Reporting of adverse events, conflict of interest and funding in randomised controlled trials of antibiotics: a secondary analysis.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Objectives
Transparent reporting of trials is necessary to assess their internal and external validity. Currently, little is known about the quality of reporting in antibiotics trials. Our study investigates the reporting of adverse events, conflicts of interest and funding information in trials of penicillins, cephalosporins and macrolides.Design
A secondary analysis of trials included in a convenience sample of three systematic reviews.Methods
All randomised controlled trials included in the systematic reviews were included, although duplicates were removed. Eligible trials compared the specified antibiotics to placebo, for any indication. Author pairs independently extracted the data on reporting of adverse events from parent reviews, and data on funding and conflict of interest information from the trial reports. We calculated the overall proportion of trials reporting adverse events, conflict of interest information and funding information, and their proportion before and after the publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2001 Statement.Results
We included 432 trials. Overall, 62% of trials reported adverse events of any kind, although reporting of deaths or antibiotic resistance was less frequent (20% and 37%, respectively). Conflict-of-interest information was provided in 26% of the trials, and funding information was provided in 66% of the trials. There was no significant difference in reporting of adverse events before and after the publication of CONSORT 2001 Statement (62% vs 62%, p=0.92). Conflict of interest statements were provided more frequently (2% vs 55%, p<0.001) and conflict was present more often (0% vs 14%, p<0.001). There was no difference in the provision of the information about trial funding before (62%) and after (70%) CONSORT 2001 publication.Conclusions
Information about adverse events, conflict of interest and funding, remains under-reported in trials of antibiotics.
SUBMITTER: Bakhit M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8292799 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
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: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.
| S-EPMC10163511 | 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:IntroductionThe GAIA (Global Alignment on Immunisation Safety Assessment in Pregnancy) consortium was established in 2014 with the aim of creating a standardised, globally coordinated approach to monitoring the safety of vaccines administered in pregnancy. The consortium developed twenty-six standardised definitions for classifying obstetric and infant adverse events. This systematic review sought to evaluate the current state of adverse event reporting in maternal vaccine trials following the publication of the case definitions by GAIA, and the extent to which these case definitions have been adopted in maternal vaccine safety research.MethodsA comprehensive search of published literature was undertaken to identify maternal vaccine research studies. PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane were searched using a combination of MeSH terms and keyword searches to identify observational or interventional studies that examined vaccine safety in pregnant women with a comparator group. A two-reviewer screening process was undertaken, and a narrative synthesis of the results presented.Results14,737 titles were identified from database searches, 435 titles were selected as potentially relevant, 256 were excluded, the remaining 116 papers were included. Influenza vaccine was the most studied (25.0%), followed by TDaP (20.7%) and SARS-CoV-2 (12.9%).Ninety-one studies (78.4%) were conducted in high-income settings. Forty-eight (41.4%) utilised electronic health-records. The majority focused on reporting adverse events of special interest (AESI) in pregnancy (65.0%) alone or in addition to reactogenicity (27.6%). The most frequently reported AESI were preterm birth, small for gestational age and hypertensive disorders. Fewer than 10 studies reported use of GAIA definitions. Gestational age assessment was poorly described; of 39 studies reporting stillbirths 30.8% provided no description of the gestational age threshold.ConclusionsLow-income settings remain under-represented in comparative maternal vaccine safety research. There has been poor uptake of GAIA case definitions. A lack of harmonisation and standardisation persists limiting comparability of the generated safety data.
| S-EPMC10943481 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Systematic reporting of funding sources is recommended in the CONSORT Statement for abstracts. However, no specific recommendation is related to the reporting of conflicts of interest (CoI). The objective was to compare physicians' confidence in the conclusions of abstracts of randomized controlled trials of pharmaceutical treatment indexed in PubMed.We planned a three-arm parallel-group randomized trial. French general practitioners (GPs) were invited to participate and were blinded to the study's aim. We used a representative sample of 75 abstracts of pharmaceutical industry-funded randomized controlled trials published in 2010 and indexed in PubMed. Each abstract was standardized and reported in three formats: 1) no mention of the funding source or CoI; 2) reporting the funding source only; and 3) reporting the funding source and CoI. GPs were randomized according to a computerized randomization on a secure Internet system at a 1:1:1 ratio to assess one abstract among the three formats. The primary outcome was GPs' confidence in the abstract conclusions (0, not at all, to 10, completely confident). The study was planned to detect a large difference with an effect size of 0.5.Between October 2012 and June 2013, among 605 GPs contacted, 354 were randomized, 118 for each type of abstract. The mean difference (95% confidence interval) in GPs' confidence in abstract findings was 0.2 (-0.6; 1.0) (P = 0.84) for abstracts reporting the funding source only versus no funding source or CoI; -0.4 (-1.3; 0.4) (P = 0.39) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus no funding source and CoI; and -0.6 (-1.5; 0.2) (P = 0.15) for abstracts reporting the funding source and CoI versus the funding source only.We found no evidence of a large impact of trial report abstracts mentioning funding sources or CoI on GPs' confidence in the conclusions of the abstracts.ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01679873.
| S-EPMC4022327 | biostudies-literature
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
Project description:IntroductionIn 2020, prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Brighton Collaboration created a priority list, endorsed by the World Health Organization, of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines. We adapted the Brighton Collaboration list to evaluate serious adverse events of special interest observed in mRNA COVID-19 vaccine trials.MethodsSecondary analysis of serious adverse events reported in the placebo-controlled, phase III randomized clinical trials of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in adults (NCT04368728 and NCT04470427), focusing analysis on Brighton Collaboration adverse events of special interest.ResultsPfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33.8), respectively. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 2.1 to 22.9); risk ratio 1.43 (95 % CI 1.07 to 1.92). The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group; risk difference 18.0 per 10,000 vaccinated (95 % CI 1.2 to 34.9); risk ratio 1.36 (95 % CI 1.02 to 1.83). The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group: risk difference 7.1 per 10,000 (95 % CI -23.2 to 37.4); risk ratio 1.06 (95 % CI 0.84 to 1.33). Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients: risk difference 13.2 (95 % CI -3.2 to 29.6); risk ratio 1.16 (95 % CI 0.97 to 1.39).DiscussionThe excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.
| S-EPMC9428332 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe suitability of disease activity indices has been challenged, with growing interest in objective measures of inflammation.AimTo undertake a systematic review of efficacy and safety outcomes in placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of patients with Crohn's disease.MethodsMEDLINE, 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).ResultsOne 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.ConclusionsTrial 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.
| S-EPMC6492112 | biostudies-literature