The need for publishing the silent evidence from negative trials

Results Blind Science Publishing

Problems in science publishing involving publication bias, null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), and irreproducibility of reported results have been widely cited. Numerous attempts to ameliorate these problems have included statistical methods to assess and correct for publication bias, and recommendation or development of statistical methodologies to replace NHST where some journals have even instituted a policy of banning manuscripts reporting use of NHST. In an effort to mitigate these problems, a policy of "results blind evaluation" of manuscripts submitted to journals is recommended, in which results reported in manuscripts are given no weight in the decision as to the suitability of the manuscript for publication. Weight would be given exclusively to (a) the judged importance of the research question addressed in the study, typically conveyed in the Introduction section of the manuscript, and (b) the quality of the methodology of the study, including appropriateness of data analysis methods, as reported in the Methods section. As a practical method of implementing such a policy, a two-stage process is suggested whereby the editor initially distributes only the Introduction and Methods sections of a submitted manuscript to reviewers for evaluation and a provisional decision regarding acceptance or rejection for publication is made. A second stage of review follows in which the complete manuscript is distributed for review but only if the decision of the first stage is for acceptance with no more than minor revision.

Beyond Ether and Chloroform-A Major Breakthrough With Halothane

BACKGROUND

The use of equipment powered by electricity in the operating room increased the risk of fires in the presence of flammable agents such as ether and cyclopropane. Chloroform was associated with cardiac arrhythmias and liver damage. The introduction of halothane in the late 1950s was heralded as a solution to many problems facing the specialty of anesthesia. We explore whether the manufacturer promptly reported halothane's adverse effects to regulatory agencies and practitioners.

SOURCES

We consulted documents submitted by Ayerst Laboratories to federal authorities through the Freedom of Information Act, promotional advertisements, package inserts, published articles, and textbooks.

RESULTS

Two major complications associated with the use of halothane, cardiac arrhythmias and the risk of hepatotoxicity, were disclosed by the manufacturer when the drug was first introduced to the US market. Reports appeared timely and complete; there was no apparent attempt to conceal or otherwise downplay these risks.

CONCLUSION

The process of drug discovery and approval for clinical use has always been a lengthy, complex, and extremely expensive undertaking, with only a small minority of compounds receiving approval. The risk of adverse effects or drug interaction directly impacts commercial viability. In the case of halothane, the manufacturer disclosed major adverse effects, and the drug enjoyed decades of popularity until it was replaced by agents with a better drug profile.

Unexplored areas of psychotherapy in bipolar disorder

Several psychological interventions-including group psychoeducation, family-focused psychoeducation, and interpersonal social-rhythm therapy-have demonstrated prophylactic efficacy as an adjunct to medication in bipolar disorders (BDs). The field of psychological interventions for BD has experienced impressive progress over the last 15 years. Certain unexplored areas, however, require further research in order to establish the full potential of psychological interventions for BD. Such research should focus, among other things, on cognitive impairment associated with BD, BD in the elderly, comorbid anxiety disorders and other comorbidities, the treatment of BD in pregnant women, and the improvement of patients' overall physical health.

Antipsychotic switching in bipolar disorders: a systematic review

With the increasingly widespread use of antipsychotics in bipolar disorder (BD), switching among these agents and between antipsychotics and mood stabilizers has become more common, in particular, since the introduction of the novel atypical antipsychotics with mood stabilizer properties. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive update of the current literature in BD about the switching of antipsychotics, among them and between them and mood stabilizers, in acute and maintenance treatment. We conducted a comprehensive, computerized literature search using terms related to antipsychotic switching in BD in the PubMed/Medline, PsycINFO, CINAHL database; the Cochrane Library and; the Clinicaltrials.gov web up to January 9th, 2013 according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The search returned 4160 articles. After excluding duplications, reviews, case reports and studies that did not fulfil the selection criteria, 8 studies were included. Not only have few articles on antipsychotic switching been published but also recruitment in most studies included mixed samples of patients. In general, antipsychotic switching, regardless of the route of drug administration, was well tolerated and no interference was shown in antipsychotic effectiveness during the interchange of drugs. Metabolic improvement was perceived when the switch involved antipsychotics with a low metabolic risk profile. The evidence-base for antipsychotic switching in BD is scant, and little controlled data is available. Switch from quetiapine to lithium and from risperidone to olanzapine has proven successful. Switching to antipsychotics with low metabolic risk had some positive impact on several safety measures. In stabilized patients, the plateau cross-taper switch may be preferred.

