Dataset Information

Benefits and harms in clinical trials of duloxetine for treatment of major depressive disorder: comparison of clinical study reports, trial registries, and publications.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To determine, using research on duloxetine for major depressive disorder as an example, if there are inconsistencies between protocols, clinical study reports, and main publicly available sources (journal articles and trial registries), and within clinical study reports themselves, with respect to benefits and major harms.

Design

Data on primary efficacy analysis and major harms extracted from each data source and compared.

Setting

Nine randomised placebo controlled trials of duloxetine (total 2878 patients) submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for marketing approval for major depressive disorder.

Data sources

Clinical study reports, including protocols as appendices (total 13,729 pages), were obtained from the EMA in May 2011. Journal articles were identified through relevant literature databases and contacting the manufacturer, Eli Lilly. Clinicaltrials.gov and the manufacturer's online clinical trial registry were searched for trial results.

Results

Clinical study reports fully described the primary efficacy analysis and major harms (deaths (including suicides), suicide attempts, serious adverse events, and discontinuations because of adverse events). There were minor inconsistencies in the population in the primary efficacy analysis between the protocol and clinical study report and within the clinical study report for one trial. Furthermore, we found contradictory information within the reports for seven serious adverse events and eight adverse events that led to discontinuation but with no apparent bias. In each trial, a median of 406 (range 177-645) and 166 (100-241) treatment emergent adverse events (adverse events that emerged or worsened after study drug was started) in the randomised phase were not reported in journal articles and Lilly trial registry reports, respectively. We also found publication bias in relation to beneficial effects.

Conclusion

Clinical study reports contained extensive data on major harms that were unavailable in journal articles and in trial registry reports. There were inconsistencies between protocols and clinical study reports and within clinical study reports. Clinical study reports should be used as the data source for systematic reviews of drugs, but they should first be checked against protocols and within themselves for accuracy and consistency.

SUBMITTER: Maund E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4045316 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAn 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsHarms 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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo assess the effects of coding and coding conventions on summaries and tabulations of adverse events data on suicidality within clinical study reports.DesignSystematic electronic search for adverse events of suicidality in tables, narratives, and listings of adverse events in individual patients within clinical study reports. Where possible, for each event we extracted the original term reported by the investigator, the term as coded by the medical coding dictionary, medical coding dictionary used, and the patient's trial identification number. Using the patient's trial identification number, we attempted to reconcile data on the same event between the different formats for presenting data on adverse events within the clinical study report.Setting9 randomised placebo controlled trials of duloxetine for major depressive disorder submitted to the European Medicines Agency for marketing approval.Data sourcesClinical study reports obtained from the EMA in 2011.ResultsSix trials used the medical coding dictionary COSTART (Coding Symbols for a Thesaurus of Adverse Reaction Terms) and three used MedDRA (Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities). Suicides were clearly identifiable in all formats of adverse event data in clinical study reports. Suicide attempts presented in tables included both definitive and provisional diagnoses. Suicidal ideation and preparatory behaviour were obscured in some tables owing to the lack of specificity of the medical coding dictionary, especially COSTART. Furthermore, we found one event of suicidal ideation described in narrative text that was absent from tables and adverse event listings of individual patients. The reason for this is unclear, but may be due to the coding conventions used.ConclusionData on adverse events in tables in clinical study reports may not accurately represent the underlying patient data because of the medical dictionaries and coding conventions used. In clinical study reports, the listings of adverse events for individual patients and narratives of adverse events can provide additional information, including original investigator reported adverse event terms, which can enable a more accurate estimate of harms.

Project description: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.

Project description:ObjectiveTo improve communication of harm in publications of randomised controlled trials via the development of recommendations for visually presenting harm outcomes.DesignConsensus study.Setting15 clinical trials units registered with the UK Clinical Research Collaboration, an academic population health department, Roche Products, and The BMJ.ParticipantsExperts in clinical trials: 20 academic statisticians, one industry statistician, one academic health economist, one data graphics designer, and two clinicians.Main outcomemeasures A methodological review of statistical methods identified visualisations along with those recommended by consensus group members. Consensus on visual recommendations was achieved (at least 60% of the available votes) over a series of three meetings with participants. The participants reviewed and critically appraised candidate visualisations against an agreed framework and voted on whether to endorse each visualisation. Scores marginally below this threshold (50-60%) were revisited for further discussions and votes retaken until consensus was reached.Results28 visualisations were considered, of which 10 are recommended for researchers to consider in publications of main research findings. The choice of visualisations to present will depend on outcome type (eg, binary, count, time-to-event, or continuous), and the scenario (eg, summarising multiple emerging events or one event of interest). A decision tree is presented to assist trialists in deciding which visualisations to use. Examples are provided of each endorsed visualisation, along with an example interpretation, potential limitations, and signposting to code for implementation across a range of standard statistical software. Clinician feedback was incorporated into the explanatory information provided in the recommendations to aid understanding and interpretation.ConclusionsVisualisations provide a powerful tool to communicate harms in clinical trials, offering an alternative perspective to the traditional frequency tables. Increasing the use of visualisations for harm outcomes in clinical trial manuscripts and reports will provide clearer presentation of information and enable more informative interpretations. The limitations of each visualisation are discussed and examples of where their use would be inappropriate are given. Although the decision tree aids the choice of visualisation, the statistician and clinical trial team must ultimately decide the most appropriate visualisations for their data and objectives. Trialists should continue to examine crude numbers alongside visualisations to fully understand harm profiles.

Project description:ImportanceClinical trial registries are intended to increase clinical research transparency by nonselectively identifying and documenting clinical trial designs and outcomes. Inconsistencies in reported data undermine the utility of such registries and have previously been noted in general medical literature.ObjectiveTo assess whether inconsistencies in reported data exist between ophthalmic literature and clinical trial registries.Design, setting, and participantsIn this retrospective, cross-sectional study, interventional clinical trials published from January 1, 2014, to December 31, 2014, in the American Journal of Ophthalmology, JAMA Ophthalmology, and Ophthalmology were reviewed. Observational, retrospective, uncontrolled, and post hoc reports were excluded, yielding a sample size of 106 articles. Data collection was performed from January through September 2016. Data review and adjudication continued through January 2017.Main outcomes and measuresIf possible, articles were matched to registry entries listed in the ClinicalTrials.gov database or in 1 of 16 international registries indexed by the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform version 3.2 search engine. Each article-registry pair was assessed for inconsistencies in design, results, and funding (each of which was further divided into subcategories) by 2 reviewers and adjudicated by a third.ResultsOf 106 trials that met the study criteria, matching registry entries were found for 68 (64.2%), whereas no matching registry entries were found for 38 (35.8%). Inconsistencies were identified in study design, study results, and funding sources, including specific interventions in 8 (11.8%), primary outcome measure (POM) designs in 32 (47.1%), and POM results in 48 (70.6%). In addition, numerous data pieces were unreported, including analysis methods in 52 (76.5%) and POM results in 38 (55.9%).Conclusions and relevanceClinical trial registries were underused in this sample of ophthalmology clinical trials. For studies with registry data, inconsistency rates between published and registered data were similar to those previously reported for general medical literature. In most cases, inconsistencies involved missing data, but explicit discrepancies in methods and/or data were also found. Transparency and credibility of published trials may be improved by closer attention to their registration and reporting.

Project description:PurposeTo compare treatment outcomes in patients with major depressive disorder treated with duloxetine, escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, or sertraline for up to 6 months.Patients and methodsData were taken from a 6-month prospective, observational study that included 1,549 major depressive disorder patients without sexual dysfunction in 12 countries. We report the overall results and those from Asian countries. Depression severity was measured using the Clinical Global Impression and the 16-item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology Self-Report (QIDS-SR16). Clinical and functional remissions were defined as having a QIDS-SR16 <6, and as having a rating of <3 on all three Sheehan Disability Scale items and no reduced productivity, respectively. Mixed effects modeling with repeated measures analysis and generalized estimating equation models were used. Propensity scores were included in the models.ResultsThe mixed effects modeling with repeated measures regression models showed that the Clinical Global Impression rating during follow-up was significantly lower in those patients treated with duloxetine compared with escitalopram (0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.56); fluoxetine (0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.38); paroxetine (0.38, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.54); and sertraline (0.32, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.49). The QIDS-SR16 of duloxetine-treated patients was significantly lower than those treated with escitalopram (1.58, 95% CI 1.03 to 2.12); fluoxetine (1.48, 95% CI 0.90 to 2.06); paroxetine (1.53, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.07); and sertraline (1.19, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.78). The probability of clinical remission of the patients treated with escitalopram, fluoxetine, paroxetine, and sertraline was lower than those treated with duloxetine (OR 0.46, 95% CI 0.33 to 0.64; OR 0.42, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.61; OR 0.40, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.56; OR 0.50, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.71; respectively). The regression analysis of functional remission also showed more favorable results for duloxetine, with OR ranging from 0.43, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.60 for paroxetine to 0.49, 95% CI 0.35 to 0.70 for sertraline. The results for the Asian countries were generally consistent.ConclusionDuloxetine-treated patients had better 6-month outcomes in terms of depression severity and clinical and functional remission, compared with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor-treated patients.

Project description:Objectives: We aimed to study the prevalence of selective reporting of primary and secondary outcomes in tinnitus trials and to examine if selective reporting of outcome measures is influenced by the nature and direction of its results. Background: Selective reporting of outcome measures has been reported in several biomedical fields and can influence the clinical usefulness and implementation of outcomes of clinical trials. It is reported as one of the obstacles in finding an effective intervention for tinnitus. Methods: ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov) was used to identify all registered interventional tinnitus trials up to December 2015. A standardized search was used to find corresponding publications up to March 2018. The prespecified outcomes in CT.gov were compared with the outcomes reported in corresponding publication(s). The effects of the (lack of) statistical significance of trial results and the effects of funding source on record adherence were evaluated. Changes in registration elements were assessed with the Archive site of CT.gov. Results: We found corresponding publications for 60 (64.5%) of 93 eligible tinnitus trials registered in CT.gov. Of all the publications, five (7.5%) fully reported outcome measures entirely in line with the prespecified outcome measures. Discrepancies between the prespecified and reported outcomes were found in a total of 51 (76.1%) of the studies for primary outcomes, whereas 62 (92.5%) of the studies had discrepancies in secondary outcomes. In secondary outcomes, statistical significance of trial results influenced CT.gov record adherence. In addition, there was a statistically significant difference in the rate of discrepancy in industry-funded [n = 98 (87.5%) discrepant outcomes] and non-industry funded trials [n = 172 (74.5%) discrepant outcomes] (p = 0.01). Finally, 15 (25.9%) trialists made modifications in registered outcome measures during or after the trial period. Conclusion: Tinnitus trials suffer from substantial outcome reporting bias. Awareness of its presence must be raised to limit the obstacles of finding an effective intervention for tinnitus.