Adiponectin negatively regulates pigmentation, Wnt/β-catenin and HGF/c-Met signalling within human scalp hair follicles ex vivo

Adiponectin reportedly stimulates proliferation and elongation of human scalp hair follicles (HFs) ex vivo. In the current study, we investigated how adiponectin oligomers produced by perifollicular dermal white adipose tissue (dWAT), a potent source of adiponectin isoforms, influence human HF proliferation and pigmentation. To do so, we treated microdissected, organ-cultured HFs in the presence or absence of dWAT with a recombinant human adiponectin oligomer mix, or inhibited dWAT-derived adiponectin using a neutralizing antibody. Multiplex qPCR (Fluidigm) revealed that adiponectin oligomers downregulated pigmentation genes KITLG, PMEL and TYRP1 and Wnt genes AXIN2, LEF1 and WNT10B. In situ hybridization showed that adiponectin downregulated AXIN2 and LEF1, and up-regulated DKK1 within the dermal papilla (DP), a highly unusual transcriptional profile for a putative hair growth-promoting agent. Adiponectin oligomers also downregulated protein expression of the HGF receptor c-Met within the matrix and DP. However, adiponectin did not alter hair matrix keratinocyte proliferation within 48 h ex vivo, irrespective of the presence/absence of dWAT; HF pigmentation (Masson-Fontana histochemistry, tyrosinase activity) was also unchanged. In contrast, neutralizing adiponectin isoforms within HF + dWAT increased proliferation, melanin content and tyrosinase activity but resulted in fewer melanocytes and melanocytic dendrites, as assessed by gp100 immunostaining. These seemingly contradictory effects suggest that adiponectin exerts complex effects upon human HF biology, likely in parallel with the pro-pigmentation effects of dWAT- and DP-derived HGF. Our data suggest that dWAT-derived ratios of adiponectin isoforms and the cleaved, globular version of adiponectin may in fact determine how adiponectin impacts upon follicular pigmentation and growth.

Real-world evidence of biological agents in dermatology: A review of its applications, advantages, and limitations

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are regarded as the gold standard of evidence-based medicine. However, the disadvantages of RCTs have been well-documented for a lengthy period of time. Due to the carefully controlled conditions, a small group of patients is studied, resulting in a lack of external validity and generalizability. To address this issue, real-world evidence (RWE) has grown in importance as a complement to randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We introduce and describe the databases used by RWE in this post. Applications of RWE are described in following aspects with examples of patients in the use of biological agents with skin diseases: (1) support the safety and efficacy outcomes of RCTs; (2) reveal real-world situations of adverse event management; (3) optimal treatment plans; (4) treatment's real-world cost burden. We also focus on its superiority of generalizability, external validity, and time and economic efficiencies as well as its deficiencies in data resources, study design, and statistical methodologies.

Sensitivity of clinician-assessed efficacy outcome measurement instruments in trials of topical therapies for atopic dermatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The rising prevalence of atopic dermatitis (AD) in developing countries and its substantial socioeconomic impact have furthered research over the last two decades giving way to advances in its aetiopathogenesis and treatment. Topical therapies targeting newly identified AD signalling pathways are being developed. Numerous clinician-assessed disease severity outcome measurement instruments (OMIs) are available to evaluate the efficacy of investigational treatments in proof-of-concept (POC) trials for AD. However, little is known about the comparative sensitivity of these efficacy OMIs. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the sensitivity of different OMIs in controlled trials of topical therapies for AD published between January 1, 2000 and April 7, 2020. Treatment effect size of OMIs reported at Week 4 was calculated with 95% Confidence Interval (CI). The sensitivity of OMIs was compared by pooling the standardized difference between means (Cohen's d and Cohen's h) for any two OMI-parameter combinations that were reported in ≥3 studies identified in our systematic review. Assessed parameters were difference between active and vehicle at Week 4 and change from baseline [CFB] and percentage change from baseline [%CFB] at Week 4. We identified a total of 15 studies with 3313 subjects examining 14 different OMIs were included in this quantitative meta-analysis. Continuous OMIs had a significantly higher treatment effect size vs. dichotomous OMIs (P = 0.006). Comparisons of Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA), body surface area (BSA) and SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) for available parameters were performed and generally had a similar sensitivity, with BSA showing smaller overall effect size estimates. In conclusion, continuous OMIs used in topical clinical trials for AD had significantly higher treatment effect sizes when compared to dichotomous OMIs. Continuous OMIs could provide more power for POC trials with a small sample size in atopic dermatitis with topical therapies.

How prevalent are financial conflicts of interest in dermatology randomized controlled trials? A cross-sectional study

Since the last assessment of conflicts of interest (COIs) in dermatology randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 2004, several countries have introduced transparency databases. We assessed the prevalence of financial COIs in dermatology RCTs and quantified payments from study sponsors to academic/clinical authors using transparency databases, which are available in the USA, France, Australia, Belgium and the Netherlands, while the UK has a noncompulsory transparency database. We included RCTs from the top 10 dermatology journals and the top 7 general medical journals published in 2019. The study assessed 83 RCTs, and COIs were identified in 69%. The highest prevalence was in exclusively industry-funded trials (46/47, 98%), which consisted of personal payments to an academic/clinical author (96% of trials) and having authors who were employees/stockholders (96%). Payments were identified for 31/56 (55%) academic/clinical first/final authors (median payment US$28 746, maximum US$597 299, interquartile range US$17 061-146 253), and 24/31 payments (77%) payments were each > US$10 000.

Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials for the Treatment of Eczema with Chinese Patent Medicine Based on the CONSORT-CHM Formulas 2017

OBJECTIVE

Chinese patent medicine (CPM) has been widely used to treat eczema in mainland China for decades. This study aims to investigate circulating CPM for eczema in mainland China and to evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of them by using the CONSORT-CHM formulas 2017 (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for Chinese herbal medicine formulas 2017).

METHODS

Circulating CPM with the indication for eczema was selected by searching three drug databases and confirmed by contacting the manufacturers. RCTs for the treatment of eczema with CPM were selected in four Chinese literature databases and four English literature databases from their inception to August 31, 2019. The reporting quality of included RCTs was assessed based on the CONSORT-CHM formulas 2017. A univariate analysis was conducted to identify the factors associated with the reporting quality.

RESULTS

A total of 70 circulating CPMs had the indication for eczema. Among them, 21 CPMs with 144 RCTs reached the eligible criteria. The mean overall quality score (OQS) of 144 RCTs was 19.85 ± 2.73, which was much less than the maximum score of 38. Of the 38 items, 12 items were reported in over 70% of the trials, 6 items were reported in 50%-70% of the trials, and 16 items were reported in less than 50% of the trials. Publication after 2015 (P < 0.001) and the first author from a university hospital (P=0.010) were associated with the better reporting quality.

CONCLUSION

There are a lot of circulating CPMs with the indication for eczema in mainland China, but both the quantity and the reporting quality of RCTs regarding those CPMs are suboptimal. It is necessary that authors and journal editors learn and adhere to the CONSORT-CHM formulas 2017 to enhance the reporting quality of RCTs for the treatment of eczema with CPM.

Development and Validation of a Natural Language Processing Tool to Generate the CONSORT Reporting Checklist for Randomized Clinical Trials

IMPORTANCE

Adherence to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) for randomized clinical trials is associated with improvingquality because inadequate reporting in randomized clinical trials may complicate the interpretation and the application of findings to clinical care.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate an automated reporting checklist generation tool that uses natural language processing (NLP), called CONSORT-NLP.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This study used published journal articles as training, testing, and validation sets to develop, refine, and evaluate the CONSORT-NLP tool. Articles reporting randomized clinical trials were selected from 25 high-impact-factor journals under the following categories: (1) general and internal medicine, (2) oncology, and (3) cardiac and cardiovascular systems.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

For an evaluation of the performance of this tool, an accuracy metric defined as the number of correct assessments divided by all assessments was calculated.

RESULTS

The CONSORT-NLP tool uses the widely used Portable Document Format as an input file. Of the 37 CONSORT reporting items, 34 (92%) were included in the tool. Of these 34 reporting items, 30 were fully implemented; 28 (93%) of the fully implemented CONSORT reporting items had an accuracy of more than 90% for the validation set. The remaining 2 (7%) had an accuracy between 80% and 90% for the validation set. Two to 5 articles were selected from each of these journals for a total of 158 articles to establish a training set of 111 articles to train CONSORT-NLP for CONSORT reporting items, a testing set of 25 articles to refine CONSORT-NLP, and a validation set of 22 articles to assess the performance of CONSORT-NLP. The CONSORT-NLP tool used the Portable Document Format of the articles as input files. A CONSORT-NLP graphical user interface was built using Java in 2019. The time required to complete the CONSORT checklist manually vs using the CONSORT-NLP tool was compared for 30 articles. Two case studies for randomized clinical trials are provided as an illustration for the CONSORT-NLP tool. For the 30 articles investigated, CONSORT-NLP required a mean (SD) 23.0 (4.1) seconds, whereas the manual reviewer required a mean (SD) 11.9 (2.2), 22.6 (4.6), and 57.6 (7.1) minutes, for 3 reviewers, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The CONSORT-NLP tool is designed to assist in the reporting of randomized clinical trials. Potential users of CONSORT-NLP include clinicians, researchers, and scientists who plan to publish a randomized trial study in a peer-reviewed journal. The use of CONSORT-NLP may help them save substantial time when generating the CONSORT checklist. This tool may also be useful for manuscript reviewers and journal editors who review these articles.

Quality of reporting for randomised clinical trials published in Latin American and Spanish journals: A protocol for a systematic survey of three clinical specialities

INTRODUCTION

Quality of reporting refers to how published articles communicate how the research was done and what was found. Gaps and imprecisions of reporting hamper the assessment of the methodological quality and internal and external validity. The CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) are a set of evidence-based recommendations of the minimum elements to be included in the reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to ensure a complete and transparent account of what was done, how it was done and what was found. Few studies have been conducted on the impact of CONSORT on RCTs published in Latin American and Spanish journals. We aim to assess the reporting quality of RCTs of three clinical specialities published in Spanish and Latin American journals, as well as to assess changes over time and associations of quality with journal and country indicators.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a systematic survey of all RCTs published in Spanish-language journals in three clinical fields (dentistry, neurology and geriatrics) from 1990 to 2018. We will include RCTs from previous work that has identified all RCTs on these medical fields published in Spain and Latin America. We will update this work via handsearching of relevant journals. Assessment of quality of reporting will be conducted independently and in duplicate using the CONSORT 2010 Statement. We will also extract journal and country indicators. We will conduct descriptive statistics and secondary analyses considering the year, country, and journal of publication, among others.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Universidad de Santiago de Chile's ethics committee approved the protocol. We will disseminate the results of this work in peer-reviewed scientific journals and conference proceedings. We expect to raise awareness among researchers, journal editors and funders on the importance of training in reporting guidelines and using them from the inception of RCT protocols.

Quality of clinical trials for the prevention of keratinocyte cancer

Keratinocyte cancer (KC) is the most common form of cancer in humans. To our knowledge, no previous publications assessing the methodological quality of clinical trials for the prevention of KC have been recently published. We aim to assess the methodological quality of clinical trials focused on the prevention of KC in high-risk groups not receiving immunosuppressive therapy (NRIT) and propose solutions to improve the design of future trials. We searched clinical trials in which the main outcome was the prevention of KC in high-risk NRIT groups using the strategy published in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO registry), CRD42016045981. Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) criteria and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool were used to assess methodological quality. We analyzed 23 clinical trials. We found a high risk of attrition and reporting bias in 86.9% and 60.9% of the trials, respectively. Regarding the CONSORT criteria, in at least 40% of the trials, the authors omitted the following information: a description of the trial design, the number of losses and exclusions after randomization, the results of subgroup and adjusted analysis, the estimated effect size and the precision of primary and secondary outcomes. Methodological quality was improved in the recently published clinical trials compared to those published before the CONSORT criteria development. All clinical trials should report in detail the information used to assess potential risks of bias.

