Search

In Germany, new drugs are subject to a benefit assessment at the time of their market access. This "early benefit assessment" is the method primarily used for the benefit assessment of pharmaceuticals in Germany. While for the authorization of a drug a positive risk-benefit ratio is sufficient, early benefit assessment examines whether the new drug has an added benefit compared with other therapies, and thus differs significantly from authorization. For the evaluation, the manufacturer is required to submit a dossier, which must contain all the relevant studies. Early benefit assessment is very transparent in international comparisons, because all the relevant data and the evaluation report will be published. The assessment is carried out with regard to the evidence-based standard of care (the "appropriate comparator"). If the new drug is found to have an additional benefit, the extent of this added benefit is assessed. In addition, groups of patients should be identified with the particular extent of the added benefit. Therefore, subgroup analyses have to be carried out frequently. Often, for new drugs, only registration studies are available. General requirements for such studies (e.g., placebo comparison, endpoints) and decisions regarding the approval process (e.g., dosage regimens) can affect the level of confidence of these studies in the benefit assessment. Joint scientific advice by regulatory authorities and HTA (health technology assessment) agencies are provided to solve this problem. However, this is not possible without additional expense for the pharmaceutical companies.

Background: Clinical trial results registries may contain relevant unpublished information. Our main aim was to investigate the potential impact of the inclusion of reports from industry results registries on systematic reviews (SRs)., Methods: We identified a sample of 150 eligible SRs in PubMed via backward selection. Eligible SRs investigated randomized controlled trials of drugs and included at least 2 bibliographic databases (original search date: 11/2009). We checked whether results registries of manufacturers and/or industry associations had also been searched. If not, we searched these registries for additional trials not considered in the SRs, as well as for additional data on trials already considered. We reanalysed the primary outcome and harm outcomes reported in the SRs and determined whether results had changed. A "change" was defined as either a new relevant result or a change in the statistical significance of an existing result. We performed a search update in 8/2013 and identified a sample of 20 eligible SRs to determine whether mandatory results registration from 9/2008 onwards in the public trial and results registry ClinicalTrials.gov had led to its inclusion as a standard information source in SRs, and whether the inclusion rate of industry results registries had changed., Results: 133 of the 150 SRs (89%) in the original analysis did not search industry results registries. For 23 (17%) of these SRs we found 25 additional trials and additional data on 31 trials already included in the SRs. This additional information was found for more than twice as many SRs of drugs approved from 2000 as approved beforehand. The inclusion of the additional trials and data yielded changes in existing results or the addition of new results for 6 of the 23 SRs. Of the 20 SRs retrieved in the search update, 8 considered ClinicalTrials.gov or a meta-registry linking to ClinicalTrials.gov, and 1 considered an industry results registry., Conclusion: The inclusion of industry and public results registries as an information source in SRs is still insufficient and may result in publication and outcome reporting bias. In addition to an essential search in ClinicalTrials.gov, authors of SRs should consider searching industry results registries.

Background: Access to unpublished clinical study reports (CSRs) is currently being discussed as a means to allow unbiased evaluation of clinical research. The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG) routinely requests CSRs from manufacturers for its drug assessments. Our objective was to determine the information gain from CSRs compared to publicly available sources (journal publications and registry reports) for patient-relevant outcomes included in IQWiG health technology assessments (HTAs) of drugs., Methods and Findings: We used a sample of 101 trials with full CSRs received for 16 HTAs of drugs completed by IQWiG between 15 January 2006 and 14 February 2011, and analyzed the CSRs and the publicly available sources of these trials. For each document type we assessed the completeness of information on all patient-relevant outcomes included in the HTAs (benefit outcomes, e.g., mortality, symptoms, and health-related quality of life; harm outcomes, e.g., adverse events). We dichotomized the outcomes as "completely reported" or "incompletely reported." For each document type, we calculated the proportion of outcomes with complete information per outcome category and overall. We analyzed 101 trials with CSRs; 86 had at least one publicly available source, 65 at least one journal publication, and 50 a registry report. The trials included 1,080 patient-relevant outcomes. The CSRs provided complete information on a considerably higher proportion of outcomes (86%) than the combined publicly available sources (39%). With the exception of health-related quality of life (57%), CSRs provided complete information on 78% to 100% of the various benefit outcomes (combined publicly available sources: 20% to 53%). CSRs also provided considerably more information on harms. The differences in completeness of information for patient-relevant outcomes between CSRs and journal publications or registry reports (or a combination of both) were statistically significant for all types of outcomes. The main limitation of our study is that our sample is not representative because only CSRs provided voluntarily by pharmaceutical companies upon request could be assessed. In addition, the sample covered only a limited number of therapeutic areas and was restricted to randomized controlled trials investigating drugs., Conclusions: In contrast to CSRs, publicly available sources provide insufficient information on patient-relevant outcomes of clinical trials. CSRs should therefore be made publicly available. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

The number needed to treat (NNT) is a popular measure to describe the absolute effect of a new treatment compared with a standard treatment or placebo in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with binary outcome. For applications in epidemiology, the average risk difference (ARD) approach based upon logistic regression was proposed to estimate NNT measures with adjustment for covariates. In the context of cohort studies, averaging is performed separately over the unexposed and the exposed persons to account for possible different exposure effects in the two groups or over the entire sample. In this paper, we apply the ARD approach to estimate adjusted NNTs in RCT settings with balanced covariates where it is adequate to average over the whole sample. It is known that the consequence of adjusting for balanced covariates in logistic regression is on one hand a loss of precision and on the other hand an increased efficiency in testing for treatment effects. However, these results are based upon the investigation of regression coefficients and corresponding odds ratios. By means of simulations we show that the estimation of risk differences and NNTs with adjustment for balanced covariates leads to a gain in precision. A considerable gain in precision is obtained in the case of strong covariate predictors with large variance. Therefore, it is preferable to adjust for balanced covariates in RCTs when the treatment effect is expressed in terms of risk differences and NNTs and the covariate represents a strong predictor., (Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Transverse aortic constriction (TAC) results in a transient increase of proinflammatory cytokines, which return to baseline levels within 3 d. In contrast to cytokine baseline levels, the myocardium remains capable to respond even stronger to a new stimulus. As the molecular mechanisms for this phenomenon are unknown, we tested whether TAC modulates the innate immune system in mice and changes the inflammatory reaction to a new stimulus., Methods: Following 3 d of TAC or sham-operation procedure (SOP), LPS (20 mg/kg) or PBS (control) were administered intraperitoneal for 10 min as well as for 6 h. Hemodynamic parameters were recorded to measure the effects of TAC and LPS. After TAC/SOP alone CD14 expression was monitored and after additional 6 h of LPS/PBS the expression of CD14, TLR4 and proinflammatory cytokines were determined by western-blot, ELISA and RNase protection assay, respectively. Following TAC/SOP and 10 min of LPS/PBS, NFkappaB activation was investigated by EMSA., Results: TAC induced cardiac hypertrophy and elevated blood pressure. LPS application led to hypotension and other symptoms of sepsis. CD14 expression increased after TAC alone and even further after additional LPS challenge. However, we did not detect changes of TLR4 expression. Also NFkappaB activation increased after LPS challenge higher in the TAC than in the SOP group. LPS-stimulation induced also higher cytokine expression in the TAC than in the SOP group., Conclusion: TAC modulates innate immunity by regulating the expression of CD14 and changes the myocardial tissue to respond more powerful to LPS.

The molecular mechanisms that mediate gram-negative sepsis-associated myocardial dysfunction remain elusive. Myocardial expression of inflammatory mediators is Toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) dependent. However, it remains to be elucidated whether TLR4, expressed on cardiac myocytes, mediates impairment of cardiac contractility after lipopolysaccharide (LPS) application. Cardiac myocyte contractility, measured as sarcomere shortening of isolated cardiac myocytes from C3H/HeJ (with nonfunctional TLR4) and C3H/HeN (control), were recorded at stimulation frequencies between 0.5 and 10 Hz and after incubation with 1 and 10 mug/mL LPS for up to 8 h. Control cells treated with LPS were investigated with and without a competitive LPS inhibitor (E5564) and a specific inducible nitric oxide synthase (iNOS) inhibitor S-methylisothiourea. In control mice, LPS reduced sarcomere shortening amplitude and prolonged duration of relaxation, whereas sarcomere shortening of C3H/HeJ cells was insensitive to LPS. NFkappaB and iNOS were upregulated after LPS application in control mice compared with C3H/HeJ. Inhibition of TLR4 by E5564 as well as inhibition of iNOS prevented the influence of LPS on contractile activity in control myocytes. LPS-dependent suppression of cardiac myocyte contractility was significantly blunted in C3H/HeJ mice. Competitive inhibition of functional TLR4 with E5564 protects cardiac myocyte contractility against LPS. These findings suggest that TLR4, expressed on cardiac myocytes, contributes to sepsis-induced myocardial dysfunction. E5564, currently under investigation in two clinical phase II trials, seems to be a new therapeutic option for the treatment of myocardial dysfunction in sepsis associated with endotoxemia.