Assessment of Adverse Events in Protocols, Clinical Study Reports, and Published Papers of Trials of Orlistat: A Document Analysis

The inhibitory activity of Flos Sophorae Immaturus extract and its major flavonoid components on pancreatic lipase

Inhibition of pancreatic lipase (PL) is a strategy to prevent obesity. The inhibitory effects of Flos Sophorae Immaturus (FSI) extract and its main flavonoid components, rutin and quercetin, on PL were investigated. The contents of rutin and quercetin in FSI extract were 44.10 ± 1.33 % and 6.07 ± 1.62 %, respectively. The IC50 values of FSI extract, rutin and quercetin on PL were 322, 258 and 71 μg/mL, respectively. Rutin and quercetin inhibited PL in a reversible and noncompetitive manner. The combination of rutin and quercetin exhibited synergistic inhibitory effects at low concentration. The binding of rutin/quercetin with PL caused the fluorescence quenching of protein. Fluorescence titration showed the binding affinity of quercetin with PL protein was stronger than that of rutin. Circular dichroism analysis showed the binding changed the secondary structure of PL with an increase in random coil and a decrease in α-Helix and β-Sheet. Molecular docking revealed that rutin and quercetin could interact with the amino acid residues around the catalytic site through multiple secondary interactions. In vivo studies showed that FSI extract can reduce fat absorption and promote fecal fat excretion through inhibition of PL activity, and the effects were mainly due to rutin and quercetin.

Anti-obesity effects of Celosia cristata flower extract in vitro and in vivo

BACKGROUND

The overstoring of surplus calories in mature adipocytes causes obesity and abnormal metabolic activity. The anti-obesity effect of a Celosia cristata (CC) total flower extract was assessed in vitro, using 3T3-L1 pre-adipocytes and mouse adipose-derived stem cells (ADSCs), and in vivo, using high-fat diet (HFD)-treated C57BL/6 male mice.

METHODS

CC extract was co-incubated during adipogenesis in both 3T3-L1 cells and ADSCs. After differentiation, lipid droplets were assessed by oil red O staining, adipogenesis and lipolytic factors were evaluated, and intracellular triglyceride and glycerol concentrations were analyzed. For in vivo experiments, histomorphological analysis, mRNA expression levels of adipogenic and lipolytic factors in adipose tissue, blood plasma analysis, metabolic profiles were investigated.

RESULTS

CC treatment significantly prevented adipocyte differentiation and lipid droplet accumulation, reducing adipogenesis-related factors and increasing lipolysis-related factors. Consequently, the intracellular triacylglycerol content was diminished, whereas the glycerol concentration in the cell supernatant increased. Mice fed an HFD supplemented with the CC extract exhibited decreased HFD-induced weight gain with metabolic abnormalities such as intrahepatic lipid accumulation and adipocyte hypertrophy. Improved glucose utilization and insulin sensitivity were observed, accompanied by the amelioration of metabolic disturbances, including alterations in liver enzymes and lipid profiles, in CC-treated mice. Moreover, the CC extract helped restore the disrupted energy metabolism induced by the HFD, based on a metabolic animal monitoring system.

CONCLUSION

This study suggests that CC total flower extract is a potential natural herbal supplement for the prevention and management of obesity.

Adverse effects with semaglutide: a protocol for a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis

INTRODUCTION

Semaglutide is increasingly used for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus, overweight and other conditions. It is well known that semaglutide lowers blood glucose levels and leads to significant weight loss. Still, a systematic review has yet to investigate the adverse effects with semaglutide for all patient groups.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will conduct a systematic review and search major medical databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, Science Citation Index Expanded, Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science) and clinical trial registries from their inception and onwards to identify relevant randomised clinical trials. We expect to conduct the literature search in July 2024. Two review authors will independently extract data and perform risk-of-bias assessments. We will include randomised clinical trials comparing oral or subcutaneous semaglutide versus placebo. Primary outcomes will be all-cause mortality and serious adverse events. Secondary outcomes will be myocardial infarction, stroke, all-cause hospitalisation and non-serious adverse events. Data will be synthesised by meta-analyses and trial sequential analysis; risk of bias will be assessed with Cochrane Risk of Bias tool-version 2, an eight-step procedure will be used to assess if the thresholds for statistical and clinical significance are crossed, and the certainty of the evidence will be assessed by Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This protocol does not present any results. Findings of this systematic review will be published in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42024499511.

Harms Reporting in Systematic Reviews of the Microvascular Free Flap in Head and Neck Reconstruction

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) of microvascular free flap (MFF) in head and neck reconstruction.

DATA SOURCES

This cross-sectional analysis included searches from the following major databases from 2012 to June 1, 2022: MEDLINE (Pubmed and Ovid), Embase, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

REVIEW METHODS

In a masked duplicate manner, screening was performed using Rayyan, and data were extracted using a pilot-tested Google form. A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2 (AMSTAR-2) was used to appraise the methodological quality of reviews and the corrected covered area was calculated to detect primary study overlap across all reviews. Reviews were then grouped in pairs of 2, called dyads, and the corrected covered area was calculated again for each individual dyad. Dyads with high overlap (≥50%) were further investigated for the accuracy of harms reporting.

RESULTS

Our initial search yielded 268 records, with 50 SRs meeting the inclusion criteria. A total of 46 (92%) of the included reviews demonstrated 50% or more adherence to the items assessed in our harms checklist. Our corrected covered area tool revealed 0.6% primary study overlap across all reviews, and 1 dyad with high overlap (≥50%). No statistically significant relationship was observed between the completeness of harms reporting and reviews listing harms as a primary outcome, reviews reporting adherence to Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, or a review's AMSTAR rating.

CONCLUSION

This study identifies how harms reporting in SRs of MFF reconstruction of the head and neck can be improved and provides suggestions with the potential to mitigate the paucity in current literature.

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.

Clinical study reports published by the European Medicines Agency 2016-2018: a cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVES

To describe the characteristics of clinical study report (CSR) documents published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and for included pivotal trials, to quantify the timeliness of access to trial results from CSRs compared with conventional published sources.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of CSR documents published by the EMA from 2016 to 2018.

METHODS

CSR files and medication summary information were downloaded from the EMA. Individual trials in each submission were identified using document filenames. Number and length of documents and trials were determined. For pivotal trials, trial phase, dates of EMA document publication and matched journal and registry publications were obtained.

RESULTS

The EMA published documents on 142 medications that were submitted for regulatory drug approval. Submissions were for initial marketing authorisations in 64.1%. There was a median of 15 (IQR 5-46) documents, 5 (IQR 2-14) trials and 9629 (IQR 2711-26,673) pages per submission, and a median of 1 (IQR 1-4) document and 336 (IQR 21-1192) pages per trial. Of all identified pivotal trials, 60.9% were phase 3 and 18.5% were phase 1. Of 119 unique submissions to the EMA, 46.2% were supported by a single pivotal trial, with 13.4% based on a single pivotal phase 1 trial. No trial registry results were identified for 26.1% trials, no journal publications for 16.7% and 13.5% of trials had neither. EMA publication was the earliest information source for 5.8% of pivotal trials, available a median 523 days (IQR 363-882 days) before the earliest publication.

CONCLUSIONS

The EMA Clinical Data website contains lengthy clinical trial documents. Almost half of submissions to the EMA were based on single pivotal trials, many of which were phase 1 trials. CSRs were the only source and a timelier source of information for many trials. Access to unpublished trial information should be open and timely to support decision-making for patients.

Conducting separate reviews of benefits and harms could improve systematic reviews and meta-analyses

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.

Harms reporting by systematic reviews for functional endoscopic sinus surgery: a cross-sectional analysis

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the completeness of harms reporting in systematic reviews (SRs) pertaining to functional endoscopic sinus surgery (FESS).

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional study design, we performed a comprehensive search using MEDLINE (PubMed and Ovid), EMBASE, Epistemonikos, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews databases for SRs regarding FESS on May 15th, 2022. Returns were screened and data were extracted in a masked, duplicate manner. Following established methodology, we extracted general study characteristics, harms items, and overall methodological quality for each SR in our sample. Corrected covered area (CCA) was calculated for SR dyads. For data analysis, using Stata 16.1 we performed a bivariate analysis between variables.

RESULTS

Fifty-five SR's were included in our sample after excluding 375 studies that did not meet our inclusion criteria. Of the included SRs, 19 (19/55, 34.5%) did not report harms and 39 (39/55, 70.9%) reported half of the harms items or fewer. Our study found that 23 (23/55, 41.8%) of SRs demonstrated a method of harms data collection, 26 (26/55, 47.3%) of SRs had patients available for harms analysis in their results, and 25 (25/55, 45.5%) of SRs had a balanced discussion of harms and benefits of FESS. Fifty-two SRs were appraised as "critically low" quality using AMSTAR-2. A significant association was found between completeness of harms reporting (Mahady) and whether harms were listed as a primary outcome. No other associations were statistically significant. Two SR dyads had CCAs between 20% and 50% overlap and were compared for unique and shared harms.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study demonstrates gaps in harms reporting regarding FESS in SRs. We recommend future studies implement guidelines such as the STROCCS guidelines or the harms extension of the PRISMA guidelines to improve harms reporting. Accurate harms reporting may advance patient safety and promote a more objective risk-benefit analysis for physicians and patients.

Biases in reporting of adverse effects in clinical trials, and potential impact on safety assessments in systematic reviews and therapy guidelines

BACKGROUND

Clinical trials are an important source of adverse effects data, including analyses in systematic reviews and recommendations in therapy guidelines. Trial publication bias may have profound effects on safety perceptions. This MiniReview presents and discusses biases in reporting of safety data in clinical trials and the implications for systematic reviews and guidelines.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this work are to analyse risk of gastrointestinal bleeding in systemic corticosteroid trials and to assess adverse effects reporting in a fluoxetine trial in depression (Treatment for Adolescents With Depression Study [TADS]) and descriptions of adverse effects in adolescent depression therapy guidelines.

METHODS

We performed literature reviews and descriptive analyse of clinical trials with corticosteroids, and publications from the TADS trial. Risk of gastrointestinal bleeding from corticosteroids was analysed by meta-analysis.

FINDINGS

Gastrointestinal bleeding definitions varied considerably between trials. The incidence was significantly increased in hospitalized, but not in ambulant, patients compared to placebo. We identified several biases concerning TADS safety reporting, including severity thresholds and nonpublication of most adverse effects data beyond the initial 12 weeks. Therapy guidelines on adolescent depression mentioned suicidality risk, but many failed to mention other adverse effects.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified several pitfalls in adverse effects reporting in clinical trials. These include heterogeneous disease definitions, reporting thresholds, and incomplete reporting. Trial bias may have great impact on risk assessments in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Harms in Systematic Reviews Paper 1: An introduction to research on harms

OBJECTIVE

Most systematic reviews of interventions focus on potential benefits. Common methods and assumptions that are appropriate for assessing benefits can be inappropriate for harms. This paper provides a primer on researching harms, particularly in systematic reviews.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Commentary describing challenges with assessing harm.

RESULTS

Investigators should be familiar with various terminologies used to describe, classify, and group harms. Published reports of clinical trials include limited information about harms, so systematic reviewers should not depend on these studies and journal articles to reach conclusions about harms. Visualizations might improve communication of multiple dimensions of harms such as severity, relatedness, and timing.

CONCLUSION

The terminology, classification, detection, collection, and reporting of harms create unique challenges that take time, expertise, and resources to navigate in both primary studies and evidence syntheses. Systematic reviewers might reach incorrect conclusions if they focus on evidence about harms found in published reports of randomized trials of a particular health problem. Systematic reviews could be improved through better identification and reporting of harms in primary studies and through better training and uptake of appropriate methods for synthesizing evidence about harms.

Semaglutide 2.4 Mg for the Management of Overweight and Obesity: Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Semaglutide has demonstrated safe and effective weight loss for overweight and obesity, including participants with concomitant type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), in randomized placebo-controlled trials (RCTs). We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) and network meta-analyses (NMA) to compare weekly semaglutide 2.4 mg with pharmacological comparators for weight management in overweight or obesity.

METHODS

The SLR was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) checklist. NMAs were performed to compare weight change for semaglutide 2.4 mg with comparators using data identified in the SLR. The populations of interest were total population, normal glucose tolerance, non-T2DM, pre-diabetes, and T2DM. Included outcomes were weight change from baseline (CFB, %) at 52 weeks and proportion of participants losing ≥5% baseline fasting body weight at 12 weeks (at full therapeutic dose).

RESULTS

The SLR identified 108 RCTs examining non-surgical interventions, of which 41 were considered for inclusion in the NMAs. In all populations, semaglutide 2.4 mg was associated with a greater percentage weight CFB with 52 weeks of treatment versus all available comparators. In all populations, semaglutide was associated with a higher likelihood of participants losing ≥5% of baseline fasting body weight at 12 weeks versus all available comparators.

CONCLUSION

In NMA, semaglutide 2.4 mg demonstrated effective weight loss (≥5%) in the total population and all subpopulations of glucose tolerance versus active comparators. Semaglutide is an effective treatment that may address unmet need in the management of overweight and obesity.

Does Methylphenidate Work in Children and Adolescents with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder?

OBJECTIVE

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common psychiatric disorder diagnosed in increasing proportions of children and adolescents. The psychostimulant methylphenidate has been considered the first-line pharmacological treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD for more than 60 years. Considering recent publications on methylphenidate for ADHD, we here give an overview of its effects in children and adolescents with ADHD, elicited by a well-disputed Cochrane review and narratively synthesise the evidence in the field.

METHOD

We searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses that investigated methylphenidate as an intervention for children and adolescence with ADHD compared with placebo or no treatment. We assessed the quality of the evidence using AMSTAR II.

RESULTS

We found 24 eligible systematic reviews and meta-analyses of which 11 were rated as high- quality evidence according to AMSTAR II. The evidence claiming that methylphenidate is beneficial in treating children and adolescents with ADHD was of very low certainty. The underreporting of adverse events in randomised clinical trials may impede an adequate depiction of the balance between benefits and harms.

CONCLUSIONS

It appears that there is uncertain evidence on group-level to support the claim that methylphenidate is beneficial in treating children and adolescents with ADHD. Future randomised clinical trials and systematic reviews should include individual participant data, which would allow us to assess intervention effects across modifiers, like age, sex, ADHD subtypes, comorbidities, and dose.

Reporting of harms in oncological clinical study reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency compared to trial registries and publications-a methodological review

BACKGROUND

An accurate and comprehensive assessment of harms is a fundamental part of an accurate weighing of benefits and harms of an intervention when making treatment decisions; however, harms are known to be underreported in journal publications. Therefore, we sought to compare the completeness of reporting of harm data, discrepancies in harm data reported, and the delay to access results of oncological clinical trials between three sources: clinical study reports (CSRs), clinical trial registries and journal publications.

METHODS

We used the EMA clinical data website to identify all trials submitted to the EMA between 2015 and 2018. We retrieved all CSRs and included all phase II, II/III or III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing targeted therapy and immunotherapy for cancer. We then identified related records in clinical trial registries and journals. We extracted harms data for eight pre-specified variables and determined the completeness of reporting of harm data in each of the three sources.

RESULTS

We identified 42 RCTs evaluating 13 different drugs. Results were available on the EMA website in CSRs for 37 (88%) RCTs, ClinicalTrials.gov for 36 (86%), the European Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) for 20 (48%) and in journal publications for 32 (76%). Harms reporting was more complete in CSRs than other sources. We identified marked discrepancies in harms data between sources, e.g. the number of patients discontinuing due to adverse events differed in CSRs and clinical trial registers for 88% of trials with data in both sources. For CSRs and publications, the corresponding number was 90%. The median (interquartile range) delay between the primary trial completion date and access to results was 4.34 (3.09-7.22) years for CSRs, 2.94 (1.16-4.52) years for ClinicalTrials.gov, 5.39 (4.18-7.33) years for EUCTR and 2.15 (0.64-5.04) years for publications.

CONCLUSIONS

Harms of recently approved oncological drugs were reported more frequently and in more detail in CSRs than in trial registries and journal publications. Systematic reviews seeking to address harms of oncological treatments should ideally use CSRs as the primary source of data; however, due to problems with access, this is currently not feasible.

Fixed orthodontic retainers and periodontal health

Data sources The following electronic databases were searched from 1946 to 31 August 2019: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Research Register and Pro-Quest Dissertation Abstracts and Thesis database.Study selection The following study designs were eligible: randomised controlled trials (RCTs), controlled clinical trials, cohort studies of prospective and retrospective design, and cross-sectional studies that reported periodontal measurements on patients who received fixed retention after orthodontic therapy. Studies irrespective of their language were selected by two reviewers independently.Data extraction and synthesis Data extraction from the selected studies and risk of bias assessments were performed by two reviewers independently. Specific risk of bias tools were used according to the pertinent research designs of the included studies. Criteria for conducting a meta-analysis were not met and a qualitative synthesis was conducted.Results Twenty-nine studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria; that is, 11 RCTs, four prospective cohort studies, one retrospective cohort study and 13 cross-sectional studies. The quality of the evidence was low for most of the studies included in this review. Contrary to the general consensus, two RCTs, one prospective cohort study and two cross-sectional studies identified poorer periodontal health in patients with fixed orthodontic retainers.Conclusions The authors of this systematic review concluded that fixed orthodontic retainers in the majority of the 29 included studies seemed to be a method of retention that is rather compatible with periodontal health, or at least not related to severe detrimental consequences for the periodontium. No recommendations on the best type of fixed retainer to use could be given. High-quality evidence from long-term studies is necessary to provide definitive conclusions on the relationship between fixed retainers and periodontal health.

