Unpublished trials of alprazolam XR and their influence on its apparent efficacy for panic disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To test for publication bias with alprazolam, the most widely prescribed benzodiazepine, by comparing its efficacy for panic disorder using trial results from (1) the published literature and (2) the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). METHODS: From FDA reviews, we included data from all phase 2/3 efficacy trials of alprazolam extended-release (Xanax XR) for the treatment of panic disorder. A search for matching publications was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar. Publication bias was examined by comparing: (1) overall trial results (positive or not) according to the FDA v. corresponding publications; (2) effect size (Hedges's g) based on FDA data v. published data. RESULTS: The FDA review showed that five trials were conducted, only one of which (20%) was positive. Of the four not-positive trials, two were published conveying a positive outcome; the other two were not published. Thus, according to the published literature, three trials were conducted and all (100%) were positive. Alprazolam's effect size calculated using FDA data was 0.33 (CI95% 0.07-0.60) v. 0.47 (CI95% 0.30-0.65) using published data, an increase of 0.14, or 42%. CONCLUSIONS: Publication bias substantially inflates the apparent efficacy of alprazolam XR.

Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy: Updated comparisons and meta-analyses of newer versus older trials.

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.

Ketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators for depression in adults with unipolar major depressive disorder.

BACKGROUND: Many studies have recently been conducted to assess the antidepressant efficacy of glutamate modification in mood disorders. This is an update of a review first published in 2015 focusing on the use of glutamate receptor modulators in unipolar depression. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects - and review the acceptability and tolerability - of ketamine and other glutamate receptor modulators in alleviating the acute symptoms of depression in people with unipolar major depressive disorder. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Ovid MEDLINE, Embase and PsycINFO all years to July 2020.  We did not apply any restrictions to date, language or publication status. SELECTION CRITERIA: Double- or single-blinded randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ketamine, memantine, esketamine or other glutamate receptor modulators with placebo (pill or saline infusion), other active psychotropic drugs, or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT) in adults with unipolar major depression. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Three review authors independently identified studies, assessed trial quality and extracted data. The primary outcomes were response rate (50% reduction on a standardised rating scale) and adverse events. We decided a priori to measure the efficacy outcomes at different time points and run sensitivity/subgroup analyses. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and certainty of the evidence was assessed using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-one new studies were identified for inclusion in this updated review. Overall, we included 64 studies (5299 participants) on ketamine (31 trials), esketamine (9), memantine (5), lanicemine (4), D-cycloserine (2), Org26576 (2), riluzole (2), atomoxetine (1), basimglurant (1), citicoline (1), CP-101,606 (1), decoglurant (1), MK-0657 (1), N-acetylcysteine (1), rapastinel (1), and sarcosine (1). Forty-eight studies were placebo-controlled, and 48 were two-arm studies. The majority of trials defined an inclusion criterion for the severity of depressive symptoms at baseline: 29 at least moderate depression; 17 severe depression; and five mild-to-moderate depression. Nineteen studies recruited only patients with treatment-resistant depression, defined as inadequate response to at least two antidepressants. The majority of studies investigating ketamine administered as a single dose, whilst all of the included esketamine studies used a multiple dose regimen (most frequently twice a week for four weeks). Most studies looking at ketamine used intravenous administration, whilst the majority of esketamine trials used intranasal routes. The evidence suggests that ketamine may result in an increase in response and remission compared with placebo at 24 hours odds ratio (OR) 3.94, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.54 to 10.10; n = 185, studies = 7, very low-certainty evidence). Ketamine may reduce depression rating scale scores over placebo at 24 hours, but the evidence is very uncertain (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.87, 95% CI -1.26 to -0.48; n = 231, studies = 8, very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants assigned to ketamine or placebo who dropped out for any reason (OR 1.25, 95% CI 0.19 to 8.28; n = 201, studies = 6, very low-certainty evidence). When compared with midazolam, the evidence showed that ketamine increases remission rates at 24 hours (OR 2.21, 95% CI 0.67 to 7.32; n = 122,studies = 2, low-certainty evidence). The evidence is very uncertain about the response efficacy of ketamine at 24 hours in comparison with midazolam, and its ability to reduce depression rating scale scores at the same time point (OR 2.48, 95% CI 1.00 to 6.18; n = 296, studies = 4,very low-certainty evidence). There was no difference in the number of participants who dropped out of studies for any reason between ketamine and placebo (OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.05 to 2.09; n = 72, studies = 1, low-certainty evidence). Esketamine treatment likely results in a large increase in participants achieving remission at 24 hours compared with placebo (OR 2.74, 95% CI 1.71 to 4.40; n = 894, studies = 5, moderate-certainty evidence). Esketamine probably results in decreases in depression rating scale scores at 24 hours compared with placebo (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.45 to -0.17; n = 824, studies = 4, moderate-certainty evidence). Our findings show that esketamine increased response rates, although this evidence is uncertain (OR 2.11, 95% CI 1.20 to 3.68; n = 1071, studies = 5, low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence that participants assigned to esketamine treatment dropped out of trials more frequently than those assigned to placebo for any reason (OR 1.58, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.73; n = 773, studies = 4,moderate-certainty evidence). We found very little evidence for the remaining glutamate receptor modulators. We rated the risk of bias as low or unclear for most domains, though lack of detail regarding masking of treatment in the studies reduced our certainty in the effect for all outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that ketamine and esketamine may be more efficacious than placebo at 24 hours. How these findings translate into clinical practice, however, is not entirely clear. The evidence for use of the remaining glutamate receptor modulators is limited as very few trials were included in the meta-analyses for each comparison and the majority of comparisons included only one study. Long term non-inferiority RCTs comparing repeated ketamine and esketamine, and rigorous real-world monitoring are needed to establish comprehensive data on safety and efficacy.

