1
|
Mayo-Wilson E, Qureshi R, Li T. Conducting separate reviews of benefits and harms could improve systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Syst Rev 2023; 12:67. [PMID: 37061724 PMCID: PMC10105415 DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02234-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2022] [Accepted: 04/10/2023] [Indexed: 04/17/2023] Open
Abstract
Guidance for systematic reviews of interventions recommends both benefits and harms be included. Systematic reviews may reach conclusions about harms (or lack of harms) that are not true when reviews include only some relevant studies, rely on incomplete data from eligible studies, use inappropriate methods for synthesizing data, and report results selectively. Separate reviews about harms could address some of these problems, and we argue that conducting separate reviews of harms is a feasible alternative to current standards and practices. Systematic reviews of potential benefits could be organized around the use of interventions for specific health problems. Systematic reviews of potential harms could be broader, including more diverse study designs and including all people at risk of harms (who might use the same intervention to treat different health problems). Multiple reviews about benefits could refer to a single review of harms. This approach could improve the reliability, completeness, and efficiency of systematic reviews.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Evan Mayo-Wilson
- Department of Epidemiology, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA.
| | - Riaz Qureshi
- Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
| | - Tianjing Li
- Department of Ophthalmology, School of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Aurora, CO, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Merenstein D, Pot B, Leyer G, Ouwehand AC, Preidis GA, Elkins CA, Hill C, Lewis ZT, Shane AL, Zmora N, Petrova MI, Collado MC, Morelli L, Montoya GA, Szajewska H, Tancredi DJ, Sanders ME. Emerging issues in probiotic safety: 2023 perspectives. Gut Microbes 2023; 15:2185034. [PMID: 36919522 PMCID: PMC10026873 DOI: 10.1080/19490976.2023.2185034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 35] [Impact Index Per Article: 35.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/16/2023] Open
Abstract
Probiotics are used for both generally healthy consumers and in clinical settings. However, theoretical and proven adverse events from probiotic consumption exist. New probiotic strains and products, as well as expanding use of probiotics into vulnerable populations, warrants concise, and actionable recommendations on how to work toward their safe and effective use. The International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics convened a meeting to discuss and produce evidence-based recommendations on potential acute and long-term risks, risks to vulnerable populations, the importance for probiotic product quality to match the needs of vulnerable populations, and the need for adverse event reporting related to probiotic use. The importance of whole genome sequencing, which enables determination of virulence, toxin, and antibiotic resistance genes, as well as clear assignment of species and strain identity, is emphasized. We present recommendations to guide the scientific and medical community on judging probiotic safety.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Merenstein
- Department of Family Medicine, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC USA
| | - Bruno Pot
- Yakult Europe BV, Almere, Netherlands
| | | | - Arthur C Ouwehand
- Global Health & Nutrition Sciences, International Flavors & Fragrances, Kantvik, Finland
| | - Geoffrey A Preidis
- Division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology & Nutrition, Department of Pediatrics, Baylor College of Medicine and Texas Children's Hospital, Houston, TX, USA
| | - Christopher A Elkins
- Clinical and Environmental Microbiology Branch, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Colin Hill
- APC Microbiome Ireland, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | | | - Andrea L Shane
- Division of Infectious Diseases, Department of Pediatrics, Emory University School of Medicine and Children's Healthcare of Atlanta, Emory Children's Center, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Niv Zmora
- Scientific consultant, Elinav Lab, Immunology Department, Weizmann Institute of Science, Department of Gastroenterology and Liver Diseases, Tel Aviv, Israel
| | | | - Maria Carmen Collado
- Institute of Agrochemistry and Food Technology-National Research Council (IATA-CSIC), Valencia, Spain
| | - Lorenzo Morelli
- Department of Food Science and Technology, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Piacenza, Italy
| | - Gina A Montoya
- Department of Chemical Risk Assessment, Nestlé S.A., Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Hania Szajewska
- Department of Paediatrics, The Medical University of Warsaw, Warsaw, Poland
| | - Daniel J Tancredi
- Department of Pediatrics, UC Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento, CA, USA
| | - Mary Ellen Sanders
- International Scientific Association for Probiotics and Prebiotics, Centennial, CO, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Chevance A, Ravaud P, Cornelius V, Mayo-Wilson E, Furukawa TA. Designing clinically useful psychopharmacological trials: challenges and ways forward. Lancet Psychiatry 2022; 9:584-594. [PMID: 35525252 DOI: 10.1016/s2215-0366(22)00041-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/23/2021] [Revised: 01/15/2022] [Accepted: 02/01/2022] [Indexed: 12/23/2022]
Abstract
The clinical guidelines that underpin the use of drugs for mental disorders are informed by evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs). RCTs are performed to obtain marketing authorisation from regulators. The methods used in these RCTs could be appropriate for early phases of drug development because they identify drugs with important harms and drugs that are efficacious for specific health problems and populations. RCTs done before marketing authorisation do not tend to address clinical questions that concern the effectiveness of a drug in heterogeneous and comorbid populations, the optimisation of drug sequencing and discontinuation, or the comparative benefits and harms of different drugs that could be used for the same health problem. This Review proposes an overview of some shortcomings of RCTs, at an individual level and at the whole portfolio level, and identifies some methods in planning, conducting, and carrying out analyses in RCTs that could enhance their ability to support therapeutic decisions. These suggestions include: identifying patient-important questions to be investigated by psychopharmacological RCTs; embedding pragmatic RCTs within clinical practice to improve generalisability to target populations; collecting evidence about drugs in overlooked populations; developing methods to facilitate the recruitment of patients with mental disorders and to reduce the number of patients who drop out, using specific methods; using core outcome sets to standardise the assessment of benefits and harms; and recording systematically serious objective outcomes, such as suicide or hospitalisation, to be evaluated in meta-analyses. This work is a call to address questions relevant to patients using diverse design of RCTs, thus contributing to the development of a patient-centred, evidence-based psychiatry.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Astrid Chevance
- Université Paris Cité, CRESS, INSERM, INRAE, Paris, France; Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, AP-HP, Paris, France.
| | - Philippe Ravaud
- Université Paris Cité, CRESS, INSERM, INRAE, Paris, France; Centre d'Epidémiologie Clinique, Hôpital Hôtel-Dieu, AP-HP, Paris, France
| | - Victoria Cornelius
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Evan Mayo-Wilson
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA
| | - Toshi A Furukawa
- Department of Health Promotion and Human Behavior and Department of Clinical Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Kyoto University Graduate School of Medicine, Kyoto, Japan
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Yuniar CT, Pratiwi B, Ihsan AF, Laksono BT, Risfayanti I, Fathadina A, Jeong Y, Kim E. Adverse Events Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials of COVID-19 Vaccine Using the CONSORT Criteria for Reporting Harms: A Systematic Review. Vaccines (Basel) 2022; 10:vaccines10020313. [PMID: 35214773 PMCID: PMC8875800 DOI: 10.3390/vaccines10020313] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/29/2021] [Revised: 02/13/2022] [Accepted: 02/15/2022] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: Assessing the quality of evidence from vaccine clinical trials is essential to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and further enhance public acceptance. This study aims to summarize and critically evaluate the quality of harm reporting on randomized controlled trials for the COVID-19 vaccine and determine the factors associated with reporting quality. Methods: We systematically searched the literature using PRISMA guidelines for randomized controlled trials (RCT) on COVID-19 Vaccine until 30 December 2021. Published articles were searched from electronic databases such as PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Bibliovid. Bias analysis was performed using RoB-2 tools. The quality of reporting was assessed by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) harm extension modified into 21 items. Results: A total of 61 RCT studies (402,014 patients) were analyzed. Over half the studies demonstrated adequate reporting (59.02%), and 21 studies (34.4%) reported a low risk of bias. All studies reported death and serious adverse events (AEs), but only six studies mentioned how to handle the recurrent AEs. Reporting of AEs in subgroup analysis was also poor (25%). Conclusion: The RCTs on the COVID-19 vaccine were less biased with good quality on reporting harm based on the modified CONSORT harm extension. However, study quality must be considered, especially for a balance of information between effectivity and safety.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cindra Tri Yuniar
- Department of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia; (C.T.Y.); (B.P.); (A.F.I.); (B.T.L.); (I.R.); (A.F.)
| | - Bhekti Pratiwi
- Department of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia; (C.T.Y.); (B.P.); (A.F.I.); (B.T.L.); (I.R.); (A.F.)
| | - Ardika Fajrul Ihsan
- Department of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia; (C.T.Y.); (B.P.); (A.F.I.); (B.T.L.); (I.R.); (A.F.)
| | - Bambang Tri Laksono
- Department of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia; (C.T.Y.); (B.P.); (A.F.I.); (B.T.L.); (I.R.); (A.F.)
| | - Iffa Risfayanti
- Department of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia; (C.T.Y.); (B.P.); (A.F.I.); (B.T.L.); (I.R.); (A.F.)
| | - Annisa Fathadina
- Department of Pharmacology and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia; (C.T.Y.); (B.P.); (A.F.I.); (B.T.L.); (I.R.); (A.F.)
| | - Yeonseon Jeong
- Clinical Data Analysis, Evidence-Based Clinical Research Laboratory, Department of Health Science & Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06974, Korea;
| | - Eunyoung Kim
- Clinical Data Analysis, Evidence-Based Clinical Research Laboratory, Department of Health Science & Clinical Pharmacy, College of Pharmacy, Chung-Ang University, Seoul 06974, Korea;
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +82-2-820-5791
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Van Vogt E, Cro S, Cornelius VR, Williams HC, Askie LM, Phillips R, Kelleher MM, Boyle RJ. Individual Participant Data Meta-Analysis versus Aggregate Data Meta-Analysis: a case study in eczema and food allergy prevention. Clin Exp Allergy 2021; 52:628-645. [PMID: 34939249 PMCID: PMC9302682 DOI: 10.1111/cea.14085] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2021] [Revised: 12/07/2021] [Accepted: 12/15/2021] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
Introduction Meta‐analysis traditionally uses aggregate data from published reports. Individual Participant Data (IPD) meta‐analysis, which obtains and synthesizes participant‐level data, is potentially more informative, but resource‐intensive. The impact on the findings of meta‐analyses using IPD in comparison with aggregate data has rarely been formally evaluated. Methods We conducted a secondary analysis of a Cochrane systematic review of skincare interventions for preventing eczema and food allergy in infants to identify the impact of the analytical choice on the review's findings. We used aggregate data meta‐analysis only and contrasted the results against those of the originally published IPD meta‐analysis. All meta‐analysis used random effects inverse variance models. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE. Results The pooled treatment effects for the Cochrane systematic review's co‐primary outcomes of eczema and food allergy were similar in IPD meta‐analysis (eczema RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.81, 1.31; I241%, 7 studies 3075 participants), and aggregate meta‐analysis (eczema RR 1.01 95% CI 0.77, 1.33; I253%, 7 studies, 3089 participants). In aggregate meta‐analysis, the statistical heterogeneity could not be explained but using IPD it was explained by one trial which used a different, bathing intervention. For IPD meta‐analysis, risk of bias was assessed as lower and more adverse event data were available compared with aggregate meta‐analysis. This resulted in higher certainty of evidence, especially for adverse events. IPD meta‐analysis enabled analysis of treatment interactions by age and hereditary eczema risk; and analysis of the effect of treatment adherence using pooled complier‐adjusted‐causal‐effect analysis, none of which was possible in aggregate meta‐analysis. Conclusions For this systematic review, IPD did not significantly change primary outcome risk ratios compared with aggregate data meta‐analysis. However, certainty of evidence, safety outcomes, subgroup and adherence analyses were significantly different using IPD. This demonstrates benefits of adopting an IPD approach to meta‐analysis.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Eleanor Van Vogt
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Suzie Cro
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | | | - Hywel C Williams
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK
| | - Lisa M Askie
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW, Australia
| | - Rachel Phillips
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Maeve M Kelleher
- National Heart and Lung Institute, Section of Inflammation and Repair, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Robert J Boyle
- Centre of Evidence Based Dermatology, University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.,National Heart and Lung Institute, Section of Inflammation and Repair, Imperial College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Cornelius VR, Phillips R. Improving the analysis of adverse event data in randomised controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 144:185-192. [PMID: 34954021 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.12.023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/04/2021] [Revised: 12/15/2021] [Accepted: 12/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022]
Abstract
Analysing treatment harm is vital but problematic with the relatively small sample sizes afforded in randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Good analysis practice for efficacy outcomes are well established but there has been minimal progress for the analysis of adverse events (AEs). In this commentary we examine four key issues for AE analysis. Namely, why harm data in RCTs is undervalued, why AE analysis is difficult, what aspects of current analysis practice are unsatisfactory, and the challenges for selection and interpretation of AEs results in publications. We discuss how the value of harm data from RCTs could be better realised by reframing the research question to one for detecting signals of adverse reactions. We align established good statistical practice to current unsatisfactory practice. We encourage use of Bayesian analyses to enable cumulative assessment of harm across trial research phases and discourage selecting AEs to report based on arbitrary rules. We propose comprehendible summaries to be based on core outcome sets, serious and pre-specified events, and events leading to discontinuation. Analysis of AEs in contemporary clinical trials needs attention to progress. In the following we have outlined immediate, mid and longer-term strategies for trialists to adopt to support a change in practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Victoria R Cornelius
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Stadium House, 68 Wood Lane, London, W12 7RH.
| | - Rachel Phillips
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, Stadium House, 68 Wood Lane, London, W12 7RH
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Haroutounian S, Arendt-Nielsen L, Belton J, Blyth FM, Degenhardt L, Forti MD, Eccleston C, Finn DP, Finnerup NB, Fisher E, Fogarty AE, Gilron I, Hohmann AG, Kalso E, Krane E, Mohiuddin M, Moore RA, Rowbotham M, Soliman N, Wallace M, Zinboonyahgoon N, Rice ASC. International Association for the Study of Pain Presidential Task Force on Cannabis and Cannabinoid Analgesia: research agenda on the use of cannabinoids, cannabis, and cannabis-based medicines for pain management. Pain 2021; 162:S117-S124. [PMID: 34138827 PMCID: PMC8855877 DOI: 10.1097/j.pain.0000000000002266] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/28/2021] [Accepted: 03/10/2021] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
Abstract
ABSTRACT The President of the International Association for the Study of Pain established a task force on cannabis and cannabinoid analgesia to systematically examine the evidence on (1) analgesic pharmacology of cannabinoids and preclinical evidence on their efficacy in animal models of injury-related or pathological persistent pain; (2) the clinical efficacy of cannabis, cannabinoids, and cannabis-based medicines for pain; (3) harms related to long-term use of cannabinoids; as well as (4) societal issues and policy implications related to the use of these compounds for pain management. Here, we summarize key knowledge gaps identified in the task force outputs and propose a research agenda for generating high-quality evidence on the topic. The systematic assessment of preclinical and clinical literature identified gaps in rigor of study design and reporting across the translational spectrum. We provide recommendations to improve the quality, rigor, transparency, and reproducibility of preclinical and clinical research on cannabis and cannabinoids for pain, as well as for the conduct of systematic reviews on the topic. Gaps related to comprehensive understanding of the endocannabinoid system and cannabinoid pharmacology, including pharmacokinetics and drug formulation aspects, are discussed. We outline key areas where high-quality clinical trials with cannabinoids are needed. Remaining important questions about long-term and short-term safety of cannabis and cannabinoids are emphasized. Finally, regulatory, societal, and policy challenges associated with medicinal and nonmedicinal use of cannabis are highlighted, with recommendations for improving patient safety and reducing societal harms in the context of pain management.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Simon Haroutounian
- Division of Clinical and Translational Research and Washington University Pain Center. Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University School of Medicine. St Louis, MO, USA
| | - Lars Arendt-Nielsen
- Center for Neuroplasticity and Pain (CNAP) and Center for Sensory-Motor Interaction (SMI), Department of Health Science and Technology, School of Medicine, Aalborg University, Aalborg, Denmark
| | - Joletta Belton
- Endless Possibilities Initiative, Fraser, CO, USA; Global Alliance of Pain Patient Advocates (GAPPA) Presidential Task Force
| | - Fiona M. Blyth
- Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, University of Sydney, Camperdown, NSW 2006, Australia
| | - Louisa Degenhardt
- National Drug and Alcohol Research Centre, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia
| | - Marta Di Forti
- Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London SE5 8AF, UK. National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and King’s College London, UK. South London and Maudsley NHS Mental Health Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Christopher Eccleston
- Centre for Pain Research. The University of Bath, Bath, UK, & Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, The University of Ghent, Belgium
| | - David P. Finn
- Pharmacology and Therapeutics, School of Medicine, Galway Neuroscience Centre and Centre for Pain Research, Human Biology Building, National University of Ireland Galway, University Road, Galway, Ireland
| | - Nanna B Finnerup
- Danish Pain Research Center, Department of Clinical Medicine, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Emma Fisher
- Centre for Pain Research. The University of Bath, Bath, UK
| | - Alexandra E. Fogarty
- Department of Neurology, Division of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Washington University School of Medicine. St Louis, MO, USA
| | - Ian Gilron
- Departments of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine and Biomedical & Molecular Sciences, Kingston Health Sciences Centre and Queen’s University; Centre for Neuroscience Studies, Queen’s University; School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
| | - Andrea G. Hohmann
- Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Program in Neuroscience, Gill Center for Biomolecular Science, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA
| | - Eija Kalso
- Department of Pharmacology and SleepWell Research Programme, University of Helsinki; Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Medicine, Helsinki University Hospital
| | - Elliot Krane
- Departments of Anesthesiology, Perioperative, and Pain Medicine, & Pediatrics, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California, USA
| | - Mohammed Mohiuddin
- Department of Anesthesiology & Perioperative Medicine and, Queen’s University, Kingston, Canada
| | | | - Michael Rowbotham
- Department of Anesthesia, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Nadia Soliman
- Pain Research, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, UK
| | - Mark Wallace
- Division of Pain Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology, University of California San Diego
| | | | - Andrew SC Rice
- Pain Research, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Faculty of Medicine, Imperial College London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Time to improve the reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 136:216-220. [PMID: 33984494 DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.04.020] [Citation(s) in RCA: 25] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/23/2021] [Accepted: 04/25/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
|
9
|
Cheng KI, Yang KT, Kung CL, Cheng YC, Yeh JL, Dai ZK, Wu BN. BK Ca Channel Inhibition by Peripheral Nerve Injury Is Restored by the Xanthine Derivative KMUP-1 in Dorsal Root Ganglia. Cells 2021; 10:949. [PMID: 33923953 PMCID: PMC8073306 DOI: 10.3390/cells10040949] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/17/2021] [Revised: 04/10/2021] [Accepted: 04/19/2021] [Indexed: 12/02/2022] Open
Abstract
This study explored whether KMUP-1 improved chronic constriction injury (CCI)-induced BKCa current inhibition in dorsal root ganglion (DRG) neurons. Rats were randomly assigned to four groups: sham, sham + KMUP-1, CCI, and CCI + KMUP-1 (5 mg/kg/day, i.p.). DRG neuronal cells (L4-L6) were isolated on day 7 after CCI surgery. Perforated patch-clamp and inside-out recordings were used to monitor BKCa currents and channel activities, respectively, in the DRG neurons. Additionally, DRG neurons were immunostained with anti-NeuN, anti-NF200 and anti-BKCa. Real-time PCR was used to measure BKCa mRNA levels. In perforated patch-clamp recordings, CCI-mediated nerve injury inhibited BKCa currents in DRG neurons compared with the sham group, whereas KMUP-1 prevented this effect. CCI also decreased BKCa channel activity, which was recovered by KMUP-1 administration. Immunofluorescent staining further demonstrated that CCI reduced BKCa-channel proteins, and KMUP-1 reversed this. KMUP-1 also changed CCI-reduced BKCa mRNA levels. KMUP-1 prevented CCI-induced neuropathic pain and BKCa current inhibition in a peripheral nerve injury model, suggesting that KMUP-1 could be a potential agent for controlling neuropathic pain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kuang-I Cheng
- Department of Anesthesiology, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan;
- Department of Anesthesiology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan
| | - Kan-Ting Yang
- Department of Pharmacy, Kaohsiung Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Kaohsiung 833, Taiwan;
- Department of Pharmacology, Graduate Institute of Medicine, College of Medicine, Drug Development and Value Creation Research Center, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan; (C.-L.K.); (Y.-C.C.); (J.-L.Y.)
| | - Chien-Lun Kung
- Department of Pharmacology, Graduate Institute of Medicine, College of Medicine, Drug Development and Value Creation Research Center, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan; (C.-L.K.); (Y.-C.C.); (J.-L.Y.)
| | - Yu-Chi Cheng
- Department of Pharmacology, Graduate Institute of Medicine, College of Medicine, Drug Development and Value Creation Research Center, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan; (C.-L.K.); (Y.-C.C.); (J.-L.Y.)
| | - Jwu-Lai Yeh
- Department of Pharmacology, Graduate Institute of Medicine, College of Medicine, Drug Development and Value Creation Research Center, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan; (C.-L.K.); (Y.-C.C.); (J.-L.Y.)
- Department of Medical Research, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan
| | - Zen-Kong Dai
- Department of Pediatrics, School of Medicine, College of Medicine, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Cardiology and Pulmonology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan
| | - Bin-Nan Wu
- Department of Pharmacology, Graduate Institute of Medicine, College of Medicine, Drug Development and Value Creation Research Center, Kaohsiung Medical University, Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan; (C.-L.K.); (Y.-C.C.); (J.-L.Y.)
- Department of Medical Research, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital, Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Mazhar F, Hadi MA, Kow CS, Marran AMN, Merchant HA, Hasan SS. Use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19: How good is the quality of randomized controlled trials? Int J Infect Dis 2020; 101:107-120. [PMID: 33007453 PMCID: PMC7524513 DOI: 10.1016/j.ijid.2020.09.1470] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/27/2020] [Revised: 09/24/2020] [Accepted: 09/24/2020] [Indexed: 12/27/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES We critically evaluated the quality of evidence and quality of harm reporting in clinical trials that evaluated the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) or chloroquine (CQ) for the treatment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING Scientific databases were systematically searched to identify relevant trials of HCQ/CQ for the treatment of COVID-19 published up to 10 September 2020. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tools for randomized trials and non-randomized trials of interventions were used to assess risk of bias in the included studies. A 10-item Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) harm extension was used to assess quality of harm reporting in the included trials. RESULTS Sixteen trials, including fourteen randomized trials and two non-randomized trials, met the inclusion criteria. The results from the included trials were conflicting and lacked effect estimates adjusted for baseline disease severity or comorbidities in many cases, and most of the trials recruited a fairly small cohort of patients. None of the clinical trials met the CONSORT criteria in full for reporting harm data in clinical trials. None of the 16 trials had an overall 'low' risk of bias, while four of the trials had a 'high', 'critical', or 'serious' risk of bias. Biases observed in these trials arise from the randomization process, potential deviation from intended interventions, outcome measurements, selective reporting, confounding, participant selection, and/or classification of interventions. CONCLUSION In general, the quality of currently available evidence for the effectiveness of CQ/HCQ in patients with COVID-19 is suboptimal. The importance of a properly designed and reported clinical trial cannot be overemphasized amid the COVID-19 pandemic, and its dismissal could lead to poorer clinical and policy decisions, resulting in wastage of already stretched invaluable health care resources.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Faizan Mazhar
- Department of Biomedical and Clinical Sciences L. Sacco, "Luigi Sacco" University Hospital, Università di Milano, Milan, Italy
| | - Muhammad Abdul Hadi
- School of Pharmacy, Institute of Clinical Sciences, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, United Kingdom
| | - Chia Siang Kow
- School of Postgraduate Studies, International Medical University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
| | | | - Hamid A. Merchant
- School of Applied Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom
| | - Syed Shahzad Hasan
- School of Applied Sciences, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, United Kingdom.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Phillips R, Sauzet O, Cornelius V. Statistical methods for the analysis of adverse event data in randomised controlled trials: a scoping review and taxonomy. BMC Med Res Methodol 2020; 20:288. [PMID: 33256641 PMCID: PMC7708917 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-020-01167-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/18/2020] [Accepted: 11/19/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Statistical methods for the analysis of harm outcomes in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are rarely used, and there is a reliance on simple approaches to display information such as in frequency tables. We aimed to identify whether any statistical methods had been specifically developed to analyse prespecified secondary harm outcomes and non-specific emerging adverse events (AEs). METHODS A scoping review was undertaken to identify articles that proposed original methods or the original application of existing methods for the analysis of AEs that aimed to detect potential adverse drug reactions (ADRs) in phase II-IV parallel controlled group trials. Methods where harm outcomes were the (co)-primary outcome were excluded. Information was extracted on methodological characteristics such as: whether the method required the event to be prespecified or could be used to screen emerging events; and whether it was applied to individual events or the overall AE profile. Each statistical method was appraised and a taxonomy was developed for classification. RESULTS Forty-four eligible articles proposing 73 individual methods were included. A taxonomy was developed and articles were categorised as: visual summary methods (8 articles proposing 20 methods); hypothesis testing methods (11 articles proposing 16 methods); estimation methods (15 articles proposing 24 methods); or methods that provide decision-making probabilities (10 articles proposing 13 methods). Methods were further classified according to whether they required a prespecified event (9 articles proposing 12 methods), or could be applied to emerging events (35 articles proposing 61 methods); and if they were (group) sequential methods (10 articles proposing 12 methods) or methods to perform final/one analyses (34 articles proposing 61 methods). CONCLUSIONS This review highlighted that a broad range of methods exist for AE analysis. Immediate implementation of some of these could lead to improved inference for AE data in RCTs. For example, a well-designed graphic can be an effective means to communicate complex AE data and methods appropriate for counts, time-to-event data and that avoid dichotomising continuous outcomes can improve efficiencies in analysis. Previous research has shown that adoption of such methods in the scientific press is limited and that strategies to support change are needed. TRIAL REGISTRATION PROSPERO registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=97442.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel Phillips
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, 1st Floor Stadium House, 68 Wood Lane, London, W12 7RH, United Kingdom.
| | - Odile Sauzet
- School of Public Health / AG 3 Epidemiologie & International Public Health, Bielefeld University, Bielefeld, Germany
| | - Victoria Cornelius
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, Imperial College London, 1st Floor Stadium House, 68 Wood Lane, London, W12 7RH, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Liu P, Chen J, Ma S, Zhang J, Zhou J. Albiflorin Attenuates Mood Disorders Under Neuropathic Pain State by Suppressing the Hippocampal NLRP3 Inflammasome Activation During Chronic Constriction Injury. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol 2020; 24:64-76. [PMID: 33000169 PMCID: PMC7816674 DOI: 10.1093/ijnp/pyaa076] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/09/2020] [Revised: 08/18/2020] [Accepted: 09/26/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Neuropathic pain is a multifaceted and ubiquitous disease across the globe. Mood disorders, such as anxiety and depression, are frequently observed in patients suffering from neuropathic pain. Both neuropathic pain and comorbid mood disorders seriously impact quality of life. Accumulated evidence shows that activation of the NOD-like receptor protein 3 (NLRP3) inflammasome is involved in the neuroinflammatory pathogenesis of neuropathic pain, anxiety, and depression. However, the role of the NLRP3 inflammasome in the pathological process of anxiety and depression under the neuropathic pain state has not been fully described. Albiflorin, a monoterpene glycoside, may be a potential regulator of the NLRP3 inflammasome, but it is not clear whether albiflorin relates to NLRP3 inflammasome activation. METHODS We used a systematic pharmacological method to confirm whether the activation of the NLRP3 inflammasome in the hippocampus was involved in the development of neuropathic pain associated with mood disorders and whether albiflorin could be an effective treatment for these symptoms. RESULTS The NLRP3 inflammasome contributed to the neuropathic pain and comorbid anxiety and depression-like behaviors induced by chronic constriction injury of the sciatic nerve, and albiflorin may relieve these symptoms via inhibition of the NLRP3 inflammasome activity. Moreover, albiflorin enhanced the translocation of the nuclear factor erythroid 2-related factor 2 into the nucleus and suppressed nuclear factor-kappa B activity in the hippocampus. CONCLUSIONS Albiflorin, as a potential therapeutic agent, might greatly improve the overall symptoms of neuropathic pain.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Pei Liu
- Hebei Key Laboratory of Research and Development for Chinese Medicine, Chengde Medical University, Hebei, Chengde, China
| | - Jianjun Chen
- Hebei Key Laboratory of Research and Development for Chinese Medicine, Chengde Medical University, Hebei, Chengde, China
| | - Shuai Ma
- Hebei Key Laboratory of Research and Development for Chinese Medicine, Chengde Medical University, Hebei, Chengde, China
| | - Jianjun Zhang
- School of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China
| | - Jianyu Zhou
- Hebei Key Laboratory of Research and Development for Chinese Medicine, Chengde Medical University, Hebei, Chengde, China,Correspondence: Jianyu Zhou, PhD, Hebei Key Laboratory of Research and Development for Chinese Medicine, Chengde Medical University, Anyuan Road, Shuangqiao District, Chengde 067000, Hebei, China ()
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Paeoniflorin attenuates chronic constriction injury-induced neuropathic pain by suppressing spinal NLRP3 inflammasome activation. Inflammopharmacology 2020; 28:1495-1508. [DOI: 10.1007/s10787-020-00737-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 17] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/21/2020] [Accepted: 06/20/2020] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
|
14
|
Phillips R, Cornelius V. Understanding current practice, identifying barriers and exploring priorities for adverse event analysis in randomised controlled trials: an online, cross-sectional survey of statisticians from academia and industry. BMJ Open 2020; 10:e036875. [PMID: 32532777 PMCID: PMC7295403 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-036875] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/08/2020] [Revised: 04/29/2020] [Accepted: 05/15/2020] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To gain a better understanding of current adverse event (AE) analysis practices and the reasons for the lack of use of sophisticated statistical methods for AE data analysis in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with the aim of identifying priorities and solutions to improve practice. DESIGN A cross-sectional, online survey of statisticians working in clinical trials, followed up with a workshop of senior statisticians working across the UK. PARTICIPANTS We aimed to recruit into the survey a minimum of one statistician from each of the 51 UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered clinical trial units (CTUs) and industry statisticians from both pharmaceuticals and clinical research organisations. OUTCOMES To gain a better understanding of current AE analysis practices, measure awareness of specialist methods for AE analysis and explore priorities, concerns and barriers when analysing AEs. RESULTS Thirty-eight (38/51; 75%) CTUs, 5 (5/7; 71%) industry and 21 attendees at the 2019 Promoting Statistical Insights Conference participated in the survey. Of the 64 participants that took part, 46 participants were classified as public sector participants and 18 as industry participants. Participants indicated that they predominantly (80%) rely on subjective comparisons when comparing AEs between treatment groups. Thirty-eight per cent were aware of specialist methods for AE analysis, but only 13% had undertaken such analyses. All participants believed guidance on appropriate AE analysis and 97% thought training specifically for AE analysis is needed. These were both endorsed as solutions by workshop participants. CONCLUSIONS This research supports our earlier work that identified suboptimal AE analysis practices in RCTs and confirms the underuse of more sophisticated AE analysis approaches. Improvements are needed, and further research in this area is required to identify appropriate statistical methods. This research provides a unanimous call for the development of guidance, as well as training on suitable methods for AE analysis to support change.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel Phillips
- Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Victoria Cornelius
- Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Blanco D, Altman D, Moher D, Boutron I, Kirkham JJ, Cobo E. Scoping review on interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research. BMJ Open 2019; 9:e026589. [PMID: 31076472 PMCID: PMC6527996 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026589] [Citation(s) in RCA: 103] [Impact Index Per Article: 20.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The goal of this study is to identify, analyse and classify interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in order to obtain a wide picture of how the problem of enhancing the completeness of reporting of biomedical literature has been tackled so far. DESIGN Scoping review. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases and conducted a grey literature search for (1) studies evaluating interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines in health research and (2) other types of references describing interventions that have been performed or suggested but never evaluated. The characteristics and effect of the evaluated interventions were analysed. Moreover, we explored the rationale of the interventions identified and determined the existing gaps in research on the evaluation of interventions to improve adherence to reporting guidelines. RESULTS 109 references containing 31 interventions (11 evaluated) were included. These were grouped into five categories: (1) training on the use of reporting guidelines, (2) improving understanding, (3) encouraging adherence, (4) checking adherence and providing feedback, and (5) involvement of experts. Additionally, we identified lack of evaluated interventions (1) on training on the use of reporting guidelines and improving their understanding, (2) at early stages of research and (3) after the final acceptance of the manuscript. CONCLUSIONS This scoping review identified a wide range of strategies to improve adherence to reporting guidelines that can be taken by different stakeholders. Additional research is needed to assess the effectiveness of many of these interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David Blanco
- Statistics and Operations Research, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Doug Altman
- Nuffield Department ofOrthopaedics, Rheumatologyand Musculoskeletal Sciences,Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - David Moher
- Centre for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
| | - Isabelle Boutron
- Centre d\'épidémiologie Clinique, Université Paris Descartes, Paris, France
| | - Jamie J Kirkham
- Biostatistics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, Merseyside, UK
| | - Erik Cobo
- Statistics and Operations Research, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, Barcelona, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Honvo G, Bannuru RR, Bruyère O, Rannou F, Herrero-Beaumont G, Uebelhart D, Cooper C, Arden N, Conaghan PG, Reginster JY, Thomas T, McAlindon T. Recommendations for the Reporting of Harms in Manuscripts on Clinical Trials Assessing Osteoarthritis Drugs: A Consensus Statement from the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO). Drugs Aging 2019; 36:145-159. [PMID: 31073927 PMCID: PMC6509216 DOI: 10.1007/s40266-019-00667-8] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is strong evidence of under-reporting of harms in manuscripts on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) compared with the volume of raw data retrieved from these trials. Many guidelines have been developed to tackle this, but they have failed to address some important issues that would allow for standardization and transparency. As a consequence, harms reporting in manuscripts remains suboptimal. OBJECTIVE The European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) aimed to deliver accurate recommendations for better reporting of harms in clinical trials manuscripts on anti-osteoarthritis (OA) drugs. These could help to better inform clinicians on harms recorded in RCTs and further help researchers conducting meta-analyses. METHODS Using the outcomes of several systematic reviews on the safety of anti-OA drugs, we summarized the ways in which harms have been reported in OA RCT manuscripts to date. Next, we drafted some recommendations and initiated a modified Delphi process that involved a panel of clinicians and clinical researchers to build an expert consensus on recommendations from the ESCEO for the reporting of harms in future manuscripts on RCTs assessing anti-OA drugs. RESULTS These recommendations emphasize that all treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs) should always be taken into account for harms reporting, with no frequency threshold, and describe how specific AEs should be reported; they also provide a list of the most relevant organ systems to be considered according to each class of drug for reporting of harms within the results section of a manuscript. Irrespective of the drug, the ESCEO recommends that total, severe and serious AEs and withdrawals due to AEs should always be reported; guidance on the reporting of specific events pertaining to each category is provided. The ESCEO also recommends the reporting of information on drug effect on biological parameters, with specific guidance. CONCLUSIONS These recommendations may contribute to improve transparency in the field of safety of anti-OA medications. Pharmaceutical companies developing drugs for OA, and researchers conducting clinical trials, are encouraged to comply with them when reporting harms-related results in manuscripts on RCTs. The ESCEO also encourages journals to refer to the ESCEO recommendations in their instructions to authors for the publication of manuscripts on trials of anti-OA medications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Germain Honvo
- Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Public Heath Aspects of Musculoskeletal Health and Aging, Liège, Belgium
| | - Raveendhara R. Bannuru
- Division of Rheumatology, Allergy and Immunology, Center for Treatment Comparison and Integrative Analysis, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA USA
| | - Olivier Bruyère
- Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Public Heath Aspects of Musculoskeletal Health and Aging, Liège, Belgium
| | - Francois Rannou
- Division of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Department of Rheumatology, AP-HP Cochin Hospital, INSERM U1124, Université Paris Descartes Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | - Gabriel Herrero-Beaumont
- Bone and Joint Research Unit, Department of Rheumatology, Fundación Jiménez Diaz, Universidad Autonoma, Madrid, Spain
| | - Daniel Uebelhart
- Division of Musculoskeletal, Internal Medicine and Oncological Rehabilitation, Department of Orthopaedics and Traumatology, Hôpital du Valais (HVS), Centre Hospitalier du Valais Romand (CHVR), CVP, Crans-Montana, Switzerland
| | - Cyrus Cooper
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Public Heath Aspects of Musculoskeletal Health and Aging, Liège, Belgium
- MRC Lifecourse Epidemiology Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton General Hospital, Southampton, UK
- Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Nigel Arden
- Musculoskeletal Biomedical Research Unit, National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- Arthritis Research UK Centre for Sport, Exercise and Osteoarthritis, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Philip G. Conaghan
- Leeds Institute of Rheumatic and Musculoskeletal Medicine, University of Leeds and NIHR Leeds Biomedical Research Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Jean-Yves Reginster
- Department of Public Health, Epidemiology and Health Economics, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium
- WHO Collaborating Centre for Public Heath Aspects of Musculoskeletal Health and Aging, Liège, Belgium
- Chair for Biomarkers of Chronic Diseases, Biochemistry Department, College of Science, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
| | - Thierry Thomas
- Department of Rheumatology, Hôpital Nord, CHU de St-Etienne and INSERM 1059, Université de Lyon, Saint-Étienne, France
| | - Tim McAlindon
- Division of Rheumatology, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA USA
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To ascertain contemporary approaches to the collection, reporting and analysis of adverse events (AEs) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a primary efficacy outcome. DESIGN A review of clinical trials of drug interventions from four high impact medical journals. DATA SOURCES Electronic contents table of the BMJ, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) were searched for reports of original RCTs published between September 2015 and September 2016. METHODS A prepiloted checklist was used and single data extraction was performed by three reviewers with independent check of a randomly sampled subset to verify quality. We extracted data on collection methods, assessment of severity and causality, reporting criteria, analysis methods and presentation of AE data. RESULTS We identified 184 eligible reports (BMJ n=3; JAMA n=38, Lancet n=62 and NEJM n=81). Sixty-two per cent reported some form of spontaneous AE collection but only 29% included details of specific prompts used to ascertain AE data. Numbers that withdrew from the trial were well reported (80%), however only 35% of these reported whether withdrawals were due to AEs. Results presented and analysis performed was predominantly on 'patients with at least one event' with 84% of studies ignoring repeated events. Despite a lack of power to undertake formal hypothesis testing, 47% performed such tests for binary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS This review highlighted that the collection, reporting and analysis of AE data in clinical trials is inconsistent and RCTs as a source of safety data are underused. Areas to improve include reducing information loss when analysing at patient level and inappropriate practice of underpowered multiple hypothesis testing. Implementation of standard reporting practices could enable a more accurate synthesis of safety data and development of guidance for statistical methodology to assess causality of AEs could facilitate better statistical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel Phillips
- Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Lorna Hazell
- Clinical Research, Drug Safety Research Unit, Southampton, UK
- Department of Pharmacy and Biomedical Sciences, University of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, UK
| | - Odile Sauzet
- Epidemiologie & International Public Health, Faculty of Health Sciences, Universität Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany
| | - Victoria Cornelius
- Faculty of Medicine, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Restivo DA, Casabona A, Frittitta L, Belfiore A, Le Moli R, Gullo D, Vigneri R. Efficacy of Botulinum Toxin A for Treating Cramps in Diabetic Neuropathy. Ann Neurol 2018; 84:674-682. [PMID: 30225985 DOI: 10.1002/ana.25340] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/13/2018] [Revised: 08/08/2018] [Accepted: 09/09/2018] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Muscle cramps occur in >50% of diabetic patients and reduce the quality of life. No effective treatment is available. We evaluated the clinical effectiveness of botulinum toxin A (BTX-A) injections for treating cramps in diabetic patients with neuropathy. METHODS This single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled perspective study investigated the efficacy and safety of BTX-A intramuscular injection for treating calf or foot cramps refractory to common pharmacological drugs. Fifty diabetic patients with peripheral neuropathy and cramps were randomly assigned to 2 matched groups. BTX-A (100 or 30 units) or saline was injected on each side into the gastrocnemius or the small flexor foot muscles. Changes in pain intensity (primary outcome) and cramp frequency were evaluated over the course of 20 weeks after BTX-A administration. Cramp interference in daily life and the electrophysiological cramp threshold frequency were also measured. The treatment was repeated 5 months after first injection in 19 responders. RESULTS All outcome measures improved significantly after BTX-A compared with placebo. The changes with respect to baseline were already significant after 1 week and persisted up to week 14. Only 5 of 25 (20%) patients were nonresponders (<50% decrease of the primary outcome). The responses to a second BTX-A injection provided results similar to the first administration. Mild pain at the injection site (4/25 cases) was the only adverse event, and it disappeared within 2 to 3 days. INTERPRETATION Local BTX-A infiltration is an efficacious and safe procedure for obtaining a sustained amelioration of muscle cramps associated with diabetic neuropathy. Ann Neurol 2018;84:682-690.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Domenico A Restivo
