Dataset Information

Success and efficiency of phase 2/3 adjunctive trials for MDD funded by industry: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: To review the success rate and efficiency of industry-sponsored phase 2/3 clinical trials for adjunctive therapies for antidepressant partial- and non-responders with major depressive disorder (MDD), a systematic search of Pubmed/Medline was conducted, in addition to abstracts of major psychiatric meeting held since 2010, of randomized, placebo-controlled adjunct oral pharmacotherapy trials in this patient population. Forty-six (n?=?33,900; 70 drug compactor arms) trials were pooled, yielding only three approved drugs. Twenty-two (31.4%) drug-placebo comparisons were successful. Numerically, success rates for treatment arms from studies with one versus more than one drug-placebo comparison were higher (39.3% versus 26.2%). The antidepressant lead-in employing single-blind placebo and the sequential-parallel comparison design (SPCD) were successful in 50% and 40% of cases, respectively. The direct randomization (no lead-in) design yielded positive results in one third of cases. The success rate of open-label antidepressant lead-ins without placebo or using double-blind placebo was very poor (<15%). There was also a pronounced discrepancy in terms of efficiency across study designs. Accounting for sample size requirements, a phase 3 program using SPCD would have a higher cumulative chance of yielding two positive trials (50%) than a phase 3 program using a single-blind placebo lead-in (40%). Future programs should carefully weigh the need for a lead-in, which is time-consuming, expensive and, in some cases (i.e., open-label antidepressant without placebo or with double-blind placebo) nearly futile. Instead, more effort should involve the use of studies where patients are directly randomized, such as the SPCD, with more investment shifted towards the accurate and independent vetting of subject eligibility.

SUBMITTER: Salloum NC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7473846 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Success and efficiency of phase 2/3 adjunctive trials for MDD funded by industry: a systematic review.

Salloum Naji C NC Fava Maurizio M Ball Sophia S Papakostas George I GI

Molecular psychiatry 20200127 9

To review the success rate and efficiency of industry-sponsored phase 2/3 clinical trials for adjunctive therapies for antidepressant partial- and non-responders with major depressive disorder (MDD), a systematic search of Pubmed/Medline was conducted, in addition to abstracts of major psychiatric meeting held since 2010, of randomized, placebo-controlled adjunct oral pharmacotherapy trials in this patient population. Forty-six (n = 33,900; 70 drug compactor arms) trials were pooled, yielding on ...[more]

