Adverse Events Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials of COVID-19 Vaccine Using the CONSORT Criteria for Reporting Harms: A Systematic Review

Side-effects of mdma-assisted psychotherapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Evidence suggests that MDMA-assisted psychotherapy (MDMA-AP) has therapeutic potential for treatment of psychiatric illness. We conducted the first comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of the side effects of MDMA-AP across indications. We also assessed the quality of side effects-reporting in published trials of MDMA-AP. PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, MEDLINE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were systematically searched. Phase 2 and 3 MDMA-AP studies were included; Phase 1 studies, which assessed MDMA without psychotherapy, were not. Quality of side effects-reporting was assessed against the CONSORT Harms 2022 guidelines. We also compared numbers of adverse events reported in publications to those recorded in ClinicalTrial.gov registers. Thirteen studies were included, with eight contributing to the meta-analysis. In Phase 2 studies, MDMA-AP was associated with increased odds of any side effect during medication sessions (OR = 1.67, 95%CI (1.12, 2.49)) and in the 7 days following (OR = 1.59, 95%CI (1.12, 2.24)) relative to control conditions. In Phase 3 studies, MDMA-AP was associated with increased odds of any adverse event during the treatment period relative to placebo-assisted psychotherapy (OR = 3.51, 95%CI (2.76, 4.46)). The majority of RCTs were rated as having high risk of bias. Certainty of the evidence was rated as very low to moderate according to the GRADE framework. No included RCT had adequate adherence to the CONSORT Harms 2022 recommendations and reporting rates were also low. Compared to placebo, MDMA-AP was associated with increased odds of side effects, which were largely transient and mild or moderate in severity. However, identified limitations in existing evidence indicate that further investigation is needed to better characterize the safety profile of MDMA-AP and guide implementation.

Characterization of adverse events in injured patients at risk of hemorrhagic shock: a secondary analysis of three harmonized prehospital randomized clinical trials

Background

The reporting of adverse events (AEs) is required and well defined in the execution of clinical trials, but is poorly characterized particularly in prehospital trials focusing on traumatic injury. In the setting of prehospital traumatic injury trials, no literature currently exists analyzing the clinical implications of AEs and their associations with mortality and morbidity. We sought to analyze AEs from three prehospital hemorrhagic shock trials and characterize their time course, incidence, severity, associated clinical outcomes, and relatedness.

Methods

We performed a secondary analysis of three prehospital randomized clinical trials. We analyzed AEs at both the patient level as well as the individual AE level. We categorized patients who had no AEs, a single documented AE and those with multiple events (>1 AE). We characterized AE timing, severity, relatedness and attributable mortality outcomes.

Results

We included 1490 patients from the three harmonized clinical trials, with 299 (20.1%) individual patients having at least a single AE documented with 529 AEs documented overall as a proportion of patients had multiple events. Over 44% of patients had a death-related misclassified AE. Patients with at least a single documented AE had a significantly higher 28-day mortality (log-rank χ2=81.27, p<0.001) compared with those without an AE documented. Patients with a single AE had a significant higher mortality than those with multiple AEs, potentially due to survival bias (log-rank χ2=11.80, p=0.006). When relatedness of each individual AE was characterized, over 97% of AEs were classified as 'definitely not related' or 'probably not related' to the intervention.

Conclusions

AEs in hemorrhagic shock trials are common, occur early and are associated with mortality and survival bias. The potential for inaccurate reporting exists, and education and training remain essential for appropriate treatment arm comparison. The current results have important relevance to injury-related clinical trials.

Trial registration numbers

NCT01818427, NCT02086500 and NCT03477006.

Level of evidence

II.

An overview and single-arm meta-analysis of immune-mediated adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination

Background

We conducted an overview to assess immune adverse effects associated with the COVID-19 vaccine, guiding safer choices and providing evidence-based information to clinicians.

Methods

Forty-three studies on adverse effects of vaccines were reviewed from PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science. Single-arm meta-analyses estimated summary effects, incidence, presentation, etc. An overview using single-arm meta-analysis and reported the findings following the guidelines outlined in the 'Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) specifically focusing on myocarditis and thrombosis. After screening 2,591 articles, 42 studies met the inclusion criteria. Methodological quality was evaluated using AMSTAR 2. Disagreements were resolved via consensus. Data analysis utilized a random-effects model in R software to estimate incidence rates of selected adverse events.

Results

After removing 1,198 duplicates and screening out irrelevant articles from a total of 2,591, we included 42 studies. Adverse reactions to vaccinations include myocarditis, thrombosis, skin reactions, GBS, etc. thrombosis and myocarditis are the most dangerous diseases associated with vaccination. Myocarditis occurred in 6% of Vector vaccine recipients, compared to 61% of mRNA vaccine recipients. Thrombosis was more common after Vector vaccination (91%) than after mRNA vaccination (9%). Furthermore, eight studies conducted anti-PF4 antibody tests and yielded a positivity rate of 67%. Meta-analysis showed that among all patients with Vaccine-induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia, cerebral venous sinus thrombosis occurred in 66%, and intracranial hemorrhage occurred in 43%. The rates of deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary thromboembolism in vaccinated patients were 13% and 23%, respectively, with a pooled case fatality rate of 30%.

Conclusion

The results of this overview indicate the majority of adverse reactions are self-limiting and require minimal intervention, while rare occurrences such as myocarditis and thrombosis pose a potentially fatal threat.

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.

Reporting of harms in clinical trials of esketamine in depression: a systematic review

While previous systematic reviews of trials evaluating conventional antidepressants highlighted inadequacies and inconsistencies in adverse event (AE) reporting, no evaluation is available on esketamine in resistant depression. The objective of this review was to assess quality of reporting AEs in all published clinical trials studying esketamine. It also aimed to compare the proportions of AEs reported in journal articles to those recorded in the ClinicalTrial.gov Registers. Clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of esketamine in depression were searched using Medline and ClinicalTrials.gov. The quality of reporting harms was assessed using a 21-item checklist from the CONSORT Extension of Harms (1 point by item). The total quality score was graded into four categories: high (17-21), moderate (12-16), low (7-11) and very low (0-6). Ten clinical trials were included in the analysis. Nine trials were classified as 'low quality' with regard to safety, one trial was classified as 'moderate quality'. Compared to AEs recorded in ClinicalTrials.gov, we found that 41.5% of serious AEs and 39% of non-serious AEs were not reported in the published articles. Among them, the majority were psychiatric events but also cardiovascular events and 94% concerned patients from esketamine groups. Quality of AEs reporting in published clinical trials of esketamine was poor and harms were reported less frequently in journal publications than in ClinicalTrial.gov Registers. The study suggests that an assessment of the benefits/risks balance of esketamine based on the results reported in trial publications is flawed due to the poor accuracy and completeness of harm data.

Reporting quality was suboptimal in a systematic review of randomized controlled trials with adaptive designs

OBJECTIVE

The study was conducted to evaluate the reporting quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that use an adaptive design (AD) based on the 2020 AD Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials 2010 extension (ACE) guidelines and identify factors associated with better reporting quality.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were searched until November 1, 2022. Multivariable linear regression analysis was performed to investigate potential predictors.

RESULTS

In total, 109 RCTs were included in our study. The mean compliance rate for the ACE checklist items was 69.75% ± 16.02. Key methodological items including allocation concealment and its implementations were poorly reported. There was also suboptimal reporting of checklist items related to the conduct of interim analyzes. Multivariable regression analysis showed better reporting quality with trial registration, nonindustry affiliation (first author), a sample size of >100, general medical journal type, publication date (≥2020), funding, and disclosure of the number of interim analyzes.

CONCLUSION

Our study showed that RCTs with AD had suboptimal reporting of 2020 ACE checklist items, particularly AD-specific items. Following the development of ACE guidelines, stricter adherence to the ACE guideline is necessary to improve their reporting quality. Pre-ACE and post-ACE adherence comparisons can be conducted in the future.

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Association Between SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Myocarditis or Pericarditis

INTRODUCTION

There have been reports of potential negative cardiovascular effects from the COVID-19 vaccine, such as myocarditis or pericarditis. This study sought to ascertain the risk of myocarditis/pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination by conducting an extensive meta-analysis of published cases.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in 7 online databases by March 31, 2022. Heterogeneity was tested by I² index. RR and 95% CI were pooled through either random-effect or fixed-effect models. Sensitivity analysis and publication bias were also conducted.

RESULTS

A total of 11 studies with 58,620,611 subjects were included. COVID-19 vaccination correlated with an increased risk of myocarditis or pericarditis (RR=2.04; 95% CI=1.33, 3.14). In addition, an increased risk of myocarditis or pericarditis in people who received the second dose of COVID-19 vaccine compared with that in those who received only the first dose of COVID-19 vaccine was also found (RR=4.06; 95% CI=2.08, 7.92). An increased incidence of pericarditis or myocarditis was noted predominantly in those who received BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273 vaccines (RR=2.19; 95% CI=1.46, 3.29 and RR=4.15; 95% CI=1.87, 9.22, respectively).

DISCUSSION

Study results indicate that a higher incidence of myocarditis or pericarditis was found after COVID-19 vaccination. In addition, the risk of developing myocarditis or pericarditis was greater after the second dose than after the first dose. Nevertheless, the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis in COVID-19 vaccine recipients are still significantly lower than the health risks observed in patients with COVID-19. Therefore, the benefits and harms must be carefully assessed to determine the best management option for patients who are in the high-risk group of myocarditis or pericarditis.