- Department of Medicine, Neurological Unit and Service of Clinical Neurophysiology, Garibaldi Hospital, Catania, Italy
| | - Antonino Casabona
- Department of Biomedical and Biotechnological Sciences, Section of Physiology, University of Catania, Catania, Italy
| | - Lucia Frittitta
- S. Signorelli Diabetes and Obesity Center, Garibaldi-Nesima Medical Center, Catania, Italy.,Endocrinology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Catania, Garibaldi-Nesima Medical Center, Catania, Italy
| | - Antonino Belfiore
- Endocrinology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Catania, Garibaldi-Nesima Medical Center, Catania, Italy
| | - Rosario Le Moli
- Endocrinology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Catania, Garibaldi-Nesima Medical Center, Catania, Italy
| | - Damiano Gullo
- Endocrinology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Catania, Garibaldi-Nesima Medical Center, Catania, Italy
| | - Riccardo Vigneri
- Endocrinology, Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Catania, Garibaldi-Nesima Medical Center, Catania, Italy.,Institute of Bioimages and Biostructures, National Research Council, Catania, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Favier R, Crépin S. The reporting of harms in publications on randomized controlled trials funded by the "Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique," a French academic funding scheme. Clin Trials 2018; 15:257-267. [PMID: 29498543 DOI: 10.1177/1740774518760565] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/28/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS Accurate information on harms arising from medical interventions is essential for assessing benefit-risk ratios. Since 2004, there has been an extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement for reporting harms data in publications on randomized clinical trials. The objective of our study was to assess the quality of this reporting from academic randomized clinical trials on drugs. METHODS We searched for articles on randomized clinical trials funded between 2004 and 2008 by the "Programme Hospitalier de Recherche Clinique." We included all published randomized clinical trials that assessed drugs. Harm-related data were extracted and compared with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Harms extension, and the space in the articles devoted to harms data was measured. RESULTS In total, 37 randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. The median harm score was 9/18. In 73.0% of the randomized clinical trials, the reporting of adverse events was selective. Less than 50% of articles provided information on reasons for drug discontinuation that were related to adverse events. The score and the space allocated to harms were higher in antineoplastic and immunomodulating drugs randomized clinical trials, while the median proportion of the space in the results section allocated to harms was 16.8%. In 67.6% of the articles, the space allocated to the authors' list and affiliations was greater than the space in the results section allocated to descriptions of harms. No significant improvement in the score or the space allocation was observed during the study period. CONCLUSION Reporting of harms in French academic drug randomized clinical trials is suboptimal; moreover, this shortcoming is a critical barrier to evaluating the benefit-risk ratio of drug randomized clinical trials. Thus, the authors should be encouraged to adhere to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials Harms extension.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Romain Favier
- Service de Pharmacologie, Toxicologie et Pharmacovigilance, CHU de Limoges, France
| | - Sabrina Crépin
- Service de Pharmacologie, Toxicologie et Pharmacovigilance, CHU de Limoges, France
| |
Collapse
|
20
|
Haddad C, Sigha OB, Lebrun-Vignes B, Chosidow O, Fardet L. Reporting of harm and safety results in randomized controlled trials published in 5 dermatology journals. J Am Acad Dermatol 2017; 77:98-104.e1. [DOI: 10.1016/j.jaad.2017.01.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/15/2016] [Revised: 12/23/2016] [Accepted: 01/05/2017] [Indexed: 11/30/2022]
|
21
|
Zhou J, Wang J, Li W, Wang C, Wu L, Zhang J. Paeoniflorin attenuates the neuroinflammatory response in a rat model of chronic constriction injury. Mol Med Rep 2017; 15:3179-3185. [DOI: 10.3892/mmr.2017.6371] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/01/2016] [Accepted: 12/19/2016] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
|
22
|
Critchlow S, Hirst M, Akehurst R, Phillips C, Philips Z, Sullivan W, Dunlop WCN. A systematic review of cost-effectiveness modeling of pharmaceutical therapies in neuropathic pain: variation in practice, key challenges, and recommendations for the future. J Med Econ 2017; 20:129-139. [PMID: 27563752 DOI: 10.1080/13696998.2016.1229671] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/25/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Complexities in the neuropathic-pain care pathway make the condition difficult to manage and difficult to capture in cost-effectiveness models. The aim of this study is to understand, through a systematic review of previous cost-effectiveness studies, some of the key strengths and limitations in data and modeling practices in neuropathic pain. Thus, the aim is to guide future research and practice to improve resource allocation decisions and encourage continued investment to find novel and effective treatments for patients with neuropathic pain. METHODS The search strategy was designed to identify peer-reviewed cost-effectiveness evaluations of non-surgical, pharmaceutical therapies for neuropathic pain published since January 2000, accessing five key databases. All identified publications were reviewed and screened according to pre-defined eligibility criteria. Data extraction was designed to reflect key data challenges and approaches to modeling in neuropathic pain and based on published guidelines. RESULTS The search strategy identified 20 cost-effectiveness analyses meeting the inclusion criteria, of which 14 had original model structures. Cost-effectiveness modeling in neuropathic pain is established and increasing across multiple jurisdictions; however, amongst these studies, there is substantial variation in modeling approach, and there are common limitations. Capturing the effect of treatments upon health outcomes, particularly health-related quality-of-life, is challenging, and the health effects of multiple lines of ineffective treatment, common for patients with neuropathic pain, have not been consistently or robustly modeled. CONCLUSIONS To improve future economic modeling in neuropathic pain, further research is suggested into the effect of multiple lines of treatment and treatment failure upon patient outcomes and subsequent treatment effectiveness; the impact of treatment-emergent adverse events upon patient outcomes; and consistent and appropriate pain measures to inform models. The authors further encourage transparent reporting of inputs used to inform cost-effectiveness models, with robust, comprehensive and clear uncertainty analysis and, where feasible, open-source modeling is encouraged.
Collapse
|
23
|
Lessons Learned From Nocebo Effects in Clinical Trials for Pain Conditions and Neurodegenerative Disorders. J Clin Psychopharmacol 2016; 36:475-82. [PMID: 27580494 DOI: 10.1097/jcp.0000000000000556] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/19/2022]
Abstract
It has been demonstrated that patients in the placebo arm of a clinical trial may experience adverse events (AEs), which may lead to nonadherence and dropout. However, so far, it is unknown to which extent this phenomenon is observed consistently across different diseases such as pain and neurodegenerative disorders.The current review shows for the first time that different diseases share a common risk for patients in terms of a negative outcome: a large percentage of placebo-treated patients experience AEs in pain conditions (up to 59%) and neurodegenerative disorders (up to 66%). In addition, the rate of patients who discontinue because of AEs is up to 10% and 11% in pain conditions and neurodegenerative disorders, respectively.We highlight methodological shortcomings with the aim of suggesting how the detection and reporting of AEs can be improved in future trials. The insights from the current review should be taken into consideration when designing clinical trials to tailor individualized treatments.
Collapse
|
24
|
Adverse Event Reporting in Clinical Trials of Intravenous and Invasive Pain Treatments: An ACTTION Systematic Review. THE JOURNAL OF PAIN 2016; 17:1137-1149. [PMID: 27522950 DOI: 10.1016/j.jpain.2016.07.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/19/2016] [Revised: 06/27/2016] [Accepted: 07/25/2016] [Indexed: 11/20/2022]
Abstract
Thorough assessment and reporting of adverse events (AEs) facilitates a detailed understanding of a treatment's risk-benefit profile. Although the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2004 statement provides recommendations regarding AE reporting, adherence to these standards is often inadequate. We investigated AE reporting in clinical trials of intravenous and invasive pain treatments published in 6 major anesthesiology and pain journals between 2000 to 2003 and 2006 to 2012. We examined whether AE reporting improved after publication of the 2004 CONSORT recommendations and also comprehensively reviewed AE assessment using the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) AE reporting recommendations. No improvement was found overall in CONSORT harms reporting scores from pre- to postpublication of the CONSORT recommendations, with only 5 of 10 fulfilled on average. AE reporting assessed using the ACTTION coding manual was generally inadequate, and 8% of articles failed to report any AE information at all. Anesthesiology and pain journals were similar in AE reporting quality, although industry-sponsored trials reported more AE information than nonindustry sponsored trials. Improvement is needed in AE reporting in analgesic clinical trials. The CONSORT checklist and ACTTION AE recommendations can assist investigators and editors in improving clinical trial transparency and quality. PERSPECTIVE This systematic review of AE reporting in intravenous and invasive pain treatment trials shows that little improvement has been made since the 2004 CONSORT harms reporting guidelines. Better assessment and reporting of treatment AEs is necessary to understand the full clinical effect of intravenous and invasive treatments.
Collapse
|
25
|
Paeoniflorin and Albiflorin Attenuate Neuropathic Pain via MAPK Pathway in Chronic Constriction Injury Rats. EVIDENCE-BASED COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE 2016; 2016:8082753. [PMID: 27429639 PMCID: PMC4939188 DOI: 10.1155/2016/8082753] [Citation(s) in RCA: 37] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/06/2016] [Revised: 04/10/2016] [Accepted: 05/03/2016] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
Neuropathic pain remains as the most frequent cause of suffering and disability around the world. The isomers paeoniflorin (PF) and albiflorin (AF) are major constituents extracted from the roots of Paeonia (P.) lactiflora Pall. Neuroprotective effect of PF has been demonstrated in animal models of neuropathologies. However, only a few studies are related to the biological activities of AF and no report has been published on analgesic properties of AF about neuropathic pain to date. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of AF and PF against CCI-induced neuropathic pain in rat and explore the underlying mechanism. We had found that both PF and AF could inhibit the activation of p38 mitogen-activated protein kinase (p38 MAPK) pathway in spinal microglia and subsequent upregulated proinflammatory cytokines (interleukin-1β (IL-1β) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α)). AF further displayed remarkable effects on inhibiting the activation of astrocytes, suppressing the overelevated expression of phosphorylation of c-Jun N-terminal kinases (p-JNK) in astrocytes, and decreasing the content of chemokine CXCL1 in the spinal cord. These results suggest that both PF and AF are potential therapeutic agents for neuropathic pain, which merit further investigation.
Collapse
|
26
|
Cornelius VR, Liu K, Peacock J, Sauzet O. Variation in adverse drug reactions listed in product information for antidepressants and anticonvulsants, between the USA and Europe: a comparison review of paired regulatory documents. BMJ Open 2016; 6:e010599. [PMID: 26996819 PMCID: PMC4800139 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010599] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.9] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/18/2015] [Revised: 01/04/2016] [Accepted: 01/06/2016] [Indexed: 11/29/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To compare consistency of adverse drug reaction (ADR) data in publicly available product information documents for brand drugs, between the USA and Europe. To assess the usefulness of information for prescribers and patients. DESIGN A comparison review of product information documents for antidepressants and anticonvulsants concurrently marketed by the same pharmaceutical company in the USA and Europe. SETTING For each drug, data were extracted from the US Product Inserts and the European Summary of Product Characteristics documents between 09/2013 and 01/2015. PARTICIPANTS Individuals contributing ADR information to product information documents. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES All ADRs reported in product information sections 5 and 6 (USA), and 4·4 and 4·8 (Europe). RESULTS Twelve brand drugs--24 paired documents--were included. On average, there were 77 more ADRs reported in the USA compared with in the European product information document, with a median number of 201 ADRs (range: 65-425) and 114 (range: 56-265), respectively. More product information documents in the USA reported information on the source of evidence (10 vs 5) and risk (9 vs 5) for greater than 80% of ADRs included in the document. There was negligible information included regarding duration, severity, reversibility or recurrence of ADRs. On average, only 29% of ADR terms were reported in both paired documents. CONCLUSIONS Product information documents contained a large number of ADRs, but lacked contextual data and information important to patients and prescribers, such as duration, severity and reversibility. The ADR profile was found to be inconsistently reported between the USA and Europe, for the same drug. Identifying, selecting, summarising and presenting multidimensional harm data should be underpinned by practical evidence-based guidelines. In order for prescribers to provide considered risk-benefit advice across competing drug therapies to patients, they need access to comprehensible and reliable ADR information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Victoria R Cornelius
- Imperial Clinical Trials Unit, School of Public Health, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Kun Liu
- 4th Floor Addison House, Guy's Campus, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Janet Peacock
- 4th Floor Addison House, Guy's Campus, King's College London, London, UK
| | - Odile Sauzet
- AG Epidemiology and International Public Health, University of Bielefeld, Bielefeld, Germany
| |
Collapse
|
27
|
Cornelius VR, Liu K, Peacock J, Sauzet O. Usability and consistency of harm information in drug product descriptions: a matched comparison of data between the United States (US) and Europe. Trials 2015. [PMCID: PMC4460952 DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-16-s1-p17] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
|
28
|
Moore RA, Derry S, Aldington D, Wiffen PJ. Adverse events associated with single dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults - an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015; 2015:CD011407. [PMID: 26461263 PMCID: PMC6485338 DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011407.pub2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 28] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/06/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND This is an update of a Cochrane overview published in Issue 9, 2011; that overview considered both efficacy and adverse events. This overview considers adverse events, with efficacy dealt with in a separate overview.Thirty-nine Cochrane reviews of randomised trials have examined the adverse events associated with individual drug interventions in acute postoperative pain. This overview brings together the results of those individual reviews. OBJECTIVES To provide an overview of adverse event rates associated with single-dose oral analgesics, compared with placebo, for acute postoperative pain in adults. METHODS We identified systematic reviews in The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews on The Cochrane Library through a simple search strategy. All reviews were overseen by a single review group. We extracted information related to participants experiencing any adverse event, and reports of serious adverse events, and deaths from the individual reviews. MAIN RESULTS Information was available from 39 Cochrane reviews for 41 different analgesics or analgesic combinations (51 drug/dose/formulations) tested in single oral doses in participants with moderate or severe postoperative pain. This involved around 350 unique studies involving about 35,000 participants. Most studies involved younger participants with pain following removal of molar teeth.For most nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), paracetamol, and combinations not containing opioids, there were few examples where participants experienced significantly more or fewer adverse events than with placebo. For aspirin 1000 mg and diflunisal 1000 mg, opioids, or fixed-dose combination drugs containing opioids, participants typically experienced significantly more adverse events than with placebo. Studies of combinations of ibuprofen and paracetamol reported significantly fewer adverse events.Serious adverse events were rare, occurring a rate of about 1 in 3200 participants.Most reviews did not report specific adverse events. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Despite ongoing problems with the measurement, recording, and reporting of adverse events in clinical trials and in systematic reviews, the large amount of information available for single oral doses of analgesics provides evidence that adverse events rates are generally similar with active drug and placebo in these circumstances, except at higher doses of some drugs, and in combinations including opioids.