PMID: 31988433

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPrevious research reviewed treatment success and whether the collective uncertainty principle is met in RCTs in the US National Cancer Institute portfolio. This paper classifies clinical trials funded by the UK HTA programme by results using the method applied to the US Cancer Institute trials, and compares the two portfolios.MethodsData on all completed randomised controlled trials funded by the HTA programme 1993-2008 were extracted. Each trial's primary results was classified into six categories; 1) statistically significant in favour of the new treatment, 2) statistically significant in favour of the control treatment 3) true negative, 4) truly inconclusive, 5) inconclusive in favour of new treatment or 6) inconclusive in favour of control treatment. Trials were classified by comparing the 95% confidence interval for the difference in primary outcome to the difference specified in the sample size calculation. The results were compared with Djulbegovic's analysis of NCI trials.ResultsData from 51 superiority trials were included, involving over 48,000 participants and a range of diseases and interventions. 85 primary comparisons were available because some trials had more than two randomised arms or had several primary outcomes. The new treatment had superior results (whether significant or not) in 61% of the comparisons (52/85 95% CI 49.9% to 71.6%). The results were conclusive in 46% of the comparisons (19% statistically significant in favour of the new treatment, 5% statistically significant in favour of the control and 22% true negative). The results were classified as truly inconclusive (i.e. failed to answer the question asked) for 24% of comparisons (20/85). HTA trials included fewer truly inconclusive and statistically significant results and more results rated as true negative than NCI trials.ConclusionsThe pattern of results in HTA trials is similar to that of the National Cancer Institute portfolio. Differences that existed were plausible given the differences in the types of trials -HTA trials are more pragmatic. The results indicate HTA trials are compatible with equipoise. This classification usefully summarises the results from clinical trials and enables comparisons of different portfolios of trials.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Unabridged access to drug industry and regulatory trial registers and data reduces reporting bias in systematic reviews and may provide a complete index of a drug's clinical study programme. Currently, there is no public index of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine industry study programmes or a public index of non-industry funded studies. METHODS:By cross-verification via study programme enquiries to the HPV vaccine manufacturers and regulators and searches of trial registers and journal publication databases, we indexed clinical HPV vaccine studies as a basis to address reporting bias in a systematic review of clinical study reports. RESULTS:We indexed 206 clinical studies: 145 industry and 61 non-industry funded studies. One of the four HPV vaccine manufacturers (GlaxoSmithKline) provided information on its study programme. Most studies were cross-verified from two or more sources (160/206, 78%) and listed on regulatory or industry trial registers or journal publication databases (195/206, 95%)-in particular, on ClinicalTrials.gov (176/195, 90%). However, study results were only posted for about half of the completed studies on ClinicalTrials.gov (71/147, 48%). Two thirds of the industry studies had a study programme ID, manufacturer specific ID, and national clinical trial (NCT) ID (91/145, 63%). Journal publications were available in journal publication databases (the Cochrane Collaboration's Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar and PubMed) for two thirds of the completed studies (92/149, 62%). CONCLUSION:We believe we came close to indexing complete HPV vaccine study programmes, but only one of the four manufacturers provided information for our index and a fifth of the index could not be cross-verified. However, we indexed larger study programmes than those listed by major regulators (i.e., the EMA and FDA that based their HPV vaccine approvals on only half of the available trials). To reduce reporting bias in systematic reviews, we advocate the registration and publication of all studies and data in the public domain.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Computerised clinical decision support (CDS) can potentially better inform decisions, and it can help with the management of information overload. It is perceived to be a key component of a learning health care system. Despite its increasing implementation worldwide, it remains uncertain why the effect of CDS varies and which factors make CDS more effective. OBJECTIVE:To examine which factors make CDS strategies more effective on a number of outcomes, including adherence to recommended practice, patient outcome measures, economic measures, provider or patient satisfaction, and medical decision quality. METHODS:We identified randomised controlled trials, non-randomised trials, and controlled before-and-after studies that directly compared CDS implementation with a given factor to CDS without that factor by searching CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL and checking reference lists of relevant studies. We considered CDS with any objective for any condition in any healthcare setting. We included CDS interventions that were either displayed on screen or provided on paper and that were directed at healthcare professionals or targeted at both professionals and patients. The reviewers screened the potentially relevant studies in duplicate. They extracted data and assessed risk of bias in independent pairs or individually followed by a double check by another reviewer. We summarised results using medians and interquartile ranges and rated our certainty in the evidence using the GRADE system. RESULTS:We identified 66 head-to-head trials that we synthesised across 14 comparisons of CDS intervention factors. Providing CDS automatically versus on demand led to large improvements in adherence. Displaying CDS on-screen versus on paper led to moderate improvements and making CDS more versus less patient-specific improved adherence modestly. When CDS interventions were combined with professional-oriented strategies, combined with patient-oriented strategies, or combined with staff-oriented strategies, then adherence improved slightly. Providing CDS to patients slightly increased adherence versus CDS aimed at the healthcare provider only. Making CDS advice more explicit and requiring users to respond to the advice made little or no difference. The CDS intervention factors made little or no difference to patient outcomes. The results for economic outcomes and satisfaction outcomes were sparse. CONCLUSION:Multiple factors may affect the success of CDS interventions. CDS may be more effective when the advice is provided automatically and displayed on-screen and when the suggestions are more patient-specific. CDS interventions combined with other strategies probably also improves adherence. Providing CDS directly to patients may also positively affect adherence. The certainty of the evidence was low to moderate for all factors. TRIAL REGISTRATION:PROSPERO, CRD42016033738.

Dataset Information

Success and efficiency of phase 2/3 adjunctive trials for MDD funded by industry: a systematic review.

Publications

Success and efficiency of phase 2/3 adjunctive trials for MDD funded by industry: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets