Opportunities for selective reporting of harms in randomized clinical trials: Selection criteria for non-systematic adverse events.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Adverse events (AEs) in clinical trials may be reported in multiple sources. Different methods for reporting adverse events across trials or across sources for a single trial may produce inconsistent information about the adverse events associated with interventions.Methods
We compared the methods authors use to decide which AEs to include in a particular source (i.e., "selection criteria"), including the number of different types of AEs reported (i.e., rather than the number of events). We compared sources (e.g., journal articles, clinical study reports (CSRs)) of trials for two drug-indications-gabapentin for neuropathic pain and quetiapine for bipolar depression. Electronic searches were completed in 2015. We identified selection criteria and assessed how criteria affected AE reporting.Results
We identified 21 gabapentin and 7 quetiapine trials. We found 6 gabapentin CSRs and 2 quetiapine CSRs, all written by drug manufacturers. All CSRs reported all AEs without applying selection criteria; by comparison, no other source reported all AEs, and 15/68 (22%) gabapentin sources and 19/48 (40%) quetiapine sources reported using selection criteria. Selection criteria greatly affected the number of AEs reported. For example, 67/316 (21%) AEs in one quetiapine trial met the criterion "occurring in ≥2% of participants in any treatment group," while only 5/316 (2%) AEs met the criterion "occurring in ≥10% of quetiapine-treated patients and twice as frequent in the quetiapine group as the placebo group."Conclusions
Selection criteria for reporting AEs vary across trials and across sources for individual trials. If investigators do not pre-specify selection criteria, they might "cherry-pick" AEs based on results. Even if investigators pre-specify selection criteria, selective reporting will produce biased meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines. Data about all AEs identified in clinical trials should be publicly available; however, sharing data will not solve all the problems identified in this study.
SUBMITTER: Mayo-Wilson E
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6728982 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Assessing the quality of evidence from vaccine clinical trials is essential to ensure the safety and efficacy of the vaccine and further enhance public acceptance. This study aims to summarize and critically evaluate the quality of harm reporting on randomized controlled trials for the COVID-19 vaccine and determine the factors associated with reporting quality. We systematically searched the literature using PRISMA guidelines for randomized controlled trials (RCT) on COVID-19 Vaccine until 30 December 2021. Published articles were searched from electronic databases such as PubMed, Science Direct, Google Scholar, and Bibliovid. Bias analysis was performed using RoB-2 tools. The quality of reporting was assessed by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) harm extension modified into 21 items. A total of 61 RCT studies (402,014 patients) were analyzed. Over half the studies demonstrated adequate reporting (59.02%), and 21 studies (34.4%) reported a low risk of bias. All studies reported death and serious adverse events (AEs), but only six studies mentioned how to handle the recurrent AEs. Reporting of AEs in subgroup analysis was also poor (25%). The RCTs on the COVID-19 vaccine were less biased with good quality on reporting harm based on the modified CONSORT harm extension. However, study quality must be considered, especially for a balance of information between effectivity and safety.
| S-EPMC8875800 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: The occurrence, development, and prognosis of serious adverse events (SAEs) associated with anticancer drugs in clinical trials have important guiding significance for real-world clinical applications. However, to date, there have been no studies investigating SAEs reporting in randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments. This article systematically reviewed the SAEs reporting of phase III randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments and analyzed the influencing factors. Methods: We reviewed all articles about phase III randomized clinical trials of colorectal cancer treatments published in the PubMed, Embase, Medline, and New England Journal of Medicine databases from January 1, 1993, to December 31, 2018, and searched the registration information of clinical trials via the internet sites such as "clinicaltrials.gov". We analyzed the correlation between the reported proportion (RP) of SAEs in the literature and nine elements, including the clinical trial sponsor and the publication time. Chi-square tests and binary logistic regression were used to identify the factors associated with improved SAEs reports. This study was registered on PROSPERO. Results: Of 1560 articles identified, 160 were eligible, with an RP of SAEs of 25.5% (41/160). In forty-one publications reporting SAEs, only 14.6% (6/41) described the pattern of SAEs in detail. In clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies, the RP of SAEs was significantly higher than that in those sponsored by investigators (57.6 versus 20.7%, p < 0.001). From 1993 to 2018, the RP of SAEs gradually increased (none (0/6) before 2000, 17.1% (12/70) from 2000 to 2009, and 34.5% (29/84) after 2009). The average RP of SAEs published in the New England Journal of Medicine (N Engl J Med), the Lancet, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), the Lancet Oncology (Lancet Oncol), and the Journal of Clinical Oncology (J Clin Oncol) was significantly higher than that published in other journals (31.9 versus 16.7%, p = 0.030). In the clinical trials referenced by clinical guidelines, the RP of SAEs was higher than that in non-referenced clinical trials (32.0 versus 15.9%, p = 0.023). Binary logistic regression analysis showed that pharmaceutical company sponsorship, new drug research, and sample size greater than 1000 were positive influencing factors for SAEs reporting. Conclusion: Although the RP of SAEs increased over time, SAEs reporting in clinical trials needs to be further improved. The performance, outcomes and prognosis of SAEs should be reported in detail to guide clinical practice in the real world.
| S-EPMC8636814 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC6398660 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Current treatment options for stage III non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) consist of different combinations of chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy and immunotherapy. Treatment choices are highly individual decisions, in which adverse events (AEs) are relevant for decision-making. This study aims to analyse reporting of AEs in prospective stage III NSCLC trials, focussing on trials including radiotherapy and/or surgery. PubMed was searched for prospective studies dealing with stage III NSCLC from January 1987 to April 2019. Meta-analyses were screened as a positive control. Pearson's Chi-squared test and smooth kernel distribution were used to estimate distributions. Data was resampled using bootstrapping. Out of 1193 initially identified studies, 119 met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 31 had a surgical procedure in any study arm. Grade 3 and 4 AEs were reported in 94.12% and 92.44% of the included studies, respectively. Reporting of grade 5 AEs was provided in 87.39% of cases. Grade 1 and 2 AEs were less commonly reported at 53.78% and 63.03%, respectively. One study did not mention any AEs. Of the 31 treatment arms including any form of surgery, AEs were not reported in 10. Overall, 231 different AE items were reported, only 18 of them were included in at least 20% of the analysed studies. Overall, AE reporting in stage III NSCLC was inconsistent and inhomogeneous. Studies including surgical study arms often reported only treatment-related deaths in regards of surgical AEs. Underreporting of AEs prohibits the extraction of patient-relevant information for decision-making and represents a suboptimal use of invested resources.
| S-EPMC7487347 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundStandardized reporting methods facilitate comparisons between studies. Reporting of data on benefits and harms of treatments in surgical RCTs should support clinical decision-making. Correct and complete reporting of the outcomes of clinical trials is mandatory to appreciate available evidence and to inform patients properly before asking informed consent.MethodsRCTs published between January 2005 and January 2017 in 15 leading journals comparing a surgical treatment with any other treatment were reviewed systematically. The CONSORT checklist, including the extension for harms, was used to appraise the publications. Beneficial and harmful treatment outcomes, their definitions and their precision measures were extracted.ResultsOf 1200 RCTs screened, 88 trials were included. For the differences in effect size of beneficial outcomes, 68 per cent of the trials reported a P value only but not a 95 per cent confidence interval. For harmful effects, this was 67 per cent. Only five of the 88 trials (6 per cent) reported a number needed to treat, and no study a number needed to harm. Only 61 per cent of the trials reported on both the beneficial and harmful outcomes of the intervention studied in the same paper.ConclusionDespite CONSORT guidelines, current reporting of benefits and harms in surgical trials does not facilitate clear communication of treatment outcomes with patients. Researchers, reviewers and journal editors should ensure proper reporting of treatment benefits and harms in trials.
| S-EPMC7093777 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundEvidence-based medicine has been advanced by the use of standards for reporting the design and methodology of randomized controlled trials (RCT). Indeed, without this information it is difficult to assess the quality of evidence from an RCT. Although a variety of statistical methods are available for the analysis of recurrent events, reporting the effect of an intervention on outcomes that recur is an area that remains poorly understood in clinical research. The purpose of this paper is to outline guidelines for reporting results from RCTs where the outcome of interest is a recurrent event.MethodsWe used a simulation study to relate an event process and results from analyses of the gamma-Poisson, independent-increment, conditional, and marginal Cox models. We reviewed the utility of regression models for the rate of a recurrent event by articulating the associated study questions, preenting the risk sets, and interpreting the regression coefficients.ResultsBased on a single data set produced by simulation, we reported and contrasted results from statistical methods for evaluating treatment effect from an RCT with a recurrent outcome. We showed that each model has different study questions, assumptions, risk sets, and rate ratio interpretation, and so inferences should consider the appropriateness of the model for the RCT.ConclusionOur guidelines for reporting results from an RCT involving a recurrent event suggest that the study question and the objectives of the trial, such as assessing comparable groups and estimating effect size, should determine the statistical methods. The guidelines should allow clinical researchers to report appropriate measures from an RCT for understanding the effect of intervention on the occurrence of a recurrent event.
| S-EPMC2438437 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The first-in-class Bruton's tyrosine kinase inhibitor ibrutinib has proven clinical benefit in B-cell malignancies; however, atrial fibrillation (AF) has been reported in 6-16% of ibrutinib patients. We pooled data from 1505 chronic lymphocytic leukemia and mantle cell lymphoma patients enrolled in four large, randomized, controlled studies to characterize AF with ibrutinib and its management. AF incidence was 6.5% [95% Confidence Interval (CI): 4.8, 8.5] for ibrutinib at 16.6-months versus 1.6% (95%CI: 0.8, 2.8) for comparator and 10.4% (95%CI: 8.4, 12.9) at the 36-month follow up; estimated cumulative incidence: 13.8% (95%CI: 11.2, 16.8). Ibrutinib treatment, prior history of AF and age 65 years or over were independent risk factors for AF. Multiple AF events were more common with ibrutinib (44.9%; comparator, 16.7%) among patients with AF. Most (85.7%) patients with AF did not discontinue ibrutinib, and more than half received common anticoagulant/antiplatelet medications on study. Low-grade bleeds were more frequent with ibrutinib, but serious bleeds were uncommon (ibrutinib, 2.9%; comparator, 2.0%). Although the AF rate among older non-trial patients with comorbidities is likely underestimated by this dataset, these results suggest that AF among clinical trial patients is generally manageable without ibrutinib discontinuation (clinicaltrials.gov identifier: 01578707, 01722487, 01611090, 01646021).
| S-EPMC5622864 | biostudies-other
Project description:ImportanceIn cancer clinical trials, symptomatic adverse events (AEs), such as nausea, are reported by investigators rather than by patients. There is increasing interest to collect symptomatic AE data via patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, but it is unclear whether it is feasible to implement this approach in multicenter trials.ObjectiveTo examine whether patients are willing and able to report their symptomatic AEs in multicenter trials.Design, setting, and participantsA total of 361 consecutive patients enrolled in any 1 of 9 US multicenter cancer treatment trials were invited to self-report 13 common symptomatic AEs using a PRO adaptation of the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) via tablet computers at 5 successive clinic visits. Patient adherence was tracked with reasons for missed self-reports. Agreement with clinician AE reports was analyzed with weighted κ statistics. Patient and investigator perspectives were elicited by survey. The study was conducted from March 15, 2007, to August 11, 2011. Data analysis was performed from August 9, 2013, to March 21, 2014.ResultsOf the 361 patients invited to participate, 285 individuals enrolled, with a median age of 57 years (range, 24-88), 202 (74.3%) female, 241 (85.5%) white, 73 (26.8%) with a high school education or less, and 176 (64.7%) who reported regular internet use (denominators varied owing to missing data). Across all patients and trials, there were 1280 visits during which patients had an opportunity to self-report (ie, patients were alive and enrolled in a treatment trial at the time of the visit). Self-reports were completed at 1202 visits (93.9% overall adherence). Adherence was highest at baseline and declined over time (visit 1, 100%; visit 2, 96%; visit 3, 95%; visit 4, 91%; and visit 5, 85%). Reasons for missing PROs included institutional errors in 27 of 48 (56.3%) of the cases (eg, staff forgetting to bring computers to patients at visits), patients feeling "too ill" in 8 (16.7%), patient refusal in 8 (16.7%), and internet connectivity problems in 5 (10.4%). Patient-investigator CTCAE agreement was moderate or worse for most symptoms (most κ < 0.05), with investigators reporting fewer AEs than patients across symptoms. Most patients believed that the system was easy to use (234 [93.2%]) and useful (230 [93.1%]), and investigators thought that the patient-reported AEs were useful (133 [94.3%]) and accurate (119 [83.2%]).Conclusions and relevanceParticipants in multicenter cancer trials are willing and able to report their own symptomatic AEs at most clinic visits and report more AEs than investigators. This approach may improve the precision of AE reporting in cancer trials.
| S-EPMC5553624 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesFor 300 paediatric trials, we evaluated the reporting of: a data monitoring committee (DMC); interim analyses, stopping rules and early stopping; and adverse events and harm-related endpoints.MethodsFor this cross-sectional evaluation, we randomly selected 300 paediatric trials published in 2012 from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We collected data on the reporting of a DMC; interim analyses, stopping rules and early stopping; and adverse events and harm-related endpoints. We reported the findings descriptively and stratified by trial characteristics.ResultsEighty-five (28%) of the trials investigated drugs, and 18% (n=55/300) reported a DMC. The reporting of a DMC was more common among multicentre than single centre trials (n=41/132, 31% vs n=14/139, 10%, p<0.001) and industry-sponsored trials compared with those sponsored by other sources (n=16/50, 32% vs n=39/250, 16%, p=0.009). Trials that reported a DMC enrolled more participants than those that did not (median [range]): 224 (10-60480) vs 91 (10-9528) (p<0.001). Only 25% of these trials reported interim analyses, and 42% reported stopping rules. Less than half (n=143/300, 48%) of trials reported on adverse events, and 72% (n=215/300) reported on harm-related endpoints. Trials that reported a DMC compared with those that did not were more likely to report adverse events (n=43/55, 78% vs 100/245, 41%, p<0.001) and harm-related endpoints (n=52/55, 95% vs. 163/245, 67%, p<0.001). Only 32% of drug trials reported a DMC; 18% and 19% did not report on adverse events or harm-related endpoints, respectively.ConclusionsThe reporting of a DMC was infrequent, even among drug trials. Few trials reported stopping rules or interim analyses. Reporting of adverse events and harm-related endpoints was suboptimal.
| S-EPMC6542427 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCurrent adverse event reporting practices do not document longitudinal characteristics of adverse effects, and alternative methods are not easily interpretable and have not been employed by clinical trials. Introducing time parameters in the evaluation of safety that are comprehensive yet easily interpretable could allow for a better understanding of treatment quality. In this study, we developed and applied a novel adverse event reporting method based on longitudinal adverse event changes to aid describing, summarizing, and presenting adverse event profile. We termed it the "Adverse Event Load, Onset, and Maximum Grade" method.MethodsWe developed two adverse event summary metrics to complement the traditional maximum grade report. Onset time indicates the time period in which the maximum grade for a specific adverse event occurred and was defined as "early" (i.e. maximum grade happened for the first time before 6 weeks) or "late" (i.e. after the 6th week). Adverse event load indicates the overall severity of a specific adverse event over the entire treatment. Higher adverse event load indicates a worse overall experience. These metrics can be calculated for adverse events with different maximum grades, in treatments with planned changes (e.g. dosage changes), using data sets with different number of adverse event data points between treatments (e.g. treatments with longer cycle lengths may have less adverse event data points) and on data sets with different adverse event data availability (e.g. cycle basis and patient-outcome reports). We tested the utility of this method using individual patient data from two major backbone therapies ("Irinotecan" and "Oxaliplatin") from the N9741 trial available in the Fondation ARCAD database (fondationarcad.org). We investigated profiles of diarrhea, neutropenia/leukopenia, and nausea/vomiting.ResultsOur method provided additional information compared to traditional adverse event reports. For example, for nausea/vomiting, while patients in Irinotecan had a higher risk of experiencing maximum grade 3-4 (15.6% vs 7.6%, respectively; p < 0.001), patients in both groups experienced similar severity over time (adverse effect load = 0.102 and 0.096, respectively; p = 0.26), suggesting that patients in Oxaliplatin experienced a lower-grade but more persistent nausea/vomiting. For neutropenia/leukopenia, more patients in Irinotecan experienced their maximum grade for the first time early in the treatment compared to patients in Oxaliplatin (67.9% vs 41.7%; p < 0.001), regardless of maximum grade. Longitudinal information can help compare treatments or guide clinicians on choosing appropriate interventions for low-grade but persistent adverse event or early adverse event onset.ConclusionWe developed an adverse event reporting method that provides clinically relevant information about treatment toxicity by incorporating two longitudinal adverse event metrics to the traditional maximum grade approach. Future research should establish clinical benchmarks for metrics included in this adverse event reporting method.
| S-EPMC8009044 | biostudies-literature