Dataset Information

Systematic review: outcomes and adverse events from randomised trials in Crohn's disease.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:The suitability of disease activity indices has been challenged, with growing interest in objective measures of inflammation. AIM:To undertake a systematic review of efficacy and safety outcomes in placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with Crohn's disease. METHODS:MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched until November 2015, for RCTs of adult Crohn's disease patients treated with medical or surgical therapies. Data on efficacy and safety outcomes, end-point definitions, and measurement instruments were extracted and stratified by publication date (pre-2009 and 2009 onwards). RESULTS:One hundred and eighty-one RCTs (110 induction and 71 maintenance) were identified, including 23 850 patients. About 92.3% reported clinical efficacy endpoints. The Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) dominated, defining clinical response or remission in 63.5% of trials (35 definitions of response or remission). CDAI < 150 was the commonest endpoint, but reporting reduced between periods (46.4%-41.1%), whilst use of CDAI100 increased (16.8%-30.4%). Fistula studies most commonly reported fistula closure (9, 90.0%). Reporting of biomarker, endoscopy and histology endpoints increased overall (33.3%-40.6%, 14.4%-30.4% and 3.2%-12.5%, respectively), but were heterogeneous and rarely reported in fistula trials. Patient-reported outcome measures were reported in 41.4% of trials and safety endpoints in 35.4%. Many of the common adverse events relate to disease exacerbation or treatment failure. CONCLUSIONS:Trial endpoints vary across studies, over time and are distinct in fistula studies. Despite growth in reporting of objective measures of inflammation and in patient-reported outcome measures, there is a lack of standardisation. This confirms the need for a core outcome set for comparative effectiveness research in Crohn's disease.

SUBMITTER: Catt H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6492112 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review: outcomes and adverse events from randomised trials in Crohn's disease.

Catt Heather H Hughes Dyfrig D Kirkham Jamie J JJ Bodger Keith K

Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics 20190303 8

<h4>Background</h4>The suitability of disease activity indices has been challenged, with growing interest in objective measures of inflammation.<h4>Aim</h4>To undertake a systematic review of efficacy and safety outcomes in placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with Crohn's disease.<h4>Methods</h4>MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and Cochrane Library were searched until November 2015, for RCTs of adult Crohn's disease patients treated with medical or surgical therapies. Data ...[more]

PMID: 30828852

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Colchicine is a widely used drug to treat inflammatory diseases. Due to its long historical use in medicine, controlled clinical trials have been small and there remains some caution with the use of this drug in patients with co-morbidities. The aim of the study is to systematically examine the side effect profile of colchicine in controlled clinical trials across all published indications. METHODS:A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA methodology. The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for double-blind controlled trials of oral colchicine in adult patients that reported adverse event data. Meta-analyses were used to determine the relative risk (RR) of adverse events in colchicine users compared to comparator groups. RESULTS:A total of 4915 studies were initially identified and after exclusions, 35 randomised controlled trials with placebo (n =?35) or active comparators (n =?5) were included. The most common diseases studied were gout, liver cirrhosis and pericarditis. There were a total of 8659 pooled participants, 4225 participants were randomised to receive colchicine, 3956 to placebo and 411 to an active comparator. Diarrhoea was reported in 17.9% of colchicine users versus 13.1% in comparator groups (RR 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.6, 3.7). Any gastrointestinal event was reported in 17.6% of colchicine users and 13.1% of comparators (RR 1.7, 95% CI 1.3, 2.3). Adverse liver events were reported in 1.9% of colchicine users versus 1.1% in the comparator groups (RR 1.6, 95% CI 0.9, 3.0). Muscle events were reported in 4.2% of colchicine users and 3.3% in the comparator groups (RR 1.3, 95% CI 0.8, 1.9). Haematology events were reported in 0.6% of colchicine users and 0.4% of comparator groups (RR 1.34 (0.64, 2.82). No study reported neuropathy events. Other sensory events were reported in 1.1% of colchicine users and 1.5% of comparator groups (RR 1.4, 95% CI 0.3, 6.7). Infectious events were reported in 0.4% of colchicine users and 2.1% of comparator groups (RR 1.0, 95% CI 0.7, 1.5). No study reported death as an adverse event. CONCLUSION:Colchicine increases the rate of diarrhoea and gastrointestinal adverse events but does not increase the rate of liver, sensory, muscle, infectious or haematology adverse events or death.

Project description:ObjectivesTo describe if there has been a change in the reporting of adverse events associated with spinal manipulation in randomised clinical trials (RCTs) since 2016.DesignA systematic literature review.Data sourcesDatabases were searched from March 2016 to May 2022: MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, CINAHL, ICL, PEDro and Cochrane Library. The following search terms and their derivatives were adapted for each platform: spinal manipulation; chiropractic; osteopathy; physiotherapy; naprapathy; medical manipulation and clinical trial.MethodsDomains of interest (pertaining to adverse events) included: completeness and location of reporting; nomenclature and description; spinal location and practitioner delivering manipulation; methodological quality of the studies and details of the publishing journal. Frequencies and proportions of studies reporting on each of these domains were calculated. Univariable and multivariable logistic regression models were fitted to examine the effect of potential predictors on the likelihood of studies reporting on adverse events.ResultsThere were 5399 records identified by the electronic searches, of which 154 (2.9%) were included in the analysis. Of these, 94 (61.0%) reported on adverse events with only 23.4% providing an explicit description of what constituted an adverse event. Reporting of adverse events in the abstract has increased (n=29, 30.9%) while reporting in the results section has decreased (n=83, 88.3%) over the past 6 years. Spinal manipulation was delivered to 7518 participants in the included studies. No serious adverse events were reported in any of these studies.ConclusionsWhile the current level of reporting of adverse events associated with spinal manipulation in RCTs has increased since our 2016 publication on the same topic, the level remains low and inconsistent with established standards. As such, it is imperative for authors, journal editors and administrators of clinical trial registries to ensure there is more balanced reporting of both benefits and harms in RCTs involving spinal manipulation.

Project description:ObjectiveTo ascertain contemporary approaches to the collection, reporting and analysis of adverse events (AEs) in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a primary efficacy outcome.DesignA review of clinical trials of drug interventions from four high impact medical journals.Data sourcesElectronic contents table of the BMJ, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) were searched for reports of original RCTs published between September 2015 and September 2016.MethodsA prepiloted checklist was used and single data extraction was performed by three reviewers with independent check of a randomly sampled subset to verify quality. We extracted data on collection methods, assessment of severity and causality, reporting criteria, analysis methods and presentation of AE data.ResultsWe identified 184 eligible reports (BMJ n=3; JAMA n=38, Lancet n=62 and NEJM n=81). Sixty-two per cent reported some form of spontaneous AE collection but only 29% included details of specific prompts used to ascertain AE data. Numbers that withdrew from the trial were well reported (80%), however only 35% of these reported whether withdrawals were due to AEs. Results presented and analysis performed was predominantly on 'patients with at least one event' with 84% of studies ignoring repeated events. Despite a lack of power to undertake formal hypothesis testing, 47% performed such tests for binary outcomes.ConclusionsThis review highlighted that the collection, reporting and analysis of AE data in clinical trials is inconsistent and RCTs as a source of safety data are underused. Areas to improve include reducing information loss when analysing at patient level and inappropriate practice of underpowered multiple hypothesis testing. Implementation of standard reporting practices could enable a more accurate synthesis of safety data and development of guidance for statistical methodology to assess causality of AEs could facilitate better statistical practice.

Project description:BackgroundNaltrexone is an opioid antagonist used in many different conditions, both licensed and unlicensed. It is used at widely varying doses from 3 to 250 mg. The aim of this review was to extensively evaluate the safety of oral naltrexone by examining the risk of serious adverse events and adverse events in randomised controlled trials of naltrexone compared to placebo.MethodsA systematic search of the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, other databases and clinical trials registries was undertaken up to May 2018. Parallel placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials longer than 4 weeks published after 1 January 2001 of oral naltrexone at any dose were selected. Any condition or age group was included, excluding only studies in opioid or ex-opioid users owing to possible opioid/opioid antagonist interactions. The systematic review used the guidance of the Cochrane Handbook and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses harms checklist throughout. Numerical data were independently extracted by two people and cross-checked. Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. Meta-analyses were performed in R using random effects models throughout.ResultsEighty-nine randomised controlled trials with 11,194 participants were found, studying alcohol use disorders (n = 38), various psychiatric disorders (n = 13), impulse control disorders (n = 9), other addictions including smoking (n = 18), obesity or eating disorders (n = 6), Crohn's disease (n = 2), fibromyalgia (n = 1) and cancers (n = 2). Twenty-six studies (4,960 participants) recorded serious adverse events occurring by arm of study. There was no evidence of increased risk of serious adverse events for naltrexone compared to placebo (risk ratio 0.84, 95% confidence interval 0.66-1.06). Sensitivity analyses pooling risk differences supported this conclusion (risk difference -0.01, 95% confidence interval -0.02-0.00) and subgroup analyses showed that results were consistent across different doses and disease groups. Secondary analysis revealed only six marginally significant adverse events for naltrexone compared to placebo, which were of mild severity.ConclusionsNaltrexone does not appear to increase the risk of serious adverse events over placebo. These findings confirm the safety of oral naltrexone when used in licensed indications and encourage investments to undertake efficacy studies in unlicensed indications.Trial registrationPROSPERO 2017 CRD42017054421 .

Project description:BACKGROUND: Misclassification of adverse events in clinical trials can sometimes have serious consequences. Therefore, each of the many steps involved, from a patient's adverse experience to presentation in tables in publications, should be as standardised as possible, minimising the scope for interpretation. Adverse events are categorised by a predefined dictionary, e.g. MedDRA, which is updated biannually with many new categories. The objective of this paper is to study interobserver variation and other challenges of coding. METHODS: Systematic review using PRISMA. We searched PubMed, EMBASE and The Cochrane Library. All studies were screened for eligibility by two authors. RESULTS: Our search returned 520 unique studies of which 12 were included. Only one study investigated interobserver variation. It reported that 12% of the codes were evaluated differently by two coders. Independent physicians found that 8% of all the codes deviated from the original description. Other studies found that product summaries could be greatly affected by the choice of dictionary. With the introduction of MedDRA, it seems to have become harder to identify adverse events statistically because each code is divided in subgroups. To account for this, lumping techniques have been developed but are rarely used, and guidance on when to use them is vague. An additional challenge is that adverse events are censored if they already occurred in the run-in period of a trial. As there are more than 26 ways of determining whether an event has already occurred, this can lead to bias, particularly because data analysis is rarely performed blindly. CONCLUSION: There is a lack of evidence that coding of adverse events is a reliable, unbiased and reproducible process. The increase in categories has made detecting adverse events harder, potentially compromising safety. It is crucial that readers of medical publications are aware of these challenges. Comprehensive interobserver studies are needed.

Dataset Information

Systematic review: outcomes and adverse events from randomised trials in Crohn's disease.

Publications

Systematic review: outcomes and adverse events from randomised trials in Crohn's disease.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets