Identification, collection, and reporting of harms among non-industry-sponsored randomized clinical trials of pharmacologic interventions in the critically ill population: a systematic review

Use of the Win Ratio Analysis in Critical Care Trials

Composite outcomes are commonly used in critical care trials to estimate the treatment effect of an intervention. A significant limitation of classical analytic approaches is that they assign equal statistical importance to each component in a composite, even if these do not have the same clinical importance (i.e., in a composite of death and organ failure, death is clearly more important). The win ratio (WR) method has been proposed as an alternative for trial outcomes evaluation, as it effectively assesses events based on their clinical relevance (i.e., hierarchical order) by comparing each patient in the intervention group with their counterparts in the control group. This statistical approach is increasingly used in cardiovascular outcome trials. However, WR may be useful to unveil treatment effects also in the critical care setting, because these trials are typically moderately sized, thus limiting the statistical power to detect small differences between groups, and often rely on composite outcomes that include several components of different clinical importance. Notably, the advantages of this approach may be offset by several drawbacks (such as ignoring ties and difficulties in selecting and ranking endpoints) and challenges in appropriate clinical interpretation (i.e., establishing clinical meaningfulness of the observed effect size). In this perspective article, we present some key elements to implementing WR statistics in critical care trials, providing an overview of strengths, drawbacks, and potential applications of this method. To illustrate, we conduct a reevaluation of the HYPO-ECMO (Hypothermia during Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation) trial using the WR framework as a case example.

Seeking adverse effects in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions: a cross-sectional study (part 1)

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews that assess the benefits of interventions often do not completely capture all dimensions of the adverse effects. This cross-sectional study (part 1 of 2 studies) assessed whether adverse effects were sought, whether the findings on these effects were reported, and what types of adverse effects were identified in systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions.

METHODS

Systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions on human patients of any health status, sex, age, and demographics, and socio-economic status, in any type of setting assessing any type of adverse effect scored at any endpoint or timing were eligible. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and 5 leading orthodontic journals were manually searched for eligible reviews between August 1 2009 and July 31 2021. Study selection and data extraction was conducted by two researchers independently. Prevalence proportions were calculated for four outcomes on seeking and reporting of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions. Univariable logistic regression models were used to determine the association between each one of these outcomes and the journal in which the systematic review was published using the eligible Cochrane reviews as reference.

RESULTS

Ninety-eight eligible systematic reviews were identified. 35.7% (35/98) of reviews defined seeking of adverse effects as a research objective, 85.7% (84/98) sought adverse effects, 84.7% (83/98) reported findings related to adverse effects, and 90.8% (89/98) considered or discussed potential adverse effects in the review. Reviews in the journal Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research compared with Cochrane reviews had approximately 7 times the odds (OR 7.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 47.96) to define seeking of adverse effects in the research objectives. Five of the 12 categories of adverse effects accounted for 83.1% (162/195) of all adverse effects sought and reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the majority of included reviews sought and reported adverse effects of orthodontic interventions, end-users of these reviews should beware that these findings do not give the complete spectrum on these effects and that they could be jeopardized by the risk of non-systematically assessing and reporting of adverse effects in these reviews and in the primary studies that feed them. Much research is ahead such as developing core outcome sets on adverse effects of interventions for both primary studies and systematic reviews.

CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration: updated guideline for the reporting of harms in randomized trials

Randomized controlled trials remain the reference standard for healthcare research on effects of interventions, and the need to report both benefits and harms is essential. The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (the main CONSORT) statement includes one item on reporting harms (i.e., all important harms or unintended effects in each group). In 2004, the CONSORT group developed the CONSORT Harms extension; however, it has not been consistently applied and needs to be updated. Here, we describe CONSORT Harms 2022, which replaces the CONSORT Harms 2004 checklist, and shows how CONSORT Harms 2022 items could be incorporated into the main CONSORT checklist. Thirteen items from the main CONSORT were modified to improve harms reporting. Three new items were added. In this article, we describe CONSORT Harms 2022 and how it was integrated into the main CONSORT checklist and elaborate on each item relevant to complete reporting of harms in randomized controlled trials. Until future work from the CONSORT group produces an updated checklist, authors, journal reviewers, and editors of randomized controlled trials should use the integrated checklist presented in this paper.

Drug safety in multiple sclerosis: From reporting to signal detection and benefit-risk management

BACKGROUND

Pharmacovigilance (PV) rules emerged in the late 60s-early 70s. Since that time, the World Health Organization Center for International Drug Monitoring carries out the corresponding tasks. Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic inflammatory demyelinating disease of the central nervous system that generally starts in young adults between 20 and 40 years of age. Over the last 25 years, MS patients have benefited from the development of a plethora of disease modifying drugs (DMD). These changes in the therapeutic armamentarium have been associated with some serious adverse reactions challenging health authorities and neurologists involved in treatment and care for MS patients.

METHODS

The present review aims to describe, for MS DMDs, how adverse drug reactions are reported during clinical trials and the post-marketing period and how important signal detection and benefit-risk management have been in this disease until now. Several examples are reported to illustrate the different steps of PV processes.

CONCLUSION

Improvement of the PV system procedures has led to significant progress in the detection of signals, allowing better assessment of the benefit-risk balance and the implementation of risk management plans for MS treatments. The involvement of neurologists is essential to improve knowledge on the benefit-risk balance of these drugs. In addition, adverse drug reactions reporting by persons with MS should be encouraged.

What should we report? Lessons learnt from the development and implementation of serious adverse event reporting procedures in non-pharmacological trials in palliative care

Background/aims

Serious adverse event reporting guidelines have largely been developed for pharmaceutical trials. There is evidence that serious adverse events, such as psychological distress, can also occur in non-pharmaceutical trials. Managing serious adverse event reporting and monitoring in palliative care non-pharmaceutical trials can be particularly challenging. This is because patients living with advanced malignant or non-malignant disease have a high risk of hospitalisation and/or death as a result of progression of their disease rather than due to the trial intervention or procedures. This paper presents a number of recommendations for managing serious adverse event reporting that are drawn from two palliative care non-pharmacological trials.

Methods

The recommendations were iteratively developed across a number of exemplar trials. This included examining national and international safety reporting guidance, reviewing serious adverse event reporting procedures from other pharmacological and non-pharmacological trials, a review of the literature and collaboration between the ACTION study team and Data Safety Monitoring Committee. These two groups included expertise in oncology, palliative care, statistics and medical ethics and this collaboration led to the development of serious adverse event reporting procedures.

Results

The recommendations included; allowing adequate time at the study planning stage to develop serious adverse event reporting procedures, especially in multi-national studies or research naïve settings; reviewing the level of trial oversight required; defining what a serious adverse event is in your trial based on your study population; development and implementation of standard operating procedures and training; refining the reporting procedures during the trial if necessary and publishing serious adverse events in findings papers.

Conclusions

There is a need for researchers to share their experiences of managing this challenging aspect of trial conduct. This will ensure that the processes for managing serious adverse event reporting are continually refined and improved so optimising patient safety.

Trial registration

ACTION trial registration number: ISRCTN63110516 (date of registration 03/10/2014).

Namaste trial registration number: ISRCTN14948133 (date of registration 04/10/2017).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12904-021-00714-5.