vitamin D insufficient (less than 20 ng/mL). Twenty-four trials administered vitamin D orally, two trials intramuscularly, and one trial intramuscularly and orally. In all 27 trials, the mean duration of vitamin D supplementation was 6 months, and the mean follow-up of participants from randomisation was 7 months. Twenty trials (1592 participants; 44% women; mean age 48 years) tested vitamin D₃ (cholecalciferol); three trials (156 participants; 28% women; mean age 54 years) tested vitamin D₂; four trials (291 participants; 60% women; mean age 52 years) tested 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D; and one trial (18 participants; 0% women; mean age 52 years) tested 25-hydroxyvitamin D. One trial did not report the form of vitamin D. Twelve trials used a placebo, whilst the other 15 trials used no intervention in the control group. Fourteen trials appeared to be free of vested interest. Eleven trials did not provide any information on clinical trial support or sponsorship. Two trials were funded by industry. We are very uncertain regarding the effect of vitamin D versus placebo or no intervention on all-cause mortality (risk ratio (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.51 to 1.45; 27 trials; 1979 participants). The mean follow-up was 7 months (range 1 to 18 months). We are very uncertain regarding the effect of vitamin D versus placebo or no intervention on liver-related mortality (RR 1.62, 95% CI 0.08 to 34.66; 1 trial; 18 participants) (follow-up: 12 months); serious adverse events such as hypercalcaemia (RR 5.00, 95% CI 0.25 to 100.8; 1 trial; 76 participants); myocardial infarction (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.08 to 6.81; 2 trials; 86 participants); thyroiditis (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.91; 1 trial; 68 participants); circular haemorrhoidal prolapse (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.14 to 65.9; 1 trial; 20 participants); bronchopneumonia (RR 0.33, 95% CI 0.02 to 7.32; 1 trial 20 participants); and non-serious adverse events. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes is very low. We found no data on liver-related morbidity such as gastrointestinal bleeding, hepatic encephalopathy, hepatorenal syndrome, ascites, or liver cancer. There were also no data on health-related quality of life. The evidence is also very uncertain regarding the effect of vitamin D versus placebo or no intervention on rapid, early, and sustained virological response in people with chronic hepatitis C.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Given the high risk of bias and insufficient power of the included trials and the very low certainty of the available evidence, vitamin D supplementation versus placebo or no intervention may increase or reduce all-cause mortality, liver-related mortality, serious adverse events, or non-serious adverse events in adults with chronic liver diseases. There is a lack of data on liver-related morbidity and health-related quality of life. Further evidence on clinically important outcomes analysed in this review is needed.