Complete and transparent reporting of primary end points of randomized trials in the dermatology literature: A comparison of registered and published primary end points

BACKGROUND

Appropriate primary end points in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) improve the quality of the measurement and enable comparison of the findings with those of other trials.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the quality of reporting primary end points in RCTs recently published in dermatology journals.

METHODS

We identified 134 primary reports of RCTs among original articles in 4 dermatology journals published from January 2016 to December 2018. Details were extracted from articles, supplements, and trial registries. A multivariable logistic regression analysis was conducted to identify factors associated with adequate primary end point reporting.

RESULTS

Adequate primary end point reporting was conducted in 76 of 134 RCTs (56.7%). Nine missed the definition of primary end points, and 13 did not define the timing of primary end points in the publications. Among 113 RCTs reporting primary end points explicitly in the articles, 16 showed discrepancies between registration and publication, and 21 were not able to valuate prespecification of primary end points. Multicenter studies and sponsor-initiated trials were significantly associated with adequate reporting quality after adjusting for covariates.

LIMITATIONS

Prespecification was evaluated based on a comparison of the article and registry.

CONCLUSIONS

The quality of primary end point reporting, particularly in prespecification, has remained unsatisfactory in the recent dermatology literature.

How is safety of dermatology drugs assessed: trials, registries, and spontaneous reporting

Introduction: Skin conditions are common and highly varied in their etiology; therefore, a diverse array of therapeutics are utilized. Drug safety studies in dermatology can be challenging as there are over 3000 diagnoses to consider. As a result, dermatologists rely on data from multiple sources including clinical trials and real-world evidence.Areas covered: In this review, we cover the main sources of safety data available, their strengths and weaknesses and how dermatologists should utilize such data. We use real-world examples of the different types of adverse events reported and how they are best captured by either randomized controlled trials or post-marketing pharmacovigilance methods. With multiple new therapies in dermatology, such as dupilumab for atopic dermatitis and janus-kinase inhibitors for alopecia areata the specialty is awash with evolving high-level evidence for their use. It is important to understand the optimal way to assess safety from trials but also appreciate the need for ongoing capture of safety data in clinical practice.Expert opinion: In dermatology, there is a plethora of conditions to treat and clinical trials, post-marketing surveillance, such as drug registries and spontaneous reporting, all enable dermatologists to gain a more comprehensive understanding of the safety profiles of drugs being used.

A systematic review shows no performance benefit of machine learning over logistic regression for clinical prediction models

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to compare performance of logistic regression (LR) with machine learning (ML) for clinical prediction modeling in the literature.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We conducted a Medline literature search (1/2016 to 8/2017) and extracted comparisons between LR and ML models for binary outcomes.

RESULTS

We included 71 of 927 studies. The median sample size was 1,250 (range 72-3,994,872), with 19 predictors considered (range 5-563) and eight events per predictor (range 0.3-6,697). The most common ML methods were classification trees, random forests, artificial neural networks, and support vector machines. In 48 (68%) studies, we observed potential bias in the validation procedures. Sixty-four (90%) studies used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) to assess discrimination. Calibration was not addressed in 56 (79%) studies. We identified 282 comparisons between an LR and ML model (AUC range, 0.52-0.99). For 145 comparisons at low risk of bias, the difference in logit(AUC) between LR and ML was 0.00 (95% confidence interval, -0.18 to 0.18). For 137 comparisons at high risk of bias, logit(AUC) was 0.34 (0.20-0.47) higher for ML.

CONCLUSION

We found no evidence of superior performance of ML over LR. Improvements in methodology and reporting are needed for studies that compare modeling algorithms.