Search

Background: Valid assessment of drug efficacy and safety requires an evidence base free of reporting bias. Using trial reports in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approval packages as a gold standard, we previously found that the published literature inflated the apparent efficacy of antidepressant drugs. The objective of the current study was to determine whether this has improved with recently approved drugs., Methods and Findings: Using medical and statistical reviews in FDA drug approval packages, we identified 30 Phase II/III double-blind placebo-controlled acute monotherapy trials, involving 13,747 patients, of desvenlafaxine, vilazodone, levomilnacipran, and vortioxetine; we then identified corresponding published reports. We compared the data from this newer cohort of antidepressants (approved February 2008 to September 2013) with the previously published dataset on 74 trials of 12 older antidepressants (approved December 1987 to August 2002). Using logistic regression, we examined the effects of trial outcome and trial cohort (newer versus older) on transparent reporting (whether published and FDA conclusions agreed). Among newer antidepressants, transparent publication occurred more with positive (15/15 = 100%) than negative (7/15 = 47%) trials (OR 35.1, CI95% 1.8 to 693). Controlling for trial outcome, transparent publication occurred more with newer than older trials (OR 6.6, CI95% 1.6 to 26.4). Within negative trials, transparent reporting increased from 11% to 47%. We also conducted and contrasted FDA- and journal-based meta-analyses. For newer antidepressants, FDA-based effect size (ESFDA) was 0.24 (CI95% 0.18 to 0.30), while journal-based effect size (ESJournals) was 0.29 (CI95% 0.23 to 0.36). Thus, effect size inflation, presumably due to reporting bias, was 0.05, less than for older antidepressants (0.10). Limitations of this study include a small number of trials and drugs-belonging to a single class-and a focus on efficacy (versus safety)., Conclusions: Reporting bias persists but appears to have diminished for newer, compared to older, antidepressants. Continued efforts are needed to further improve transparency in the scientific literature., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: ET previously worked as a Medical Officer for the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and reviewed applications submitted by pharmaceutical companies to determine they should be approved for US marketing. He has no financial interest in any pharmaceutical products, approved or otherwise. AC is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Cognitive Health Clinical Research Facility, by an NIHR Research Professorship (grant RP-2017-08-ST2-006), by the NIHR Oxford and Thames Valley Applied Research Collaboration and by the NIHR Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre (grant BRC-1215-20005). He has received research and consultancy fees from INCiPiT (Italian Network for Paediatric Trials), CARIPLO Foundation and Angelini Pharma, outside the submitted work. TAF reports grants and personal fees from Mitsubishi-Tanabe, personal fees from MSD, grants and personal fees from Shionogi, outside the submitted work; in addition, he has a patent 2020-548587 concerning smartphone CBT apps pending, and intellectual properties for Kokoro-app licensed to Mitsubishi-Tanabe. GS has received fees paid to the University of Bern for participating in a meeting as real-world evidence and metaanalysis expert from Biogen and Merck. YV has no competing interests.

Background: Previous studies on reporting bias generally examined whether trials were published in stand-alone publications. In this study, we investigated whether pooled-trials publications constitute a specific form of reporting bias. We assessed whether negative trials were more likely to be exclusively published in pooled-trials publications than positive trials and examined the research questions, individual trial results, and conclusions presented in these articles., Methods: Data from a cohort of 105 randomized controlled trials of 16 antidepressants were extracted from earlier publications and the corresponding Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews. A systematic literature search was conducted to identify pooled-trials publications., Results: We found 107 pooled-trials publications that reported results of 23 (72%) of 32 trials not published in stand-alone publications. Only two (3.8%) of 54 positive trials were published exclusively in pooled-trials publications, compared with 21 (41.1%) of 51 negative trials (p < 0.001). Thirteen (12%) of 107 publications had as primary aim to present data on the trial's primary research question (drug efficacy compared with placebo). Only four of these publications, reporting on five (22%) trials, presented individual efficacy data for the primary research question. Additionally, only five (5%) of 107 pooled-trials publications had a negative conclusion., Conclusions: Compared with positive trials, negative trials of antidepressants for depression were much more likely to be reported exclusively in pooled-trials publications. Pooled-trials publications flood the evidence base with often-redundant articles that, instead of addressing the original primary research question, present (positive) results on secondary questions. Therefore, pooled-trials publications distort the apparent risk-benefit profile of antidepressants.

Background: Improvement in depression within the first 2 weeks of antidepressant treatment predicts good outcomes, but non-improvers can still respond or remit, whereas improvers often do not.AimsWe aimed to investigate whether early improvement of individual depressive symptoms better predicts response or remission., Method: We obtained individual patient data of 30 trials comprising 2184 placebo-treated and 6058 antidepressant-treated participants. Primary outcome was week 6 response; secondary outcomes were week 6 remission and week 12 response and remission. We compared models that only included improvement in total score by week 2 (total improvement model) with models that also included improvement in individual symptoms., Results: For week 6 response, the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve and negative and positive predictive values of the total improvement model were 0.73, 0.67 and 0.74 compared with 0.77, 0.70 and 0.71 for the item improvement model. Model performance decreased for week 12 outcomes. Of predicted non-responders, 29% actually did respond by week 6 and 43% by week 12, which was decreased from the baseline (overall) probabilities of 51% by week 6 and 69% by week 12. In post hoc analyses with continuous rather than dichotomous early improvement, including individual items did not enhance model performance., Conclusions: Examining individual symptoms adds little to the predictive ability of early improvement. Additionally, early non-improvement does not rule out response or remission, particularly after 12 rather than 6 weeks. Therefore, our findings suggest that routinely adapting pharmacological treatment because of limited early improvement would often be premature.Declaration of interestNone.

Background: Antidepressants remain controversial, partly due to allegations that disappointing results were buried and because of their modest average efficacy.
AIM: To investigate bias in the antidepressant literature and the possibilities for predicting which patients with depression or anxiety do receive significant benefits from antidepressants.
METHOD: We investigated bias by comparing information from the US Food and Drug Administration with the published literature. To predict response, we used patient data from randomized trials.
RESULTS: Of all studies on depression or anxiety, 50% and 72% were positive, compared to 95% and 96% of all published studies. Safety outcomes were poorly reported in published articles and unpublished studies were often 'bundled' into pooled-trials publications with positive conclusions. We found an association between severity and antidepressant efficacy for some, but not all, anxiety disorders; previous research has found inconsistent evidence for this association for depression. Furthermore, patients with depression that showed early improvement were more likely to attain a good response, irrespective of which symptoms improved.
CONCLUSION: These results demonstrate the severe impact of bias on the antidepressant literature. Severity and early improvement predicted a good response, but more information is needed to improve predictions. The increased accessibility of individual patient data will hopefully soon enable further progress in this area.

Background: It has been suggested that antidepressant benefits are smaller for mild than severe depression. Because antidepressants are also used for anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), we examined the influence of severity for these disorders., Methods: We used individual patient data of eight trials (3,430 participants) for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD); four trials (1,195 participants) for social anxiety disorder (SAD); four trials (1,132 participants) for OCD; three trials (1,071 participants) for PTSD; and 10 trials (2,151 participants) for panic disorder (PD). Mixed-effects models were used to investigate an interaction between severity and treatment group., Results: For GAD and PD, severity moderated antidepressant efficacy. The antidepressant-placebo difference was 1.4 (95% CI: 0.4-2.5; SMD: 0.21) Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) points for participants with mild GAD (baseline HAM-A = 10), increasing to 4.0 (3.4-4.6; SMD: 0.45) or greater for severely ill participants (HAM-A ≥ 30). For PD, the difference was 0.4 (0.3-0.6) panic attacks/2 weeks for participants with 10 panic attacks/2 weeks at baseline, increasing to 4.7 (3.0-6.4) for participants with 40. For SAD, OCD, and PTSD, no interaction was found. Across severity levels, the differences were 16.1 (12.9-19.3; SMD: 0.59) Liebowitz Social Anxiety Scale points, 3.4 (2.5-4.4, SMD: 0.39) Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale points, and 10.3 (6.9-13.6; SMD: 0.41) Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale points., Conclusions: Antidepressants are equally effective across severity levels for SAD, OCD, and PTSD. For GAD and PD, however, benefits are small at low severity, and the benefit-risk ratio may be unfavorable for these patients., (© 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

The Dutch guideline for the treatment of depression in young people recommends initiating antidepressant treatment with fluoxetine, as the evidence for its efficacy is strongest and the risk of suicidality may be lower than with other antidepressants. Furthermore, low starting doses are recommended. We aimed to determine whether antidepressant prescriptions are in accord with guidelines. A cohort of young people aged between 6 and 17 at the time of antidepressant initiation was selected from IABD, a Dutch pharmacy prescription database. The percentage of prescriptions for each antidepressant was determined. Starting and maintenance doses were determined and compared with recommendations for citalopram, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, and sertraline. During the study period, 2942 patients initiated antidepressant treatment. The proportion of these young people who were prescribed fluoxetine increased from 10.1 % in 1994-2003 to 19.7 % in 2010-2014. However, the most commonly prescribed antidepressants were paroxetine in 1994-2003 and citalopram in 2004-2014. The median starting and maintenance doses were ≤0.5 DDD/day for tricyclic antidepressants and 0.5-1 DDD/day for SSRIs and other antidepressants. Starting doses were guideline-concordant 58 % of the time for children, 31 % for preteens, and 16 % for teens. Sixty percent of teens were prescribed an adult starting dose. In conclusion, guideline adherence was poor. Physicians preferred citalopram over fluoxetine, in contrast to the recommendations. Furthermore, although children were prescribed a low starting dose relatively frequently, teens were often prescribed an adult starting dose. These results suggest that dedicated effort may be necessary to improve guideline adherence., Competing Interests: Compliance with ethical standards Conflicts of interest On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. Ethical statement This study made use of de-identified patient data. Ethical approval was not required.

Background: Antidepressants are established first-line treatments for anxiety disorders, but it is not clear whether they are equally effective across the severity range., Aims: To examine the influence of baseline severity of anxiety on antidepressant efficacy for generalised anxiety disorder (GAD), social anxiety disorder (SAD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and panic disorder., Method: Fifty-six trials of second-generation antidepressants for the short-term treatment of an anxiety disorder were included. Baseline and change scores were extracted for placebo and treatment groups in each trial. Mixed effects meta-regression was used to investigate the effects of treatment group, baseline severity and their interaction., Results: Increased baseline severity did not predict greater improvement in drug groups compared with placebo groups. Standardised regression coefficients of the interaction term between baseline severity and treatment group were 0.04 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.20, P = 0.65) for GAD, -0.06 (95% CI -0.20 to 0.09, P = 0.43) for SAD, 0.04 (95% CI -0.07 to 0.16, P = 0.46) for OCD, 0.16 (95% CI -0.22 to 0.53, P = 0.37) for PTSD and 0.002 (95% CI -0.10 to 0.10, P = 0.96) for panic disorder. For OCD, baseline severity did predict improvement in both placebo and drug groups equally (β = 0.11, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.17, P = 0.001)., Conclusions: No relationship between baseline severity and drug-placebo difference was found for anxiety disorders. These results suggest that if the efficacy of antidepressants is considered clinically relevant, they may be prescribed to patients with anxiety regardless of symptom severity., (© The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2016.)