Credibility of industry-funded clinical trials

If the pharmaceutical industry does not adhere to strict ethical standards both internally and externally when collaborating with academia, the public's trust will be further eroded.

Publication bias, with a focus on psychiatry: causes and solutions

Publication bias undermines the integrity of the evidence base by inflating apparent drug efficacy and minimizing drug harms, thus skewing the risk-benefit ratio. This paper reviews the topic of publication bias with a focus on drugs prescribed for psychiatric conditions, especially depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and autism. Publication bias is pervasive; although psychiatry/psychology may be the most seriously afflicted field, it occurs throughout medicine and science. Responsibility lies with various parties (authors as well as journals, academia as well as industry), so the motives appear to extend beyond the financial interests of drug companies. The desire for success, in combination with cognitive biases, can also influence academic authors and journals. Amid the flood of new medical information coming out each day, the attention of the news media and academic community is more likely to be captured by studies whose results are positive or newsworthy. In the peer review system, a fundamental flaw arises from the fact that authors usually write manuscripts after they know the results. This allows hindsight and other biases to come into play, so data can be "tortured until they confess" (a detailed example is given). If a "publishable" result cannot be achieved, non-publication remains an option. To address publication bias, various measures have been undertaken, including registries of clinical trials. Drug regulatory agencies can provide valuable unpublished data. It is suggested that journals borrow from the FDA review model. Because the significance of study results biases reviewers, results should be excluded from review until after a preliminary judgment of study scientific quality has been rendered, based on the original study protocol. Protocol publication can further enhance the credibility of the published literature.

Lower rate of depressive switch following antimanic treatment with second-generation antipsychotics versus haloperidol

BACKGROUND

Treatment of acute mania with second-generation antipsychotics has been claimed to involve a lower risk of switch to depression than haloperidol. However, clinical guidelines clearly state that this is not a proven fact.

METHODS

Meta-analysis of double-blind randomized controlled trials in acute mania, comparing rates of switch to depression with atypical antipsychotics and with haloperidol. Search was conducted in MEDLINE and CENTRAL databases (last search: September 2011).

RESULTS

8 randomized clinical trials fulfilled inclusion criteria. 2 of them were excluded because of low methodological quality or lack of data. 5 second-generation antipsychotics (aripiprazole, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone, and ziprasidone) were compared to haloperidol. In the mixed effects model the Risk Ratio for depressive switch was 0.71 (0.52, 0.96) favouring atypical antipsychotics. In the random effects model the difference did not reach statistical significance. In the heterogeneity analysis, exclusion of an outlying aripiprazole trial yielded a Risk Ratio of 0.58 (0.42, 0.82) with a non-significant heterogeneity test. Although no atypical antipsychotic was individually significantly superior to haloperidol, a trend could be seen favouring olanzapine (RR=0.56 [0.29, 1.08]), quetiapine (RR=0.36 [0.10, 1.33]), and ziprasidone (RR=0.51 [0.22, 1.18]).

LIMITATIONS

All trials were industry supported, with some variability in dosage of haloperidol. Switch to depression was not the primary outcome of the trials. Heterogeneity could be explained as a lack of class-effect for atypicals.

CONCLUSIONS

Treating acute mania with atypicals is associated to 42% less risk of switch to depression than with haloperidol. Nevertheless, caution should be taken when considering this a class effect, as only olanzapine, quetiapine, and ziprasidone may show a better profile.