Collapse
|
29
|
Moore RA, Derry S, Aldington D, Wiffen PJ. Adverse events associated with single-dose oral analgesics for acute postoperative pain in adults - an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014. [DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd011407] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/08/2023]
|
30
|
Adverse event reporting in nonpharmacologic, noninterventional pain clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review. Pain 2014; 155:2253-62. [DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2014.08.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 21] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/16/2014] [Revised: 07/30/2014] [Accepted: 08/06/2014] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
|
31
|
Stevens A, Shamseer L, Weinstein E, Yazdi F, Turner L, Thielman J, Altman DG, Hirst A, Hoey J, Palepu A, Schulz KF, Moher D. Relation of completeness of reporting of health research to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines: systematic review. BMJ 2014; 348:g3804. [PMID: 24965222 PMCID: PMC4070413 DOI: 10.1136/bmj.g3804] [Citation(s) in RCA: 181] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/27/2014] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To assess whether the completeness of reporting of health research is related to journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines. DESIGN Systematic review. DATA SOURCES Reporting guidelines from a published systematic review and the EQUATOR Network (October 2011). Studies assessing the completeness of reporting by using an included reporting guideline (termed "evaluations") (1990 to October 2011; addendum searches in January 2012) from searches of either Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Methodology Register or Scopus, depending on reporting guideline name. STUDY SELECTION English language reporting guidelines that provided explicit guidance for reporting, described the guidance development process, and indicated use of a consensus development process were included. The CONSORT statement was excluded, as evaluations of adherence to CONSORT had previously been reviewed. English or French language evaluations of included reporting guidelines were eligible if they assessed the completeness of reporting of studies as a primary intent and those included studies enabled the comparisons of interest (that is, after versus before journal endorsement and/or endorsing versus non-endorsing journals). DATA EXTRACTION Potentially eligible evaluations of included guidelines were screened initially by title and abstract and then as full text reports. If eligibility was unclear, authors of evaluations were contacted; journals' websites were consulted for endorsement information where needed. The completeness of reporting of reporting guidelines was analyzed in relation to endorsement by item and, where consistent with the authors' analysis, a mean summed score. RESULTS 101 reporting guidelines were included. Of 15,249 records retrieved from the search for evaluations, 26 evaluations that assessed completeness of reporting in relation to endorsement for nine reporting guidelines were identified. Of those, 13 evaluations assessing seven reporting guidelines (BMJ economic checklist, CONSORT for harms, PRISMA, QUOROM, STARD, STRICTA, and STROBE) could be analyzed. Reporting guideline items were assessed by few evaluations. CONCLUSIONS The completeness of reporting of only nine of 101 health research reporting guidelines (excluding CONSORT) has been evaluated in relation to journals' endorsement. Items from seven reporting guidelines were quantitatively analyzed, by few evaluations each. Insufficient evidence exists to determine the relation between journals' endorsement of reporting guidelines and the completeness of reporting of published health research reports. Journal editors and researchers should consider collaborative prospectively designed, controlled studies to provide more robust evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION Not registered; no known register currently accepts protocols for methodology systematic reviews.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Adrienne Stevens
- Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1H 8L6
| | - Larissa Shamseer
- Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1H 8L6 Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, K1H 8M5 Ottawa, Canada
| | - Erica Weinstein
- Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Yeshiva University, Bronx, NY 10461, USA
| | - Fatemeh Yazdi
- Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1H 8L6
| | - Lucy Turner
- Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1H 8L6
| | - Justin Thielman
- Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1H 8L6
| | - Douglas G Altman
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 7LD, UK
| | - Allison Hirst
- Nuffield Department of Surgical Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford OX3 9DU, UK
| | - John Hoey
- Population and Public Health Initiative, Queen's University, Kingston, ON, Canada, K7L 3N6
| | - Anita Palepu
- Centre for Health Evaluation and Outcome Sciences, St Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V6Z 1Y9 Department of Medicine, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada, V5Z 1M9
| | - Kenneth F Schulz
- International Clinical Sciences Support Center, FHI 360, Durham, NC 27713, USA
| | - David Moher
- Centre for Practice-Changing Research, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada, K1H 8L6 Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa, K1H 8M5 Ottawa, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
32
|
Dai ZK, Lin TC, Liou JC, Cheng KI, Chen JY, Chu LW, Chen IJ, Wu BN. Xanthine derivative KMUP-1 reduces inflammation and hyperalgesia in a bilateral chronic constriction injury model by suppressing MAPK and NFκB activation. Mol Pharm 2014; 11:1621-31. [PMID: 24669856 DOI: 10.1021/mp5000086] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/28/2022]
Abstract
Neuropathic pain is characterized by spontaneous pain, hyperalgesia, and allodynia. The aim of this study was to investigate whether KMUP-1 (7-[2-[4-(2-chlorobenzene)piperazinyl]ethyl]-1,3-dimethylxanthine) could improve pain hypersensitivity and reduce inflammatory mediators, and also explore possible mechanisms in the rat sciatic nerve using bilateral chronic constriction injury (CCI) to induce neuropathic pain. Sprague-Dawley rats were randomly divided into four groups: Sham, Sham+KMUP-1, CCI, and CCI+KMUP-1. KMUP-1 (5 mg/kg/day) was injected intraperitoneally starting at day 1 after surgery. Mechanical and thermal responses were assessed before surgery and at days 3, 7, and 14 after CCI. Sciatic nerves around the injury site were isolated for Western blots and enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay to analyze protein and cytokine levels. The results show that thermal hyperalgesia and mechanical allodynia were reduced in the KMUP-1 treated group as compared to that in the CCI group. Inflammatory proteins (COX2, iNOS, and nNOS) and proinflammatory cytokines (TNF-α and IL-1β) induced by CCI were decreased in the KMUP-1 treated group at day 7 after surgery. KMUP-1 also inhibited neuropathic pain-related mechanisms, including p38 and ERK activation, but not JNK. Furthermore, KMUP-1 blocked IκB phosphorylation (p-IκB) and phospho-nuclear factor κB (p-NF-κB) translocation to nuclei. Double immunofluorescent staining further demonstrated that p-IκB (an indicator of activated NFκB) and p-NFκB proteins were almost abolished by KMUP-1 in peripheral macrophages and spinal microglia cells at day 7 after surgery. On the basis of these findings, we concluded that KMUP-1 has antiinflammatory and antihyperalgesia properties in CCI-induced neuropathic pain via decreases in MAPKs and NF-κB activation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zen-Kong Dai
- Department of Pediatrics, Division of Pediatric Pulmonology and Cardiology, Kaohsiung Medical University Hospital , 100 Shih-Chuan 1st Road, Kaohsiung 807, Taiwan
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
33
|
Farquhar-Smith P, Gubbay A. Tramadol and acetaminophen combination for chronic non-cancer pain. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2013; 14:2297-304. [DOI: 10.1517/14656566.2013.839985] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/13/2022]
|
34
|
Smith SM, Wang AT, Katz NP, McDermott MP, Burke LB, Coplan P, Gilron I, Hertz SH, Lin AH, Rappaport BA, Rowbotham MC, Sampaio C, Sweeney M, Turk DC, Dworkin RH. Adverse event assessment, analysis, and reporting in recent published analgesic clinical trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations. Pain 2013; 154:997-1008. [PMID: 23602344 DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2013.03.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 48] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2013] [Revised: 02/28/2013] [Accepted: 03/01/2013] [Indexed: 11/18/2022]
Abstract
The development of valid and informative treatment risk-benefit profiles requires consistent and thorough information about adverse event (AE) assessment and participants' AEs during randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Despite a 2004 extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement recommending the specific AE information that investigators should report, there is little evidence that analgesic RCTs adequately adhere to these recommendations. This systematic review builds on prior recommendations by describing a comprehensive checklist for AE reporting developed to capture clinically important AE information. Using this checklist, we coded AE assessment methods and reporting in all 80 double-blind RCTs of noninvasive pharmacologic treatments published in the European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and PAIN® from 2006 to 2011. Across all trials, reports of AEs were frequently incomplete, inconsistent across trials, and, in some cases, missing. For example, >40% of trials failed to report any information on serious adverse events. Trials of participants with acute or chronic pain conditions and industry-sponsored trials typically provided more and better-quality AE data than trials involving pain-free volunteers or trials that were not industry sponsored. The results of this review suggest that improved AE reporting is needed in analgesic RCTs. We developed an ACTTION (Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks) AE reporting checklist that is intended to assist investigators in thoroughly and consistently capturing and reporting these critically important data in publications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shannon M Smith
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
35
|
Loke YK. Lack of clarity in reports of adverse events: Is there any harm? Pain 2013; 154:183-184. [DOI: 10.1016/j.pain.2012.10.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/10/2012] [Revised: 10/17/2012] [Accepted: 10/26/2012] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
|