An open science pathway for drug marketing authorization-Registered drug approval.

Florian Naudet and co-authors propose a pathway involving registered criteria for evaluation and approval of new drugs.

Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: To (1) investigate the extent to which recently published meta-analyses report trial funding, author-industry financial ties and author-industry employment from included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), comparing Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses; (2) examine characteristics of meta-analyses independently associated with reporting funding sources of included RCTs; and (3) compare reporting among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses to Cochrane reviews published in 2010. DESIGN: Review of consecutive sample of recently published meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE database via PubMed searched on 19 October 2018. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING ARTICLES: We selected the 250 most recent meta-analyses listed in PubMed that included a documented search of at least one database, statistically combined results from ≥2 RCTs and evaluated the effects of a drug or class of drugs. RESULTS: 90 of 107 (84%) Cochrane meta-analyses reported funding sources for some or all included trials compared with 21 of 143 (15%) non-Cochrane meta-analyses, a difference of 69% (95% CI 59% to 77%). Percent reporting was also higher for Cochrane meta-analyses compared with non-Cochrane meta-analyses for trial author-industry financial ties (44% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 33% to 52%) and employment (17% versus 1%; 95% CI for difference 9% to 24%). In multivariable analysis, compared with Cochrane meta-analyses, the odds ratio (OR) for reporting trial funding was ≤0.11 for all other journal category and impact factor combinations. Compared with Cochrane reviews from 2010, reporting of funding sources of included RCTs among recently published Cochrane meta-analyses improved by 54% (95% CI 42% to 63%), and reporting of trial author-industry financial ties and employment improved by 37% (95% CI 26% to 47%) and 10% (95% CI 2% to 19%). CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of trial funding sources, trial author-industry financial ties and trial author-industry employment in Cochrane meta-analyses has improved since 2010 and is higher than in non-Cochrane meta-analyses.

Reporting of financial conflicts of interest in meta-analyses of drug trials published in high-impact medical journals: comparison of results from 2017 to 2018 and 2009.

BACKGROUND: A previous study found that 2 of 29 (6.9%) meta-analyses published in high-impact journals in 2009 reported included drug trials' funding sources, and none reported trial authors' financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) or industry employment. It is not known if reporting has improved since 2009. Our objectives were to (1) investigate the extent to which pharmaceutical industry funding and author-industry FCOIs and employment from included drug trials are reported in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals and (2) compare current reporting with results from 2009. METHODS: We searched PubMed (January 2017-October 2018) for systematic reviews with meta-analyses including ≥ 2 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of patented drugs. We included 3 meta-analyses published January 2017-October 2018 from each of 4 high-impact general medicine journals, high-impact journals from 5 specialty areas, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, as in the previous study. RESULTS: Among 29 meta-analyses reviewed, 13 of 29 (44.8%) reported the funding source of included trials compared to 2 of 29 (6.9%) in 2009, a difference of 37.9% (95% confidence interval, 15.7 to 56.3%); this included 7 of 11 (63.6%) from general medicine journals, 3 of 15 (20.0%) from specialty medicine journals, and 3 of 3 (100%) Cochrane reviews. Only 2 of 29 meta-analyses (6.9%) reported trial author FCOIs, and none reported trial author-industry employment. PROTOCOL PUBLICATION: A protocol was uploaded to the Open Science Framework prior to initiating the study. https://osf.io/8xt5p/ LIMITATIONS: We examined only a relatively small number of meta-analyses from selected high-impact journals and compared results to a similarly small sample from an earlier time period. CONCLUSIONS: Reporting of drug trial sponsorship and author FCOIs in meta-analyses published in high-impact journals has increased since 2009 but is still suboptimal. Standards on reporting of trial funding described in the forthcoming revised PRISMA statement should be adapted and enforced by journals to improve reporting.

