Search

BACKGROUND: Selective reporting of trial results is common.OBJECTIVE: To study selective reporting in clinical study reports, company trial registers and publications of quality of life in placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants.METHODS: We compared clinical study reports of four antidepressants (fluoxetine, duloxetine, paroxetine and sertraline) obtained from two European drug regulators, data from online company registers, and publications received or retrieved from Eli Lilly and GlaxoSmithKline. Pfizer was also contacted but did not provide any publications.RESULTS: We included 15 trials (19,015 pages) and 4717 patients. Six trials had used SF-36, seven EQ-5D and two both instruments. Nine of the 15 CSRs (60%) displayed selective reporting. In the companies' online registers, there was selective reporting for all 15 trials (100%). We received 20 publications from Eli Lilly and retrieved six from the GlaxoSmithKline register. There was selective reporting in 24 of the 26 publications (92%). Despite extensive selective reporting, we found only small differences between placebo and active drugs.CONCLUSIONS: Access to the full raw data from clinical trials and to case report forms for all patients are needed to evaluate the effect of antidepressants on quality of life. Regulatory agencies should refuse to approve drugs or new indications based on incomplete reporting.

OBJECTIVE: To study the drop-out rates in trials of selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs and SNRIs). METHODS: This study is a systematic review and meta-analysis of trials. The main outcome measure: Overall drop-out rate. Secondary outcomes were drop-outs due to adverse events and lack of effect. We obtained clinical study reports (CSRs) of five antidepressant drugs from the European Medicines Agency and the UK's Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The eligibility criteria for selecting studies: double-blind randomised, placebo-controlled trials for any indication. Data extraction and analysis: The primary outcome was extracted by two researchers independently and meta-analysed using the Mantel-Haenszel method (fixed effect model). The secondary outcomes were extracted by one researcher and checked by another. Sensitivity analyses were performed using Peto's odds ratio and beta binomial methods, due to presence of null events, and by excluding unreliable trials. RESULTS: We included 71 CSRs (67,319 pages) with information on 73 trials (11,057 patients on SSRI or SNRI drugs, and 7,369 on placebo). There were minor discrepancies within the CSRs when a modified intention to treat principle was used and patients lost to follow up early in the trial were not accounted for. Significantly more patients dropped out on active drug than on placebo, risk ratio 1.08 (95% CI 1.03 to 1.13), with no difference between adults and children/adolescents, RR=1.08 (1.03 to 1.13) and 1.07 (0.95 to 1.21), respectively. When three trials with a prior single-blind phase on active drug were removed, the difference was a risk ratio of 1.12 (1.07 to 1.18), whereas the result was the same after removal of three trials with fraudulent data or other issues with data validity, risk ratio 1.08 (1.03 to 1.13). There were more drop-outs due to adverse events on active drug than on placebo, risk ratio 2.63 (2.33 to 2.96). There were fewer drop

Background The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) was established in 1999 and provides national guidance and advice to improve health and social care. Several steps in the research cycle have been identified that can support the reduction of waste that occurs in biomedical research. The first step in the process is ensuring appropriate research priority setting occurs so only the questions that are needed to fill existing gaps in the evidence are funded. This paper summarises the research priority setting processes at NICE. Methods NICE uses its guidance production processes to identify and prioritise research questions through systematic reviews, economic analyses and stakeholder consultations and then highlights those priorities by engagement with the research community. NICE also highlights its methodological areas for research to ensure the appropriate development and growth of the evidence landscape. Results NICE has prioritised research questions through its guidance production and methodological work and has successfully had several research products funded through the National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council. This paper summarises those activities and results. Conclusions This activity of NICE therefore reduces research waste by ensuring that the research it recommends has been systematically prioritised through evidence reviews and stakeholder input.

OBJECTIVE: To study serious harms associated with selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors.Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Mortality and suicidality. Secondary outcomes were aggressive behaviour and akathisia.DATA SOURCES: Clinical study reports for duloxetine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, sertraline, and venlafaxine obtained from the European and UK drug regulators, and summary trial reports for duloxetine and fluoxetine from Eli Lilly's website.ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR STUDY SELECTION: Double blind placebo controlled trials that contained any patient narratives or individual patient listings of harms.DATA EXTRACTION AND ANALYSIS: Two researchers extracted data independently; the outcomes were meta-analysed by Peto's exact method (fixed effect model).RESULTS: We included 70 trials (64,381 pages of clinical study reports) with 18,526 patients. These trials had limitations in the study design and discrepancies in reporting, which may have led to serious under-reporting of harms. For example, some outcomes appeared only in individual patient listings in appendices, which we had for only 32 trials, and we did not have case report forms for any of the trials. Differences in mortality (all deaths were in adults, odds ratio 1.28, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 4.06), suicidality (1.21, 0.84 to 1.74), and akathisia (2.04, 0.93 to 4.48) were not significant, whereas patients taking antidepressants displayed more aggressive behaviour (1.93, 1.26 to 2.95). For adults, the odds ratios were 0.81 (0.51 to 1.28) for suicidality, 1.09 (0.55 to 2.14) for aggression, and 2.00 (0.79 to 5.04) for akathisia. The corresponding values for children and adolescents were 2.39 (1.31 to 4.33), 2.79 (1.62 to 4.81), and 2.15 (0.48 to 9.65). In the summary trial reports on Eli Lilly's website, almost all deaths were noted, but all suicidal ideation events were missing, and the information on the remai