Dataset Information

Agreements and Discrepancies between FDA Reports and Journal Papers on Biologic Agents Approved for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Meta-Research Project.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Sponsors that seek to commercialize new drugs apply to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which independently analyzes the raw data and reports the results on its website.

Objectives

This study sought to determine if there are differences between the FDA assessments and journal reports on biologic agents developed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

Methods

Available data on FDA-approved drugs were extracted from the website, and a systematic literature search was conducted to identify matching studies in peer-reviewed medical journals. Outcome measures were the American College of Rheumatology response criteria ACR20 (efficacy) and withdrawal due to adverse events (safety). As effect size odds ratios were estimated for each active trial arm vs. control arm (i.e. for both sources: FDA and journal report), followed by calculation of the ratios of the FDA and journal report odds ratios. A ratio of odds ratios not equal to 1 was categorized as a discrepancy.

Results

FDA reports were available for 8 of 9 FDA-approved biologic agents for rheumatoid arthritis; all identified trials (34) except one were published in peer-reviewed journals. Overall, discrepancies were noted for 20 of the 33 evaluated trials. Differences in the apparent benefit reporting were found in 39% (24/61) pairwise comparisons and in 11 cases these were statistically significant; the FDA report showed greater benefit than the journal publication in 15 comparisons and lesser benefit in 9. Differences in the reported harms were found in 51% (28/55) pairwise comparisons and were statistically significant in 5. The "signal" in FDA reports showed a less harmful effect than the journal publication in 17 comparisons whereas a more harmful effect in 11. The differences were attributed to differences in analytic approach, patient inclusion, rounding effect, and counting discrepancies. However, no differences were categorized as critical.

Conclusion

There was no empirical evidence to suggest biased estimates between the two sources. Increased and detailed transparency in publications would improve the understanding and credibility of published results. Further, the FDA report was found to be a useful source when data are missing in the published report (i.e. reporting bias).

SUBMITTER: Amarilyo G

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4725722 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Agreements and Discrepancies between FDA Reports and Journal Papers on Biologic Agents Approved for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Meta-Research Project.

Amarilyo Gil G Furst Daniel E DE Woo Jennifer M P JM Li Wen W Bliddal Henning H Christensen Robin R Tarp Simon S

PloS one 20160125 1

<h4>Background</h4>Sponsors that seek to commercialize new drugs apply to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which independently analyzes the raw data and reports the results on its website.<h4>Objectives</h4>This study sought to determine if there are differences between the FDA assessments and journal reports on biologic agents developed for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.<h4>Methods</h4>Available data on FDA-approved drugs were extracted from the website, and a systematic literatur ...[more]

PMID: 26808309

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMedication guides are required documents to be distributed to patients in order to convey serious risks associated with certain prescribed medicines. Little is known about the effectiveness of this information to adequately inform patients on safe use.ObjectiveTo examine the readability, suitability, and comprehensibility of medication guides, particularly for those with limited literacy.DesignAssessments of suitability and readability of 185 medication guides, and a sub-study examining change in suitability and readability from 2006 to 2010 among 32 of the medication guides (Study 1); 'open book' comprehension assessment of medication guides (Study 2).SettingTwo general internal medicine clinics in Chicago, IL.PatientsFour hundred and forty-nine adults seeking primary care services, ages 18-85.MeasurementsFor Study 1, the Suitability Assessment of Materials (SAM) and Lexile score for readability. For Study 2, a tailored comprehension assessment of content found in three representative medication guides.ResultsThe 185 analyzed medication guides were on average 1923 words (SD = 1022), with a mean reading level of 10-11th grade. Only one medication guide was deemed suitable in SAM analyses. None provided summaries or reviews, or framed the context first, while very few were rated as having made the purpose evident (8 %), or limited the scope of content (22 %). For Study 2, participants' comprehension of medication guides was poor (M = 52.7 % correct responses, SD = 22.6). In multivariable analysis, low and marginal literacy were independently associated with poorer understanding (β = -14.3, 95 % CI -18.0 - -10.6, p < 0.001; low: β = -23.7, 95 % CI -28.3 - -19.0, p < 0.001).ConclusionCurrent medication guides are of little value to patients, as they are too complex and difficult to understand especially for individuals with limited literacy. Explicit guidance is offered for improving these print materials.

Project description:The inability of the adult human heart to regenerate lost or damaged myocardial tissue has created one of the most pressing public health dilemmas due to the devastating impact of heart failure. Our group and others have outlined several regulators of cardiomyocyte mitosis that may impact the regenerative capacity of the adult myocardium in mammals. Recently, we reported that the transcription factors Meis1 and Hoxb13 regulate postnatal cardiomyocyte cell cycle arrest, where concomitant deletion of both genes induced cardiomyocyte proliferation and myocardial regeneration following ischemic injury. These studies suggest that pharmacological targeting Meis1 and Hoxb13 transcriptional activity could be a viable path towards heart regeneration. Therefore, we performed an in-silico screen to identify FDA-approved drugs that can inhibit Meis1 and Hoxb13 transcriptional activity based on the published crystal structure of Meis1 and Hoxb13 bound to DNA. Our screen yielded several candidates based on binding profiles to either Meis1 DNA binding domain, Hoxb13 DNA binding domain, or the interface between Meis1 and Hoxb13, as well as safety and side effect profiles. Out of the shortlist of top hits, paromomycin and neomycin induced proliferation of neonatal rat ventricular myocytes in vitro and displayed dose-dependent inhibition of Meis1 and Hoxb13 transcriptional activity by luciferase assay, and disruption of DNA binding by EMSA. X-ray crystal structure revealed that both paromomycin and neomycin bind to Meis1 near the Hoxb13 interaction site where they interact with 3 out of the 5 Meis1 amino acids that participate in DNA-binding. The crystal structure also demonstrates that both drugs bind at the interface of Meis1 homodimer, therefore placing one of the Meis1 monomers in a position incompatible with DNA-binding. Importantly, administration of paromomycin-neomycin combination by intraperitoneal injection in mice induced cardiomyocyte proliferation, improved left ventricular (LV) systolic function and decreased scar formation in two models of ischemic reperfusion injury in mice. Finally, dual intravenous administration of the paromomycin-neomycin combination in Yorkshire pigs following cardiac ischemia/reperfusion injury induced cardiomyocyte proliferation, improved LV systolic function, and decreased scar formation. Collectively, we identified paromomycin and neomycin as FDA-approved drugs with therapeutic potential for induction of heart regeneration in humans.

Dataset Information

Agreements and Discrepancies between FDA Reports and Journal Papers on Biologic Agents Approved for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Meta-Research Project.

Background

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Agreements and Discrepancies between FDA Reports and Journal Papers on Biologic Agents Approved for Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Meta-Research Project.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets