Assessment of Risk of Bias in Osteosarcoma and Ewing's Sarcoma Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review

Quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs: systematic review

Objective

To assess the quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) harms extension and according to clinical trial design, and to examine reporting of serious adverse events in drug trials published on PubMed versus clinical trial summaries on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov registries were searched from 1 December 2019 to 17 February 2022.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Randomised clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19 disease in participants of all ages with suspected, probable, or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Clinical trials were screened on title, abstract, and text by two authors independently. Only articles published in French and English were selected. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to assess risk of bias.

Results

The search strategy identified 1962 randomised clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19, published in the PubMed database; 1906 articles were excluded after screening and 56 clinical trials were included in the review. Among the 56 clinical trials, no study had a high score for quality of reporting of adverse events, 60.7% had a moderate score, 33.9% had a low score, and 5.4% had a very low score. All clinical trials with a very low score for quality of reporting of adverse events were randomised open label trials. For reporting of serious adverse events, journal articles published on PubMed under-reported 51% of serious adverse events compared with clinical trial summaries published on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Conclusions

In one in three published clinical trials on covid-19 drugs, the quality of reporting of adverse events was low or very low. Differences were found in the number of serious adverse events reported in journal articles versus clinical trial summaries. During the covid-19 pandemic, risk assessment of drugs in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs did not comply with good practice recommendations for publication of results.

Systematic review registration

European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) EUPAS45959.

B7-H3 in Pediatric Tumors: Far beyond Neuroblastoma

B7-H3 is a 4Ig transmembrane protein that emerged as a tumor-associated antigen in neuroblastoma. It belongs to the B7 family, shows an immunoregulatory role toward NK and T cells, and, therefore, has been included in the growing family of immune checkpoints. Besides neuroblastoma, B7-H3 is expressed by many pediatric cancers including tumors of the central nervous system, sarcomas, and acute myeloid leukemia. In children, particularly those affected by solid tumors, the therapeutic protocols are aggressive and cause important life-threatening side effects. Moreover, despite the improved survival observed in the last decade, a relevant number of patients show therapy resistance and fatal relapses. Immunotherapy represents a new frontier in the cure of cancer patients and the targeting of tumor antigens or immune checkpoints blockade showed exciting results in adults. In this encouraging scenario, researchers and clinicians are exploring the possibility to use immunotherapeutics targeting B7-H3; these include mAbs and chimeric antigen receptor T-cells (CAR-T). These tools are rapidly evolving to improve the efficacy and decrease the unwanted side effects; drug-conjugated mAbs, bi-tri-specific mAbs or CAR-T, and, very recently, NK cell engagers (NKCE), tetra-specific molecules engaging a tumor-associated antigen and NK cells, have been generated. Preclinical data are promising, and clinical trials are ongoing. Hopefully, the B7-H3 targeting will provide important benefits to cancer patients.

Ultrasound-guided erector spinae plane block for postoperative analgesia in Chinese patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy: a double-blind randomized controlled trial

PURPOSE

Pain management after laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a main concern for Chinese clinicians. This study aims to explore the effect of erector spinae plane block (ESPB) on the postoperative analgesia of patients undergoing LC in China.

METHODS

In this randomized controlled trial (RCT), 220 patients were randomized into the ESPB group and control group. Patients in the ESPB group received a bilateral ESPB, and patients in the control group were injected saline. Lornoxicam (0.08 mg/mL, 100 mL) was used as routine analgesia for both groups after the surgery. Visual analog scale (VAS) score at rest state at 12 h postoperative was the primary outcome and divided into no pain, mild pain, moderate pain, and severe pain.

RESULTS

Finally, 197 patients were included for analysis. At postoperative 12 h, ESPB group observed less patients with moderate pain (0% vs. 8.91%) and severe pain (0% vs. 0.99%) than the control group (P < 0.001). Moreover, ESPB group found less dose of additional sufentanil (5.55 ± 1.37 μg vs. 10.67 ± 5.05 μg), less requirement for rescue analgesia (13.54% vs. 31.68%), earlier first time to leave bed (10 h vs. 18 h), and earlier first exhaust time (17.5 h vs. 25 h), less adverse reactions (5.21% vs. 17.82%), and higher satisfaction degree (78.13% vs. 31.68%) (all P < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

ESPB was followed by better postoperative analgesia and less opioid consumption.

Failure to disclose industry funding impacts outcomes in randomized controlled trials of platelet-rich plasma

PURPOSE

Platelet-rich plasma (PRP) represents a highly profitable biological therapy. Platelet-rich plasma is widely used to treat musculoskeletal disorders despite mixed evidence of its efficacy. As evidenced by literature from other domains, industry funding may influence the results of clinical trials. The objective of the current study was to determine the association between industry funding and positive results for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the efficacy of PRP in musculoskeletal disorders.

METHODS

A search of four databases was conducted. Included studies were RCTs comparing PRP to any non-PRP comparator in adults (18 years old or over) with musculoskeletal disorders and had full text available in English. Studies were excluded if they were published before 2016 or were non-human trials. A multivariate binomial logistic regression model was created to explore predictors of statistically significant findings. Covariates included the presence of industry funding, sample size, and length of study follow-up. 1440 records were screened with 87 trials included in the final analysis.

RESULTS

Of the 87 studies, 61 (70%) reported a statistically significant primary outcome. The presence of industry funding was not predictive of a statistically significant primary outcome [OR = 0.36, 95% CI 0.096-1.36, (n.s.)]. Studies that did not state whether industry funding was present had a higher chance of reporting a statistically significant primary outcome (OR = 3.61, 95% CI 1.1-11.9, p = 0.035). Sample size and length of follow-up were not predictive of a statistically significant primary outcome.

CONCLUSION

The results of the current study conclude that industry funding had no impact on the reporting of positive results for RCTs investigating PRP in musculoskeletal disorders. However, not disclosing sources of funding was associated with a higher likelihood of reporting positive results. The results of trials that fail to disclose funding sources should be interpreted with caution in the PRP literature.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

I.

Common errors in the design of orthopaedic trials: Has anything changed?

INTRODUCTION

The adoption of evidence-based orthopaedics has shifted the focus from expert base opinions and anecdotal evidence to a focus on integrating the best available clinical research. This shift has led to an increased focus on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) within the field. Although RCTs are considered the highest level of evidence, methodologic errors can introduce bias and limit the validity of the results. Early trials were hampered by lack of blinding, inadequate sample sizes and other design flaws. The objective of this review was to examine the current literature to determine if the design and execution of RCTs has improved.

DESIGN ERRORS

The awareness of the importance of sample size increased over time with substantially more trials reporting sample size calculations. However, many contemporary RCTs are still underpowered and fail to reach their calculated sample size. Given the challenges of surgically based RCTs, the majority of historical trials lacked blinding, increasing the risk of bias. There is evidence that there has been a concerted effort to increase the blinding in RCTs, particularly in outcome assessors. A more recent development in the design of surgical trials is the introduction of expertise-based trial designs in which patients are randomized to a surgeon with expertise in a particular intervention. These trials minimize the bias that can arise from differential expertise bias and have the potential to improve the validity and feasibility of RCTs. Finally, there has been an increased focus on the reporting of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in orthopaedic RCTs. Alongside this movement has been the development of minimal important differences (MIDs) to define the changes that are relevant and meaningful to patients. Both PROs and MIDs should be taken into consideration when calculating the sample size and study power in clinical trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Although marked improvements have been made in the design and implementation of trials, there is still considerable room for improvement. Adequately blinded and powered studies evaluating clinically important outcomes and differences should be key considerations in trial design moving forward.