Immediate-release methylphenidate for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is characterized by symptoms of inattention or impulsivity or both, and hyperactivity, which affect children, adolescents, and adults. In some countries, methylphenidate is the first option to treat adults with moderate or severe ADHD. However, evidence on the efficacy and adverse events of immediate-release (IR) methylphenidate in the treatment of ADHD in adults is limited and controversial.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy and harms (adverse events) of IR methylphenidate for treating ADHD in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2020, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, eight additional databases and three trial registers. We also searched internal reports on the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration websites. We checked citations of included trials to identify additional trials not captured by the electronic searches.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing IR methylphenidate, at any dose, with placebo or other pharmacological interventions (including extended-release formulations of methylphenidate) for ADHD in adults. Primary outcomes comprised changes in the symptoms of ADHD (efficacy) and harms. Secondary outcomes included changes in the clinical impression of severity and improvement, level of functioning, depression, anxiety and quality of life. Outcomes could have been rated by investigators or participants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors extracted data independently on the characteristics of the trials, participants, interventions; outcomes and financial conflict of interests. We resolved disagreements by discussion or consulting a third review author. We obtained additional, unpublished information from the authors of one included trial that had reported efficacy data in a graph. We calculated mean differences (MDs) or standardized MDs (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data reported on the same or different scales, respectively. We summarized dichotomous variables as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 10 trials published between 2001 and 2016 involving 497 adults with ADHD. Three trials were conducted in Europe and one in Argentina; the remaining trials did not report their location. The RCTs compared IR methylphenidate with placebo, an osmotic-release oral system (OROS) of methylphenidate (an extended-release formulation), an extended-release formulation of bupropion, lithium, and Pycnogenol® (maritime pine bark extract). Participants comprised outpatients, inpatients in addiction treatment, and adults willing to attend an intensive outpatient program for cocaine dependence. The duration of the follow-up ranged from 6 to 18 weeks. IR methylphenidate versus placebo We found very low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may reduce symptoms of ADHD when measured with investigator-rated scales (MD -20.70, 95% CI -23.97 to -17.43; 1 trial, 146 participants; end scores; Adult ADHD Investigator Symptom Report Scale (AISRS), scored from 0 to 54), but the evidence is uncertain. The effect of IR methylphenidate on ADHD symptoms when measured with participant-rated scales was moderate, but the certainty of the evidence is very low (SMD -0.59, 95% CI -1.25 to 0.06; I² = 69%; 2 trials, 138 participants; end scores). There is very low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may reduce the clinical impression of the severity of ADHD symptoms (MD -0.57, 95% CI -0.85 to -0.28; 2 trials, 139 participants; I² = 0%; change and end scores; Clinical Global Impression (CGI)-Severity scale (scored from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse))). There is low-certainty evidence that, compared with placebo, IR methylphenidate may slightly impact the clinical impression of an improvement in symptoms of ADHD (MD -0.94, 95% CI -1.37 to -0.51; 1 trial, 49 participants; end scores; CGI-Improvement scale (scored from 1 (very much improved) to 7 (very much worse))). There is no clear evidence of an effect on anxiety (MD -0.20, 95% CI -4.84 to 4.44; 1 trial, 19 participants; change scores; Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A; scored from 0 to 56); very low-certainty evidence) or depression (MD 2.80, 95% CI -0.09 to 5.69; 1 trial, 19 participants; change scores; Hamilton Depression Scale (HAM-D; scored from 0 to 52); very low-certainty evidence) in analyses comparing IR methylphenidate with placebo. IR methylphenidate versus lithium Compared with lithium, it is uncertain whether IR methylphenidate increases or decreases symptoms of ADHD (MD 0.60, 95% CI -3.11 to 4.31; 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; Conners' Adult ADHD Rating Scale (scored from 0 to 198); very low-certainty evidence); anxiety (MD -0.80, 95% CI -4.49 to 2.89; 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; HAM-A; very low-certainty evidence); or depression (MD -1.20, 95% CI -3.81 to 1.41, 1 trial, 46 participants; end scores; HAM-D scale; very low-certainty evidence). None of the included trials assessed participant-rated changes in symptoms of ADHD, or clinical impression of severity or improvement in participants treated with IR methylphenidate compared with lithium. Adverse events were poorly assessed and reported. We rated all trials at high risk of bias due to selective outcome reporting of harms and masking of outcome assessors (failure to blind outcome assessor to measure adverse events). Overall, four trials with 203 participants who received IR methylphenidate and 141 participants who received placebo described the occurrence of harms. The use of IR methylphenidate in these trials increased the risk of gastrointestinal complications (RR 1.96, 95% CI 1.13 to 2.95) and loss of appetite (RR 1.77, 95% CI 1.06 to 2.96). Cardiovascular adverse events were reported inconsistently, preventing a comprehensive analysis. One trial comparing IR methylphenidate to lithium reported five and nine adverse events, respectively. We considered four trials to have notable concerns of vested interests influencing the evidence, and authors from two trials omitted information related to the sources of funding and conflicts of interest.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no certain evidence that IR methylphenidate compared with placebo or lithium can reduce symptoms of ADHD in adults (low- and very low-certainty evidence). Adults treated with IR methylphenidate are at increased risk of gastrointestinal and metabolic-related harms compared with placebo. Clinicians should consider whether it is appropriate to prescribe IR methylphenidate, given its limited efficacy and increased risk of harms. Future RCTs should explore the long-term efficacy and risks of IR methylphenidate, and the influence of conflicts of interest on reported effects.

Nobody ever questions-Polypharmacy in care homes: A mixed methods evaluation of a multidisciplinary medicines optimisation initiative

BACKGROUND

Nurse-led monitoring of patients for signs and symptoms associated with documented 'undesirable effects' of medicines has potential to prevent avoidable harm, and optimise prescribing.

INTERVENTION

The Adverse Drug Reaction Profile for polypharmacy (ADRe-p) identifies and documents putative adverse effects of medicines commonly prescribed in primary care. Nurses address some problems, before passing ADRe-p to pharmacists and prescribers for review, in conjunction with prescriptions.

OBJECTIVES

We investigated changes in: the number and nature of residents' problems as recorded on ADRe-p; prescription regimens; medicines optimisation: and healthcare costs. We explored aetiologies of problems identified and stakeholders' perspectives.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

In three UK care homes, 19 residents completed the study, December 2018 to May 2019. Two service users, three pharmacists, six nurses gave interviews.

METHODS

This mixed-method process evaluation integrated data from residents' ADRe-ps and medicines charts, at the study's start and 5-10 weeks later.

RESULTS

We recruited three of 27 homes approached and 26 of 45 eligible residents; 19 completed ADRe-p at least twice. Clinical gains were identified for 17/19 residents (mean number of symptoms 3 SD 1.67, range 0-7). Examples included management of: pain (six residents), seizures (three), dyspnoea (one), diarrhoea (laxatives reduced, two), falls (two of five able to stand). One or more medicine was de-prescribed or dose reduced for 12/19 residents. ADRe administration and review cost ~£30 in staff time. ADRe-p helped carers and nurses bring residents' problems to the attention of prescribers.

IMPLICATIONS

ADRe-p relieved unnecessary suffering. It supported carers and nurses by providing a tool to engage with pharmacists and prescribers, and was the only observable strategy for multidisciplinary team working around medicines optimisation. ADRe-p improved care by: a) regular systematic checks and problem documentation; b) information transfer from care home staff to prescribers and pharmacists; c) recording changes.

REGISTRATION

NLM Identifier NCT03955133; ClinicalTrials.gov.

Transparency of Regulatory Data across the European Medicines Agency, Health Canada, and US Food and Drug Administration

Based on an analysis of relevant laws and policies, regulator data portals, and information requests, we find that clinical data, including clinical study reports, submitted to the European Medicines Agency and Health Canada to support approval of medicines are routinely made publicly available.

Effects and mechanisms of edible and medicinal plants on obesity: an updated review

In recent years, obesity has become a global public health issue. It is closely associated with the occurrence of several chronic diseases, such as diabetes and cardiovascular diseases. Some edible and medicinal plants show anti-obesity activity, such as fruits, vegetables, spices, legumes, edible flowers, mushrooms, and medicinal plants. Numerous studies have indicated that these plants are potential candidates for the prevention and management of obesity. The major anti-obesity mechanisms of plants include suppressing appetite, reducing the absorption of lipids and carbohydrates, inhibiting adipogenesis and lipogenesis, regulating lipid metabolism, increasing energy expenditure, regulating gut microbiota, and improving obesity-related inflammation. In this review, the anti-obesity activity of edible and medicinal plants was summarized based on epidemiological, experimental, and clinical studies, with related mechanisms discussed, which provided the basis for the research and development of slimming products. Further studies should focus on the exploration of safer plants with anti-obesity activity and the identification of specific anti-obesity mechanisms.

Benefits and harms of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines: comparison of trial data from clinical study reports with corresponding trial register entries and journal publications

BACKGROUND

No study has looked at differences of pooled estimates-such as meta-analyses-of corresponding study documents of the same intervention. In this study, we compared meta-analyses of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine trial data from clinical study reports with trial data from corresponding trial register entries and journal publications.

METHODS

We obtained clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency and GlaxoSmithKline, corresponding trial register entries from ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding journal publications via the Cochrane Collaboration's Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar and PubMed. Two researchers extracted data. We compared reporting of trial design aspects and 20 prespecified benefit and harm outcomes extracted from each study document type. Risk ratios were calculated with the random effects inverse variance method.

RESULTS

We included study documents from 22 randomized clinical trials and 2 follow-up studies with 95,670 healthy participants and non-HPV vaccine comparators (placebo, HPV vaccine adjuvants and hepatitis vaccines). We obtained 24 clinical study reports, 24 corresponding trial register entries and 23 corresponding journal publications; the median number of pages was 1351 (range 357 to 11,456), 32 (range 11 to 167) and 11 (range 7 to 83), respectively. All 24 (100%) clinical study reports, no (0%) trial register entries and 9 (39%) journal publications reported on all six major design-related biases defined by the Cochrane Handbook version 2011. The clinical study reports reported more inclusion criteria (mean 7.0 vs. 5.8 [trial register entries] and 4.0 [journal publications]) and exclusion criteria (mean 17.8 vs. 11.7 and 5.0) but fewer primary outcomes (mean 1.6 vs. 3.5 and 1.2) and secondary outcomes (mean 8.8 vs. 13.0 and 3.2) than the trial register entries. Results were posted for 19 trial register entries (79%). Compared to the clinical study reports, the trial register entries and journal publications contained 3% and 44% of the seven assessed benefit data points (6879 vs. 230 and 3015) and 38% and 31% of the 13 assessed harm data points (167,550 vs. 64,143 and 51,899). No meta-analysis estimate differed significantly when we compared pooled risk ratio estimates of corresponding study document data as ratios of relative risk.

CONCLUSION

There were no significant differences in the meta-analysis estimates of the assessed outcomes from corresponding study documents. The clinical study reports were the superior study documents in terms of the quantity and the quality of the data they contained and should be used as primary data sources in systematic reviews.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

The protocol for our comparison is registered on PROSPERO as an addendum to our systematic review of the benefits and harms of the HPV vaccines: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/56093_PROTOCOL_20180320.pdf: CRD42017056093. Our systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO on January 2017: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/56093_PROTOCOL_20170030.pdf. Two protocol amendments were registered on PROSPERO on November 2017: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/56093_PROTOCOL_20171116.pdf. Our index of the HPV vaccine studies was published in Systematic Reviews on January 2018: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0675-z. A description of the challenges obtaining the data was published on September 2018: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3694.

Benefits and harms of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines: systematic review with meta-analyses of trial data from clinical study reports

OBJECTIVE

To assess the benefits and harms of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines.

DATA SOURCES

Clinical study reports obtained from the European Medicines Agency and GlaxoSmithKline from 2014 to 2017.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

Randomised trials that compared an HPV vaccine with a placebo or active comparator in healthy participants of all ages.

APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS

Two researchers extracted data and judged risk of bias with the Cochrane tool (version 2011). Risk ratio (RR) estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis.

OUTCOMES

Clinically relevant outcomes in intention to treat populations-including HPV-related cancer precursors irrespective of involved HPV types, treatment procedures and serious and general harms.

RESULTS

Twenty-four of 50 eligible clinical study reports were obtained with 58,412 pages of 22 trials and 2 follow-up studies including 95,670 participants: 79,102 females and 16,568 males age 8-72; 393,194 person-years; and 49 months mean weighted follow-up. We judged all 24 studies to be at high risk of bias. Serious harms were incompletely reported for 72% of participants (68,610/95,670). Nearly all control participants received active comparators (48,289/48,595, 99%). No clinical study report included complete case report forms. At 4 years follow-up, the HPV vaccines reduced HPV-related carcinoma in situ (367 in the HPV vaccine group vs. 490 in the comparator group, RR 0.73 [95% confidence interval, CI, 0.53 to 1.00], number needed to vaccinate [NNV] 387, P = 0.05, I2 = 67%) and HPV-related treatment procedures (1018 vs. 1416, RR 0.71 [95% CI 0.63 to 0.80], NNV 75, P < 0.00001, I2 = 45%). The HPV vaccines increased serious nervous system disorders (exploratory analysis: 72 vs. 46, RR 1.49 [1.02 to 2.16], number needed to harm [NNH] 1325, P = 0.040, I2 = 0%) and general harms (13,248 vs. 12,394, RR 1.07 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.11], NNH 51, P = 0.0002, I2 = 77%) but did not significantly increase fatal harms (45 vs. 38, RR 1.19 [95% CI 0.65 to 2.19], P = 0.58, I2 = 30%) or serious harms (1404 vs. 1357, RR 1.01 [95% CI 0.94 to 1.08], P = 0.79, I2 = 0%).

CONCLUSION

At 4 years follow-up, the HPV vaccines decreased HPV-related cancer precursors and treatment procedures but increased serious nervous system disorders (exploratory analysis) and general harms. As the included trials were primarily designed to assess benefits and were not adequately designed to assess harms, the extent to which the HPV vaccines' benefits outweigh their harms is unclear. Limited access to clinical study reports and trial data with case report forms prevented a thorough assessment.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

CRD42017056093. Our systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO in January 2017: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/56093_PROTOCOL_20170030.pdf. Two protocol amendments were registered on PROSPERO on November 2017: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/56093_PROTOCOL_20171116.pdf. Our index of the HPV vaccine studies was published in Systematic Reviews in January 2018: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0675-z. A description of the challenges obtaining the data was published in September 2018: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.k3694.

Overview: comprehensive and carefully constructed strategies are required when conducting searches for adverse effects data

OBJECTIVES

Methodological research has been undertaken to investigate the many challenges in searching for adverse effects data. It is imperative that the search approach adopted in systematic reviews is based on the best available evidence. We provide a detailed summary of the results and implications of the current evidence base to assist future searches for adverse effects.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This article is a narrative review from the authors of the Cochrane Handbook chapter on adverse effects.

RESULTS

The specified search strategy must be based on the population, intervention, comparator, outcome(s) format for question formulation and appropriate study designs for adverse effects data. Search filters and suggested search terms are available for the adverse effects of drug, medical devices, and surgical interventions. The use of generic adverse effects terms (such as harms and complications) as text words and indexing terms and specific adverse effects terms (such as rash and wound infection) are warranted. Searching databases beyond MEDLINE has proven useful, as well as the use of nondatabase sources.

CONCLUSION

This article provides the most up-to-date evidence-based guidance in identifying adverse effects data in the literature. It will support searchers and researchers evaluating the potential for harm of medical interventions in systematic reviews.

Meta-analysis comparing incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia with ALK inhibitors and chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer

Aim: This meta-analysis compared incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia with ALK inhibitors versus chemotherapy in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer. Materials & methods: PubMed/MEDLINE was searched to identify Phase II and III randomized clinical trials published up to 25 October 2018. Summary incidence, relative risk and corresponding 95% CIs were calculated for grade 3-4 neutropenia. Results: Five randomized clinical trials were included. Relative risk (95% CI) of developing grade 3-4 neutropenia with ALK inhibitor versus chemotherapy was 0.27 (0.07-1.06). Probabilities of developing grade 3-4 neutropenia were 6.56 and 14.19%, respectively; no significant difference was found. Conclusion: In patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, incidence of grade 3-4 neutropenia with ALK-targeted therapy is not significantly different compared with chemotherapy.

Side effect profile and comparative tolerability of 21 antidepressants in the acute treatment of major depression in adults: protocol for a network meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

We have recently compared all second-generation as well as selected first-generation antidepressants in terms of efficacy and acceptability in the acute treatment of major depression. Here we present a protocol for a network meta-analysis aimed at extending these results, updating the evidence base and comparing all second-generation as well as selected first-generation antidepressants in terms of specific adverse events and tolerability in the acute treatment of major depression in adults.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will include all double-blind randomised controlled trials comparing one active drug with another or with placebo in the acute treatment major depression in adults. We will compare the following active agents: agomelatine, amitriptyline, bupropion, citalopram, clomipramine, desvenlafaxine, duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, levomilnacipran, milnacipran, mirtazapine, nefazodone, paroxetine, reboxetine, sertraline, trazodone, venlafaxine, vilazodone and vortioxetine. The main outcomes will include the total number of patients experiencing specific adverse events; experiencing serious adverse events; and experiencing at least one adverse event. Published and unpublished studies will be retrieved through relevant database searches, trial registries and websites; reference selection and data extraction will be completed by at least two independent reviewers. For each outcome we will undertake a network meta-analysis to synthesise all evidence. We will use local and global methods to evaluate consistency. We will perform all analyses in R. We will assess the quality of evidence contributing to network estimates with the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis web application.

DISCUSSION

This work will provide an in- depth analysis and an insight into the specific adverse events of individual antidepressants.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This review does not require ethical approval.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019128141.

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)

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.

Randomized clinical trials with run-in periods: frequency, characteristics and reporting

Background

Run-in periods are occasionally used in randomized clinical trials to exclude patients after inclusion, but before randomization. In theory, run-in periods increase the probability of detecting a potential treatment effect, at the cost of possibly affecting external and internal validity. Adequate reporting of exclusions during the run-in period is a prerequisite for judging the risk of compromised validity. Our study aims were to assess the proportion of randomized clinical trials with run-in periods, to characterize such trials and the types of run-in periods and to assess their reporting.

Materials and methods

This was an observational study of 470 PubMed-indexed randomized controlled trial publications from 2014. We compared trials with and without run-in periods, described the types of run-in periods and evaluated the completeness of their reporting by noting whether publications stated the number of excluded patients, reasons for exclusion and baseline characteristics of the excluded patients.

Results

Twenty-five trials reported a run-in period (5%). These were larger than other trials (median number of randomized patients 217 vs 90, P=0.01) and more commonly industry trials (11% vs 3%, P<0.01). The run-in procedures varied in design and purpose. In 23 out of 25 trials (88%), the run-in period was incompletely reported, mostly due to missing baseline characteristics.

Conclusion

Approximately 1 in 20 trials used run-in periods, though much more frequently in industry trials. Reporting of the run-in period was often incomplete, precluding a meaningful assessment of the impact of the run-in period on the validity of trial results. We suggest that current trials with run-in periods are interpreted with caution and that updates of reporting guidelines for randomized trials address the issue.

When to include clinical study reports and regulatory documents in systematic reviews

Reporting bias is a major threat to the validity and credibility of systematic reviews. This article outlines the rationale for accessing clinical study reports and other regulatory documents (regulatory data) as a means of addressing reporting bias and identifies factors that may help decide whether (or not) to include regulatory data in systematic reviews. The article also describes the origins and current state of regulatory data access and summarises a survey of current systematic reviewers' practices in considering regulatory data for inclusion in systematic reviews. How to access and extract regulatory data is not addressed. Organisations and other stakeholders such as Cochrane should encourage the use of data from clinical study reports as an important source of data in reviews of pharmaceutical interventions particularly when the intervention in question is of high importance and the risk of reporting bias is great.

Bariatric surgery, lifestyle interventions and orlistat for severe obesity: the REBALANCE mixed-methods systematic review and economic evaluation

BACKGROUND

Adults with severe obesity [body mass index (BMI) of ≥ 35 kg/m2] have an increased risk of comorbidities and psychological, social and economic consequences.

OBJECTIVES

Systematically review bariatric surgery, weight-management programmes (WMPs) and orlistat pharmacotherapy for adults with severe obesity, and evaluate the feasibility, acceptability, clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of treatment.

DATA SOURCES

Electronic databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and the NHS Economic Evaluation Database were searched (last searched in May 2017).

REVIEW METHODS

Four systematic reviews evaluated clinical effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and qualitative evidence for adults with a BMI of ≥ 35 kg/m2. Data from meta-analyses populated a microsimulation model predicting costs, outcomes and cost-effectiveness of Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery and the most effective lifestyle WMPs over a 30-year time horizon from a NHS perspective, compared with current UK population obesity trends. Interventions were cost-effective if the additional cost of achieving a quality-adjusted life-year is < £20,000-30,000.

RESULTS

A total of 131 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), 26 UK studies, 33 qualitative studies and 46 cost-effectiveness studies were included. From RCTs, RYGB produced the greatest long-term weight change [-20.23 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) -23.75 to -16.71 kg, at 60 months]. WMPs with very low-calorie diets (VLCDs) produced the greatest weight loss at 12 months compared with no WMPs. Adding a VLCD to a WMP gave an additional mean weight change of -4.41 kg (95% CI -5.93 to -2.88 kg) at 12 months. The intensive Look AHEAD WMP produced mean long-term weight loss of 6% in people with type 2 diabetes mellitus (at a median of 9.6 years). The microsimulation model found that WMPs were generally cost-effective compared with population obesity trends. Long-term WMP weight regain was very uncertain, apart from Look AHEAD. The addition of a VLCD to a WMP was not cost-effective compared with a WMP alone. RYGB was cost-effective compared with no surgery and WMPs, but the model did not replicate long-term cost savings found in previous studies. Qualitative data suggested that participants could be attracted to take part in WMPs through endorsement by their health-care provider or through perceiving innovative activities, with WMPs being delivered to groups. Features improving long-term weight loss included having group support, additional behavioural support, a physical activity programme to attend, a prescribed calorie diet or a calorie deficit.