Healthcare Options for People Experiencing Depression (HOPE*D): the development and pilot testing of an encounter-based decision aid for use in primary care.

OBJECTIVE: To develop and pilot an encounter-based decision aid (eDA) for people with depression for use in primary care. DESIGN: We developed an eDA for depression through cognitive interviews and pilot tested it using a one-group pretest, post-test design in primary care. Feasibility, fidelity of eDA use and acceptability were assessed using recruitment rates and semistructured interviews with patients, medical assistants and clinicians. Treatment choice and shared decision-making (SDM) were also assessed. SETTING: Interviews with adult patients and the public were conducted in a mall and library in Grafton County, New Hampshire, while clinician interviews took place by phone or at the clinician's office. Pilot testing occurred in a New Hampshire primary care practice. PARTICIPANTS: Cognitive interviews were conducted with adults, ≥18 years, who could read English from the following stakeholder groups: history of depression, the public and clinicians. Patients with a Patient Health Questionnaire-9 score of ≥5 were recruited for piloting. RESULTS: Three stages of cognitive interviews were conducted (n=28). Changes to eDA included moving the combination therapy information and access to treatment information, adding colour, modifying pictograms and editing the talk-therapy description. Clinician concerns about patient health literacy were not reflected in patient interviews. Of 59 patients who reviewed study information, 56 were eligible and agreed to participate in pilot testing; however, only 29 could be reached for follow-up. The eDA was widely accepted, though clinicians did not always use it as intended. We found no impact of eDA use on SDM, though patients chose a wider range of treatment options. CONCLUSIONS: We demonstrated the feasibility of the use of an eDA for depression in primary care that was widely accepted. Further research is needed to improve the fidelity with which the eDA is used and to assess its impact on SDM and related health outcomes.

Hiding negative trials by pooling them: a secondary analysis of pooled-trials publication bias in FDA-registered antidepressant trials.

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.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of 21 antidepressant drugs for the acute treatment of adults with major depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Major depressive disorder is one of the most common, burdensome, and costly psychiatric disorders worldwide in adults. Pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments are available; however, because of inadequate resources, antidepressants are used more frequently than psychological interventions. Prescription of these agents should be informed by the best available evidence. Therefore, we aimed to update and expand our previous work to compare and rank antidepressants for the acute treatment of adults with unipolar major depressive disorder. METHODS: We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, Embase, LILACS database, MEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process, PsycINFO, the websites of regulatory agencies, and international registers for published and unpublished, double-blind, randomised controlled trials from their inception to Jan 8, 2016. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 21 antidepressants used for the acute treatment of adults (≥18 years old and of both sexes) with major depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. We excluded quasi-randomised trials and trials that were incomplete or included 20% or more of participants with bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, or treatment-resistant depression; or patients with a serious concomitant medical illness. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy. In network meta-analysis, we used group-level data. We assessed the studies' risk of bias in accordance to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and certainty of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation framework. Primary outcomes were efficacy (response rate) and acceptability (treatment discontinuations due to any cause). We estimated summary odds ratios (ORs) using pairwise and network meta-analysis with random effects. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42012002291. FINDINGS: We identified 28 552 citations and of these included 522 trials comprising 116 477 participants. In terms of efficacy, all antidepressants were more effective than placebo, with ORs ranging between 2·13 (95% credible interval [CrI] 1·89-2·41) for amitriptyline and 1·37 (1·16-1·63) for reboxetine. For acceptability, only agomelatine (OR 0·84, 95% CrI 0·72-0·97) and fluoxetine (0·88, 0·80-0·96) were associated with fewer dropouts than placebo, whereas clomipramine was worse than placebo (1·30, 1·01-1·68). When all trials were considered, differences in ORs between antidepressants ranged from 1·15 to 1·55 for efficacy and from 0·64 to 0·83 for acceptability, with wide CrIs on most of the comparative analyses. In head-to-head studies, agomelatine, amitriptyline, escitalopram, mirtazapine, paroxetine, venlafaxine, and vortioxetine were more effective than other antidepressants (range of ORs 1·19-1·96), whereas fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, and trazodone were the least efficacious drugs (0·51-0·84). For acceptability, agomelatine, citalopram, escitalopram, fluoxetine, sertraline, and vortioxetine were more tolerable than other antidepressants (range of ORs 0·43-0·77), whereas amitriptyline, clomipramine, duloxetine, fluvoxamine, reboxetine, trazodone, and venlafaxine had the highest dropout rates (1·30-2·32). 46 (9%) of 522 trials were rated as high risk of bias, 380 (73%) trials as moderate, and 96 (18%) as low; and the certainty of evidence was moderate to very low. INTERPRETATION: All antidepressants were more efficacious than placebo in adults with major depressive disorder. Smaller differences between active drugs were found when placebo-controlled trials were included in the analysis, whereas there was more variability in efficacy and acceptability in head-to-head trials. These results should serve evidence-based practice and inform patients, physicians, guideline developers, and policy makers on the relative merits of the different antidepressants. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre and the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science.

Comparative Efficacy and Acceptability of 21 Antidepressant Drugs for the Acute Treatment of Adults With Major Depressive Disorder: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.

(Reprinted with permission from Lancet 2018; 391:1357-66).

Spin in RCTs of anxiety medication with a positive primary outcome: a comparison of concerns expressed by the US FDA and in the published literature.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the presence of spin in papers on positive randomised clinical trials (RCTs) of antidepressant medication for anxiety disorders by comparing concerns expressed in the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews with those expressed in the published paper. METHODS: For every positive anxiety medication trial with a matching publication (n=41), two independent reviewers identified the concerns raised in the US FDA reviews and those in the published literature. Spin was identified when concerns or limitations were expressed by the FDA (about the efficacy of the study drug) but not in the corresponding published paper. Concerns mentioned in the papers but not by the FDA were scored as 'non-FDA' concerns. FINDINGS: Only six out of 35 (17%) of the FDA concerns pertaining to drug efficacy were reported in the papers. Two papers mentioned a concern that fit the FDA categories, but was not mentioned in the corresponding FDA review. Eighty-seven non-FDA concerns were counted, which often reflected general concerns or concerns related to the study design. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate the presence of substantial spin in the clinical trial literature on drugs for anxiety disorders. In papers describing RCTs on anxiety medication, the concerns raised by the authors differed from those raised by the FDA. Published papers mentioned a large number of generic concerns about RCTs, such as a lack of long-term research and limited generalisability, while they mentioned few concerns about drug efficacy. These results warrant the promotion of independent statistical review, reporting of patient-level data, more study of spin, and an increased expectation that authors report FDA concerns.

Bias in the reporting of harms in clinical trials of second-generation antidepressants for depression and anxiety: A meta-analysis.

Previous research has shown that reporting bias has inflated the apparent efficacy of antidepressants. We investigated whether apparent safety was also affected. We included 133 trials, involving 31,296 patients, of second-generation antidepressants for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) or anxiety disorders, obtained from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews. We extracted data on overall discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse events, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Meta-analysis was used to compare discontinuation rates between FDA reviews and matching journal articles, while SAEs were compared qualitatively. The odds ratio for overall discontinuation, comparing drug to placebo, was 1.0 for both sources, while that for discontinuation due to adverse events was 2.4 for both sources. Seventy-seven of 97 (79%) journal articles provided incomplete information on SAEs; sixty-one (63%) articles made no mention of SAEs at all. Of 21 articles which could be compared to the FDA, only 6 (29%) had full reporting without discrepancies. Nine (43%) articles reported a discrepant number of SAEs. Descriptions were absent or discrepant in 6 (29%) additional articles, even for important SAEs such as suicide attempts. In conclusion, reporting bias has not affected average discontinuation rates over trials. However, SAE reporting is not only very poor, with over half of articles failing to discuss SAEs altogether, but discrepancies between the FDA and articles were common and often led to a more favorable drug-placebo comparison. These findings suggest that journal articles are an unreliable source of data on SAEs in antidepressant trials.