LIMITATIONS

Reviewed studies often lacked generalisability to UK settings in terms of participants and resources for implementation, and usually lacked long-term follow-up (particularly for complications for surgery), leading to unrealistic weight regain assumptions. The views of potential and actual users of services were rarely reported to contribute to service design. This study may have failed to identify unpublished UK evaluations. Dual, blinded numerical data extraction was not undertaken.

CONCLUSIONS

Roux-en-Y gastric bypass was costly to deliver, but it was the most cost-effective intervention. Adding a VLCD to a WMP was not cost-effective compared with a WMP alone. Most WMPs were cost-effective compared with current population obesity trends.

FUTURE WORK

Improved reporting of WMPs is needed to allow replication, translation and further research. Qualitative research is needed with adults who are potential users of, or who fail to engage with or drop out from, WMPs. RCTs and economic evaluations in UK settings (e.g. Tier 3, commercial programmes or primary care) should evaluate VLCDs with long-term follow-up (≥ 5 years). Decision models should incorporate relevant costs, disease states and evidence-based weight regain assumptions.

STUDY REGISTRATION

This study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42016040190.

FUNDING

The National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme. The Health Services Research Unit and Health Economics Research Unit are core funded by the Chief Scientist Office of the Scottish Government Health and Social Care Directorate.

Alternative package leaflets improve people's understanding of drug side effects-A randomized controlled exploratory survey

Background

Current German and EU package leaflets (PLs) do not distinguish to what extent listed side effects are indeed side effects caused by drug intake or instead symptoms that occur regardless of drug use. We recently showed that most health professionals misinterpret the frequencies of listed side effects as solely caused by the drug. The present study investigated whether (1) these misinterpretations also prevail among laypeople and (2) alternative PLs reduce these misinterpretations.

Methods

In March 2017, 397 out of 400 laypeople approached completed an online survey. They were randomized to one of four PL formats: three alternative PLs (drug facts box with/without reading instruction, narrative format with numbers) and one standard PL. Each PL listed four side effects for a fictitious drug: two were presented as occurring more often, one as equally often, and one as less often with drug intake. The alternative formats (interventions) included information on frequencies with and without drug intake and included a statement on the causal relation. The standard PL (control) only included information on frequency ranges with drug intake. Questions were asked on general occurrence and causality of side effects.

Results

Participants randomized to the standard PL were unable to answer questions on causality. For side effects occurring more often (equally; less often) with drug intake, only 1.9% to 2.8% (equally: 1.9%; less often: 1.9%) provided correct responses about the causal nature of side effects, compared to 55.0% to 81.9% (equally: 23.8% to 70.5%; less often: 21.0% to 43.2%) of participants who received alternative PLs. It remains unclear whether one alternative format is superior to the others.

Conclusion

In conclusion, information on the frequency of side effects in current package leaflets is misleading. Comparative presentation of frequencies for side effects with and without drug intake including statements on the causal relation significantly improves understanding.

Factors associated with clinical trials that fail and opportunities for improving the likelihood of success: A review

Clinical trials are time consuming, expensive, and often burdensome on patients. Clinical trials can fail for many reasons. This survey reviews many of these reasons and offers insights on opportunities for improving the likelihood of creating and executing successful clinical trials. Literature from the past 30 years was reviewed for relevant data. Common patterns in reported successful trials are identified, including factors regarding the study site, study coordinator/investigator, and the effects on participating patients. Specific instances where artificial intelligence can help improve clinical trials are identified.

Methylphenidate for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents - assessment of adverse events in non-randomised studies

BACKGROUND

Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder in childhood. The psychostimulant methylphenidate is the most frequently used medication to treat it. Several studies have investigated the benefits of methylphenidate, showing possible favourable effects on ADHD symptoms, but the true magnitude of the effect is unknown. Concerning adverse events associated with the treatment, our systematic review of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrated no increase in serious adverse events, but a high proportion of participants suffered a range of non-serious adverse events.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the adverse events associated with methylphenidate treatment for children and adolescents with ADHD in non-randomised studies.

SEARCH METHODS

In January 2016, we searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, 12 other databases and two trials registers. We also checked reference lists and contacted authors and pharmaceutical companies to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included non-randomised study designs. These comprised comparative and non-comparative cohort studies, patient-control studies, patient reports/series and cross-sectional studies of methylphenidate administered at any dosage or formulation. We also included methylphenidate groups from RCTs assessing methylphenidate versus other interventions for ADHD as well as data from follow-up periods in RCTs. Participants had to have an ADHD diagnosis (from the 3rd to the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or the 9th or 10th edition of theInternational Classification of Diseases, with or without comorbid diagnoses. We required that at least 75% of participants had a normal intellectual capacity (intelligence quotient of more than 70 points) and were aged below 20 years. We excluded studies that used another ADHD drug as a co-intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Fourteen review authors selected studies independently. Two review authors assessed risk of bias independently using the ROBINS-I tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. All review authors extracted data. We defined serious adverse events according to the International Committee of Harmonization as any lethal, life-threatening or life-changing event. We considered all other adverse events to be non-serious adverse events and conducted meta-analyses of data from comparative studies. We calculated meta-analytic estimates of prevalence from non-comparative cohorts studies and synthesised data from patient reports/series qualitatively. We investigated heterogeneity by conducting subgroup analyses, and we also conducted sensitivity analyses.

MAIN RESULTS

We included a total of 260 studies: 7 comparative cohort studies, 6 of which compared 968 patients who were exposed to methylphenidate to 166 controls, and 1 which assessed 1224 patients that were exposed or not exposed to methylphenidate during different time periods; 4 patient-control studies (53,192 exposed to methylphenidate and 19,906 controls); 177 non-comparative cohort studies (2,207,751 participants); 2 cross-sectional studies (96 participants) and 70 patient reports/series (206 participants). Participants' ages ranged from 3 years to 20 years. Risk of bias in the included comparative studies ranged from moderate to critical, with most studies showing critical risk of bias. We evaluated all non-comparative studies at critical risk of bias. The GRADE quality rating of the evidence was very low.Primary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate increased the risk ratio (RR) of serious adverse events (RR 1.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.17 to 1.57; 2 studies, 72,005 participants); any psychotic disorder (RR 1.36, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.57; 1 study, 71,771 participants); and arrhythmia (RR 1.61, 95% CI 1.48 to 1.74; 1 study, 1224 participants) compared to no intervention.In the non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate experiencing any serious adverse event was 1.20% (95% CI 0.70% to 2.00%; 50 studies, 162,422 participants). Withdrawal from methylphenidate due to any serious adverse events occurred in 1.20% (95% CI 0.60% to 2.30%; 7 studies, 1173 participants) and adverse events of unknown severity led to withdrawal in 7.30% of participants (95% CI 5.30% to 10.0%; 22 studies, 3708 participants).Secondary outcomesIn the comparative studies, methylphenidate, compared to no intervention, increased the RR of insomnia and sleep problems (RR 2.58, 95% CI 1.24 to 5.34; 3 studies, 425 participants) and decreased appetite (RR 15.06, 95% CI 2.12 to 106.83; 1 study, 335 participants).With non-comparative cohort studies, the proportion of participants on methylphenidate with any non-serious adverse events was 51.2% (95% CI 41.2% to 61.1%; 49 studies, 13,978 participants). These included difficulty falling asleep, 17.9% (95% CI 14.7% to 21.6%; 82 studies, 11,507 participants); headache, 14.4% (95% CI 11.3% to 18.3%; 90 studies, 13,469 participants); abdominal pain, 10.7% (95% CI 8.60% to 13.3%; 79 studies, 11,750 participants); and decreased appetite, 31.1% (95% CI 26.5% to 36.2%; 84 studies, 11,594 participants). Withdrawal of methylphenidate due to non-serious adverse events occurred in 6.20% (95% CI 4.80% to 7.90%; 37 studies, 7142 participants), and 16.2% were withdrawn for unknown reasons (95% CI 13.0% to 19.9%; 57 studies, 8340 participants).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest that methylphenidate may be associated with a number of serious adverse events as well as a large number of non-serious adverse events in children and adolescents, which often lead to withdrawal of methylphenidate. Our certainty in the evidence is very low, and accordingly, it is not possible to accurately estimate the actual risk of adverse events. It might be higher than reported here.Given the possible association between methylphenidate and the adverse events identified, it may be important to identify people who are most susceptible to adverse events. To do this we must undertake large-scale, high-quality RCTs, along with studies aimed at identifying responders and non-responders.

Index of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine industry clinical study programmes and non-industry funded studies: a necessary basis to address reporting bias in a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Unabridged access to drug industry and regulatory trial registers and data reduces reporting bias in systematic reviews and may provide a complete index of a drug's clinical study programme. Currently, there is no public index of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine industry study programmes or a public index of non-industry funded studies.

METHODS

By cross-verification via study programme enquiries to the HPV vaccine manufacturers and regulators and searches of trial registers and journal publication databases, we indexed clinical HPV vaccine studies as a basis to address reporting bias in a systematic review of clinical study reports.

RESULTS

We indexed 206 clinical studies: 145 industry and 61 non-industry funded studies. One of the four HPV vaccine manufacturers (GlaxoSmithKline) provided information on its study programme. Most studies were cross-verified from two or more sources (160/206, 78%) and listed on regulatory or industry trial registers or journal publication databases (195/206, 95%)-in particular, on ClinicalTrials.gov (176/195, 90%). However, study results were only posted for about half of the completed studies on ClinicalTrials.gov (71/147, 48%). Two thirds of the industry studies had a study programme ID, manufacturer specific ID, and national clinical trial (NCT) ID (91/145, 63%). Journal publications were available in journal publication databases (the Cochrane Collaboration's Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar and PubMed) for two thirds of the completed studies (92/149, 62%).

CONCLUSION

We believe we came close to indexing complete HPV vaccine study programmes, but only one of the four manufacturers provided information for our index and a fifth of the index could not be cross-verified. However, we indexed larger study programmes than those listed by major regulators (i.e., the EMA and FDA that based their HPV vaccine approvals on only half of the available trials). To reduce reporting bias in systematic reviews, we advocate the registration and publication of all studies and data in the public domain.

Clinical drug trials in general practice: how well are external validity issues reported?

BACKGROUND

When reading a report of a clinical trial, it should be possible to judge whether the results are relevant for your patients. Issues affecting the external validity or generalizability of a trial should therefore be reported. Our aim was to determine whether articles with published results from a complete cohort of drug trials conducted entirely or partly in general practice reported sufficient information about the trials to consider the external validity.

METHODS

A cohort of 196 drug trials in Norwegian general practice was previously identified from the Norwegian Medicines Agency archive with year of application for approval 1998-2007. After comprehensive literature searches, 134 journal articles reporting results published from 2000 to 2015 were identified. In these articles, we considered the reporting of the following issues relevant for external validity: reporting of the clinical setting; selection of patients before inclusion in a trial; reporting of patients' co-morbidity, co-medication or ethnicity; choice of primary outcome; and reporting of adverse events.

RESULTS

Of these 134 articles, only 30 (22%) reported the clinical setting of the trial. The number of patients screened before enrolment was reported in 61 articles (46%). The primary outcome of the trial was a surrogate outcome for 60 trials (45%), a clinical outcome for 39 (29%) and a patient-reported outcome for 25 (19%). Clinical details of adverse events were reported in 124 (93%) articles. Co-morbidity of included participants was reported in 54 trials (40%), co-medication in 27 (20%) and race/ethnicity in 78 (58%).

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical setting of the trials, the selection of patients before enrolment, and co-morbidity or co-medication of participants was most commonly not reported, limiting the possibility to consider the generalizability of a trial. It may therefore be difficult for readers to judge whether drug trial results are applicable to clinical decision-making in general practice or when developing clinical guidelines.

Why clinical trial outcomes fail to translate into benefits for patients

Clinical research should ultimately improve patient care. For this to be possible, trials must evaluate outcomes that genuinely reflect real-world settings and concerns. However, many trials continue to measure and report outcomes that fall short of this clear requirement. We highlight problems with trial outcomes that make evidence difficult or impossible to interpret and that undermine the translation of research into practice and policy. These complex issues include the use of surrogate, composite and subjective endpoints; a failure to take account of patients' perspectives when designing research outcomes; publication and other outcome reporting biases, including the under-reporting of adverse events; the reporting of relative measures at the expense of more informative absolute outcomes; misleading reporting; multiplicity of outcomes; and a lack of core outcome sets. Trial outcomes can be developed with patients in mind, however, and can be reported completely, transparently and competently. Clinicians, patients, researchers and those who pay for health services are entitled to demand reliable evidence demonstrating whether interventions improve patient-relevant clinical outcomes.

Why clinical trial outcomes fail to translate into benefits for patients

Clinical research should ultimately improve patient care. For this to be possible, trials must evaluate outcomes that genuinely reflect real-world settings and concerns. However, many trials continue to measure and report outcomes that fall short of this clear requirement. We highlight problems with trial outcomes that make evidence difficult or impossible to interpret and that undermine the translation of research into practice and policy. These complex issues include the use of surrogate, composite and subjective endpoints; a failure to take account of patients' perspectives when designing research outcomes; publication and other outcome reporting biases, including the under-reporting of adverse events; the reporting of relative measures at the expense of more informative absolute outcomes; misleading reporting; multiplicity of outcomes; and a lack of core outcome sets. Trial outcomes can be developed with patients in mind, however, and can be reported completely, transparently and competently. Clinicians, patients, researchers and those who pay for health services are entitled to demand reliable evidence demonstrating whether interventions improve patient-relevant clinical outcomes.