Extended-release methylphenidate for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in adults.

BACKGROUND: Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a psychiatric diagnosis increasingly used in adults. The recommended first-line pharmacological treatment is central nervous system (CNS) stimulants, such as methylphenidate, but uncertainty remains about its benefits and harms. OBJECTIVES: To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of extended-release formulations of methylphenidate in adults diagnosed with ADHD. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, nine other databases and four clinical trial registries up to February 2021. We searched 12 drug regulatory databases for clinical trial data up to 13 May 2020. In addition, we cross-referenced all available trial identifiers, handsearched reference lists, searched pharmaceutical company databases, and contacted trial authors. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised, double-blind, parallel-group trials comparing extended-release methylphenidate formulations at any dose versus placebo and other ADHD medications in adults diagnosed with ADHD. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data. We assessed dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs), and rating scales and continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs). We used the Cochrane risk of bias tool to assess risks of bias, and GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We meta-analysed the data using a random-effects model. We assessed three design characteristics that may impair the trial results' 'generalisability'; exclusion of participants with psychiatric comorbidity; responder selection based on previous experience with CNS stimulants; and risk of withdrawal effects. Our prespecified primary outcomes were functional outcomes, self-rated ADHD symptoms, and serious adverse events. Our secondary outcomes included quality of life, ADHD symptoms rated by investigators and by peers such as family members, cardiovascular variables, severe psychiatric adverse events, and other adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 trials (5066 participants), of which 21 reported outcome data for this review. We also identified one ongoing study. We included documents from six drug regulatory agencies covering eight trials. Twenty-one trials had an outpatient setting and three were conducted in prisons. They were primarily conducted in North America and Europe. The median participant age was 36 years. Twelve trials (76% of participants) were industry-sponsored, four (14% of participants) were publicly funded with industry involvement, seven (10% of participants) were publicly funded, and one had unclear funding. The median trial duration was eight weeks. One trial was rated at overall unclear risk of bias and 20 trials were rated at overall high risk of bias, primarily due to unclear blinding of participants and investigators, attrition bias, and selective outcome reporting. All trials were impaired in at least one of the three design characteristics related to 'generalisability'; for example, they excluded participants with psychiatric comorbidity such as depression or anxiety, or included participants only with a previous positive response to methylphenidate, or similar drugs. This may limit the trials' usefulness for clinical practice, as they may overestimate the benefits and underestimate the harms. Extended-release methylphenidate versus placebo (up to 26 weeks) For the primary outcomes, we found very low-certainty evidence that methylphenidate had no effect on 'days missed at work' at 13-week follow-up (mean difference (MD) -0.15 days, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.11 to 1.81; 1 trial, 409 participants) or serious adverse events (risk ratio (RR) 1.43, CI 95% CI 0.85 to 2.43; 14 trials, 4078 participants), whereas methylphenidate improved self-rated ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.37, 95% CI -0.43 to -0.30; 16 trials, 3799 participants). For secondary outcomes, we found very low-certainty evidence that methylphenidate improved self-rated quality of life (small effect; SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.05; 6 trials, 1888 participants), investigator-rated ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.36; 18 trials, 4183 participants), ADHD symptoms rated by peers such as family members (small-to-moderate effect; SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.14; 3 trials, 1005 participants), and increased the risk of experiencing any adverse event (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.37; 14 trials, 4214 participants). We rated the certainty of the evidence as 'very low' for all outcomes, primarily due to high risk of bias and 'indirectness of the evidence'. One trial (419 participants) had follow-up at 52 weeks and two trials (314 participants) included active comparators, hence long-term and comparative evidence is limited. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low-certainty evidence that extended-release methylphenidate compared to placebo improved ADHD symptoms (small-to-moderate effects) measured on rating scales reported by participants, investigators, and peers such as family members. Methylphenidate had no effect on 'days missed at work' or serious adverse events, the effect on quality of life was small, and it increased the risk of several adverse effects. We rated the certainty of the evidence as 'very low' for all outcomes, due to high risk of bias, short trial durations, and limitations to the generalisability of the results. The benefits and harms of extended-release methylphenidate therefore remain uncertain.

Are investigators' access to trial data and rights to publish restricted and are potential trial participants informed about this? A comparison of trial protocols and informed consent materials.

OBJECTIVES: To determine to which degree industry partners in randomised clinical trials own the data and can constrain publication rights of academic investigators. METHODS: Cohort study of trial protocols, publication agreements and other documents obtained through Freedom of Information requests, for a sample of 42 trials with industry involvement approved by ethics committees in Denmark. The main outcome measures used were: proportion of trials where data was owned by the industry partner, where the investigators right to publish were constrained and if this was mentioned in informed consent documents, and where the industry partner could review data while the trial was ongoing and stop the trial early. RESULTS: The industry partner owned all data in 20 trials (48%) and in 16 trials (38%) it was unclear. Publication constraints were described for 30 trials (71%) and this was not communicated to trial participants in informed consent documents in any of the trials. In eight trials (19%) the industry partner could review data during the trial, for 20 trials (48%) it was unclear. The industry partner could stop the trial early without any specific reason in 23 trials (55%). CONCLUSIONS: Publication constraints are common, and data is often owned by industry partners. This is rarely communicated to trial participants. Such constraints might contribute to problems with selective outcome reporting. Patients should be fully informed about these aspects of trial conduct.

General health checks in adults for reducing morbidity and mortality from disease.

BACKGROUND: General health checks are common elements of health care in some countries. They aim to detect disease and risk factors for disease with the purpose of reducing morbidity and mortality. Most of the commonly used individual screening tests offered in general health checks have been incompletely studied. Also, screening leads to increased use of diagnostic and therapeutic interventions, which can be harmful as well as beneficial. It is therefore important to assess whether general health checks do more good than harm. This is the first update of the review published in 2012. OBJECTIVES: To quantify the benefits and harms of general health checks. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers on 31 January 2018. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts, assessed papers for eligibility and read reference lists. One review author used citation tracking (Web of Knowledge) and asked trial authors about additional studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials comparing health checks with no health checks in adults unselected for disease or risk factors. We did not include geriatric trials. We defined health checks as screening for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias in the trials. We contacted trial authors for additional outcomes or trial details when necessary. When possible, we analysed the results with a random-effects model meta-analysis; otherwise, we did a narrative synthesis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 17 trials, 15 of which reported outcome data (251,891 participants). Risk of bias was generally low for our primary outcomes. Health checks have little or no effect on total mortality (risk ratio (RR) 1.00, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.97 to 1.03; 11 trials; 233,298 participants and 21,535 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I2 = 0%), or cancer mortality (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.92 to 1.12; 8 trials; 139,290 participants and 3663 deaths; high-certainty evidence, I2 = 33%), and probably have little or no effect on cardiovascular mortality (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.16; 9 trials; 170,227 participants and 6237 deaths; moderate-certainty evidence; I2 = 65%). Health checks have little or no effect on fatal and non-fatal ischaemic heart disease (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.03; 4 trials; 164,881 persons, 10,325 events; high-certainty evidence; I2 = 11%), and probably have little or no effect on fatal and non-fatal stroke (RR 1.05 95% CI 0.95 to 1.17; 3 trials; 107,421 persons, 4543 events; moderate-certainty evidence, I2 = 53%). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: General health checks are unlikely to be beneficial.

Screening for reducing morbidity and mortality in malignant melanoma.

BACKGROUND: Screening for malignant melanoma has the potential to reduce morbidity and mortality from the disease through earlier detection, as prognosis is closely associated with the thickness of the lesion at the time of diagnosis. However, there are also potential harms from screening people without skin lesion concerns, such as overdiagnosis of lesions that would never have caused symptoms if they had remained undetected. Overdiagnosis results in harm through unnecessary treatment and the psychosocial consequences of being labelled with a cancer diagnosis. For any type of screening, the benefits must outweigh the harms. Screening for malignant melanoma is currently practised in many countries, and the incidence of the disease is rising sharply, while mortality remains largely unchanged. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects on morbidity and mortality of screening for malignant melanoma in the general population. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases up to May 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and LILACS. We also searched five trials registries, checked the reference lists of included and other relevant studies for further references to randomised controlled trials (RCTs), used citation tracking (Web of Science) for key articles, and asked trialists about additional studies and study reports. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs, including cluster-randomised trials, of screening for malignant melanoma compared with no screening, regardless of screening modality or setting, in any type of population and in any age group where people were not suspected of having malignant melanoma. We excluded studies in people with a genetic disposition for malignant melanoma (e.g. familial atypical mole and melanoma syndrome) and studies performed exclusively in people with previous melanomas. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes of this review were total mortality, overdiagnosis of malignant melanoma, and quality of life/psychosocial consequences. MAIN RESULTS: We included two studies with 64,391 participants. The first study was a randomised trial of an intervention developed to increase the rate of performance of thorough skin self-examination. The intervention group received instructional materials, including cues and aids, a 14-minute instruction video, and a brief counselling session, and at three weeks a brief follow-up telephone call from a health educator, aimed at increasing performance of thorough skin self-examination. The control group received a diet intervention with similar follow-up. The trial included 1356 people, who were recruited from 11 primary care practices in the US between 2000 and 2001. Participant mean age was 53.2 years and 41.7% were men. This study did not report on any of our primary outcomes or the following secondary outcomes: mortality specific to malignant melanoma, false-positive rates (skin biopsies/excisions with benign outcome), or false-negative rates (malignant melanomas diagnosed between screening rounds and up to one year after the last round). All participants were asked to complete follow-up telephone interviews at 2, 6, and 12 months after randomisation.The second study was a pilot study for a cluster-RCT of population-based screening for malignant melanoma in Australia. This pilot trial included 63,035 adults aged over 30 years. The three-year programme involved community education, an education and support component for medical practitioners, and the provision of free skin screening services. The mean age of people attending the skin screening clinics (which were held by primary care physicians in workplaces, community venues, and local hospitals, and included day and evening sessions) was 46.5 years, and 51.5% were men. The study included whole communities, targeting participants over 30 years of age, but information on age and gender of the whole study population was not reported. Study duration was three years (1998 to 2001), and outcomes were measured at the screening clinics during these three years. There was no further follow-up for any outcomes. The control group received no programme. The ensuing, planned cluster randomised trial in 560,000 adults was never carried out due to lack of funding. At the time of this review, there are no published or unpublished data on our prespecified outcomes available, and no results for mortality outcomes from the pilot study are to be expected.The risk of bias in these studies was high for performance bias (blinding study personnel and participants) and high or unclear for detection bias (blinding of outcome assessment). Risk of bias in the other domains was either unclear or low. We were unable to assess the certainty of the evidence for our primary outcomes as planned due to lack of data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Adult general population screening for malignant melanoma is not supported or refuted by current evidence from RCTs. It therefore does not fulfil accepted criteria for implementation of population screening programmes. This review did not investigate the effects of screening people with a history of malignant melanoma or in people with a genetic disposition for malignant melanoma (e.g. familial atypical mole and melanoma syndrome). To determine the benefits and harms of screening for malignant melanoma, a rigorously conducted randomised trial is needed, which assesses overall mortality, overdiagnosis, psychosocial consequences, and resource use.

Breast Cancer Screening in Denmark: A Cohort Study of Tumor Size and Overdiagnosis.

BACKGROUND: Effective breast cancer screening should detect early-stage cancer and prevent advanced disease. OBJECTIVE: To assess the association between screening and the size of detected tumors and to estimate overdiagnosis (detection of tumors that would not become clinically relevant). DESIGN: Cohort study. SETTING: Denmark from 1980 to 2010. PARTICIPANTS: Women aged 35 to 84 years. INTERVENTION: Screening programs offering biennial mammography for women aged 50 to 69 years beginning in different regions at different times. MEASUREMENTS: Trends in the incidence of advanced (>20 mm) and nonadvanced (≤20 mm) breast cancer tumors in screened and nonscreened women were measured. Two approaches were used to estimate the amount of overdiagnosis: comparing the incidence of advanced and nonadvanced tumors among women aged 50 to 84 years in screening and nonscreening areas; and comparing the incidence for nonadvanced tumors among women aged 35 to 49, 50 to 69, and 70 to 84 years in screening and nonscreening areas. RESULTS: Screening was not associated with lower incidence of advanced tumors. The incidence of nonadvanced tumors increased in the screening versus prescreening periods (incidence rate ratio, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.43 to 1.54]). The first estimation approach found that 271 invasive breast cancer tumors and 179 ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) lesions were overdiagnosed in 2010 (overdiagnosis rate of 24.4% [including DCIS] and 14.7% [excluding DCIS]). The second approach, which accounted for regional differences in women younger than the screening age, found that 711 invasive tumors and 180 cases of DCIS were overdiagnosed in 2010 (overdiagnosis rate of 48.3% [including DCIS] and 38.6% [excluding DCIS]). LIMITATION: Regional differences complicate interpretation. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer screening was not associated with a reduction in the incidence of advanced cancer. It is likely that 1 in every 3 invasive tumors and cases of DCIS diagnosed in women offered screening represent overdiagnosis (incidence increase of 48.3%). PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: None.

Considering benefits and harms of duloxetine for treatment of stress urinary incontinence: a meta-analysis of clinical study reports.

BACKGROUND: The European Medicines Agency makes clinical study reports publicly available and publishes reasons for not approving applications for marketing authorization. Duloxetine has been approved in Europe for the treatment of stress urinary incontinence in women. The reported adverse effects of duloxetine include mental health problems and suicidality. We obtained clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency concerning use of this drug for stress urinary incontinence. METHODS: We performed a meta-analysis of 4 randomized placebo-controlled trials of duloxetine (involving a total of 1913 patients) submitted to the European Medicines Agency for marketing approval for the indication of stress urinary incontinence in women. We used data from the clinical study reports (totalling 6870 pages and including individual patient data) to assess benefits (including frequency of incontinence and changes in quality-of-life scores, such as Patient Global Impression of Improvement rating) and harms (both general harms, including discontinuation because of adverse events, and harms related to suicidality, violent behaviour and their potential precursors, such as akathisia and activation [stimulating effects such as insomnia, anxiety and agitation]). RESULTS: Duloxetine was significantly better than placebo in terms of percentage change in weekly incontinence episodes (mean difference -13.56%, 95% confidence interval [CI] -21.59% to -5.53%) and change in Incontinence Quality of Life total score (mean difference 3.24, 95% CI 2.00 to 4.48). However, the effect sizes were small, and a sensitivity analysis (with removal of one trial) showed that the number needed to treat for a Patient Global Impression of Improvement rating of "much better or very much better" was 8 (95% CI 6 to 13). The numbers needed to harm were 7 (95% CI 6 to 8) for discontinuing because of an adverse event and 7 (95% CI 6 to 9) for experiencing an activation event. No suicidality, violence or akathisia events were noted. INTERPRETATION: Although duloxetine is effective for stress urinary incontinence in women, the rates of associated harm were high when individual patient data were analyzed, and the harms outweighed the benefits.

The Cochrane Collaboration withdraws a review on methylphenidate for adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

A Cochrane systematic review on immediate-release methylphenidate for adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) was withdrawn from the Cochrane Library on 26 May 2016 after substantial criticism of its methods and flawed conclusions. Retraction of scientific papers on this basis is unusual but can be necessary. We provide a summary of the criticism that led to the withdrawal. We detail the methodological flaws of the withdrawn Cochrane systematic review and general issues of bias and shortcomings of the included ADHD trials: cross-over designs compared with parallel-group designs, exclusion of participants with psychiatric comorbidity, absence of 'functional outcomes' and use of clinical outcomes with limited relevance, short trial duration and small trial populations, broken blinding caused by easily recognisable side effects, combining outcome assessments by trial investigators and participants, outcome reporting bias, poor evaluation of cardiovascular and psychiatric harms and conflicts of interest of trialists and systematic reviewers. The withdrawal of the Cochrane systematic review signals recognition of previous unreliable clinical ADHD research. We conclude that clinical trials of immediate-release methylphenidate in adults with ADHD are of very low quality. We urgently need well-conducted long-term trials free of bias to assess the benefits and harms of central stimulant treatment in adult ADHD.

Assessment of Adverse Events in Protocols, Clinical Study Reports, and Published Papers of Trials of Orlistat: A Document Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how adverse events are summarised and reported in trials, as detailed information is usually considered confidential. We have acquired clinical study reports (CSRs) from the European Medicines Agency through the Freedom of Information Act. The CSRs describe the results of studies conducted as part of the application for marketing authorisation for the slimming pill orlistat. The purpose of this study was to study how adverse events were summarised and reported in study protocols, CSRs, and published papers of orlistat trials. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We received the CSRs from seven randomised placebo controlled orlistat trials (4,225 participants) submitted by Roche. The CSRs consisted of 8,716 pages and included protocols. Two researchers independently extracted data on adverse events from protocols and CSRs. Corresponding published papers were identified on PubMed and adverse event data were extracted from this source as well. All three sources were compared. Individual adverse events from one trial were summed and compared to the totals in the summary report. None of the protocols or CSRs contained instructions for investigators on how to question participants about adverse events. In CSRs, gastrointestinal adverse events were only coded if the participant reported that they were "bothersome," a condition that was not specified in the protocol for two of the trials. Serious adverse events were assessed for relationship to the drug by the sponsor, and all adverse events were coded by the sponsor using a glossary that could be updated by the sponsor. The criteria for withdrawal due to adverse events were in one case related to efficacy (high fasting glucose led to withdrawal), which meant that one trial had more withdrawals due to adverse events in the placebo group. Finally, only between 3% and 33% of the total number of investigator-reported adverse events from the trials were reported in the publications because of post hoc filters, though six of seven papers stated that "all adverse events were recorded." For one trial, we identified an additional 1,318 adverse events that were not listed or mentioned in the CSR itself but could be identified through manually counting individual adverse events reported in an appendix. We discovered that the majority of patients had multiple episodes of the same adverse event that were only counted once, though this was not described in the CSRs. We also discovered that participants treated with orlistat experienced twice as many days with adverse events as participants treated with placebo (22.7 d versus 14.9 d, p-value < 0.0001, Student's t test). Furthermore, compared with the placebo group, adverse events in the orlistat group were more severe. None of this was stated in the CSR or in the published paper. Our analysis was restricted to one drug tested in the mid-1990s; our results might therefore not be applicable for newer drugs. CONCLUSIONS: In the orlistat trials, we identified important disparities in the reporting of adverse events between protocols, clinical study reports, and published papers. Reports of these trials seemed to have systematically understated adverse events. Based on these findings, systematic reviews of drugs might be improved by including protocols and CSRs in addition to published articles.

Intravenous alpha-1 antitrypsin augmentation therapy for treating patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency and lung disease.

BACKGROUND: Alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency is an inherited disorder that can cause chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). People who smoke are more seriously affected and have a greater risk of dying from the disease. Therefore, the primary treatment is to help people give up smoking. There are now also preparations available that contain alpha-1 antitrypsin, but it is uncertain what their clinical effect is. OBJECTIVES: To review the benefits and harms of augmentation therapy with intravenous alpha-1 antitrypsin in patients with alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency and lung disease. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov to 25 March 2016. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised trials of augmentation therapy with alpha-1 antitrypsin compared with placebo or no treatment. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The two review authors independently selected trials, extracted outcome data and assessed the risk of bias. MAIN RESULTS: We included three trials (283 participants in the analyses) that ran for two to three years. All participants were ex- or never-smokers and had genetic variants that carried a high risk of developing COPD. Only one trial reported mortality data (one person of 93 died in the treatment group and three of 87 died in the placebo group). There was no information on harms in the oldest trial. Another trial reported serious adverse events in 10 participants in the treatment group and 18 participants in the placebo group. In the most recent trial, serious adverse events occurred in 28 participants in each group. None of the trials reported mean number of lung infections or hospital admissions. In the two trials that reported exacerbations, there were more exacerbations in the treatment group than in the placebo group, but the results of both trials included the possibility of no difference. Quality of life was similar in the two groups. Forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) deteriorated more in participants in the treatment group than in the placebo group but the confidence interval (CI) included no difference (standardised mean difference -0.19, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.05; P = 0.12). For carbon monoxide diffusion, the difference was -0.11 mmol/minute/kPa (95% CI -0.35 to 0.12; P = 0.34). Lung density measured by computer tomography (CT) scan deteriorated significantly less in the treatment group than in the placebo group (mean difference (MD) 0.86 g/L, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.42; P = 0.002). Several secondary outcomes were unreported in the largest and most recent trial whose authors had numerous financial conflicts of interest. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review update added one new study and 143 new participants, but the conclusions remain unchanged. Due to sparse data, we could not arrive at a conclusion about the impact of augmentation therapy on mortality, exacerbations, lung infections, hospital admission and quality of life, and there was uncertainty about possible harms. Therefore, it is our opinion that augmentation therapy with alpha-1 antitrypsin cannot be recommended.

The PRISMA extension statement for reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses of health care interventions: checklist and explanations.

The PRISMA statement is a reporting guideline designed to improve the completeness of reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Authors have used this guideline worldwide to prepare their reviews for publication. In the past, these reports typically compared 2 treatment alternatives. With the evolution of systematic reviews that compare multiple treatments, some of them only indirectly, authors face novel challenges for conducting and reporting their reviews. This extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) statement was developed specifically to improve the reporting of systematic reviews incorporating network meta-analyses. A group of experts participated in a systematic review, Delphi survey, and face-to-face discussion and consensus meeting to establish new checklist items for this extension statement. Current PRISMA items were also clarified. A modified, 32-item PRISMA extension checklist was developed to address what the group considered to be immediately relevant to the reporting of network meta-analyses. This document presents the extension and provides examples of good reporting, as well as elaborations regarding the rationale for new checklist items and the modification of previously existing items from the PRISMA statement. It also highlights educational information related to key considerations in the practice of network meta-analysis. The target audience includes authors and readers of network meta-analyses, as well as journal editors and peer reviewers.

Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research.

The methods and results of health research are documented in study protocols, full study reports (detailing all analyses), journal reports, and participant-level datasets. However, protocols, full study reports, and participant-level datasets are rarely available, and journal reports are available for only half of all studies and are plagued by selective reporting of methods and results. Furthermore, information provided in study protocols and reports varies in quality and is often incomplete. When full information about studies is inaccessible, billions of dollars in investment are wasted, bias is introduced, and research and care of patients are detrimentally affected. To help to improve this situation at a systemic level, three main actions are warranted. First, academic institutions and funders should reward investigators who fully disseminate their research protocols, reports, and participant-level datasets. Second, standards for the content of protocols and full study reports and for data sharing practices should be rigorously developed and adopted for all types of health research. Finally, journals, funders, sponsors, research ethics committees, regulators, and legislators should endorse and enforce policies supporting study registration and wide availability of journal reports, full study reports, and participant-level datasets.

Vaccines for preventing infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis.

BACKGROUND: Chronic pulmonary infection in cystic fibrosis results in progressive lung damage. Once colonisation of the lungs with Pseudomonas aeruginosa occurs, it is almost impossible to eradicate. Vaccines, aimed at reducing infection with Pseudomonas aeruginosa, have been developed. This is an update of a previously published review. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of vaccination against Pseudomonas aeruginosa in cystic fibrosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders Group Trials Register using the terms vaccines AND pseudomonas (last search 30 March 2015). We previously searched PubMed using the terms vaccin* AND cystic fibrosis (last search 30 May 2013). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials (published or unpublished) comparing Pseudomonas aeruginosa vaccines (oral, parenteral or intranasal) with control vaccines or no intervention in cystic fibrosis. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The authors independently selected trials, assessed them and extracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Six trials were identified. Two trials were excluded since they were not randomised and one old, small trial because it was not possible to assess whether is was randomised. The three included trials comprised 483, 476 and 37 patients, respectively. No data have been published from one of the large trials, but the company stated in a press release that the trial failed to confirm the results from an earlier study and that further clinical development was suspended. In the other large trial, relative risk for chronic infection was 0.91 (95% confidence interval 0.55 to 1.49), and in the small trial, the risk was also close to one. In the large trial, one patient was reported to have died in the observation period. In that trial, 227 adverse events (4 severe) were registered in the vaccine group and 91 (1 severe) in the control group. In this large trial of a vaccine developed against flagella antigens, antibody titres against the epitopes contained in the vaccine were higher in the vaccine group compared to the placebo group (P < 0.0001). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Vaccines against Pseudomonas aeruginosa cannot be recommended.

Screening with urinary dipsticks for reducing morbidity and mortality.

BACKGROUND: Urinary dipsticks are sometimes used for screening asymptomatic people, and for case-finding among inpatients or outpatients who do not have genitourinary symptoms. Abnormalities identified on screening sometimes lead to additional investigations, which may identify serious disease, such as bladder cancer and chronic kidney disease (CKD). Urinary dipstick screening could improve prognoses due to earlier detection, but could also lead to unnecessary and potentially invasive follow-up testing and unnecessary treatment. OBJECTIVES: We aimed to quantify the benefits and harms of screening with urinary dipsticks in general populations and patients in hospitals. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Renal Group's Specialised Register to 8 September 2014 through contact with the Trials Search Co-ordinator using search terms relevant to this review. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials and other study types that compared urinary dipstick screening with no dipstick screening were eligible for inclusion. We searched for studies that investigated the use of urinary dipsticks for detecting haemoglobin, protein, albumin, albumin-creatinine ratio, leukocytes, nitrite, or glucose, alone or in any combination, and in any setting. We planned to exclude studies conducted in patients with urinary disorders. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: It was planned that two authors would independently extract data from included studies and assess risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. However, no studies met our inclusion criteria. MAIN RESULTS: Literature searches to 8 September 2014 yielded 4298 records, of which 4249 were excluded following title and abstract assessment. There were 49 records (44 studies) eligible for full text assessment; of these 18 studies were not RCTs and 26 studies compared interventions or controls that were not relevant to this review. Thus, no studies were eligible for inclusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence to assess the benefits and harms of screening with urinary dipsticks, which remain unknown.

SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials.

The protocol of a clinical trial serves as the foundation for study planning, conduct, reporting, and appraisal. However, trial protocols and existing protocol guidelines vary greatly in content and quality. This article describes the systematic development and scope of SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) 2013, a guideline for the minimum content of a clinical trial protocol. The 33-item SPIRIT checklist applies to protocols for all clinical trials and focuses on content rather than format. The checklist recommends a full description of what is planned; it does not prescribe how to design or conduct a trial. By providing guidance for key content, the SPIRIT recommendations aim to facilitate the drafting of high-quality protocols. Adherence to SPIRIT would also enhance the transparency and completeness of trial protocols for the benefit of investigators, trial participants, patients, sponsors, funders, research ethics committees or institutional review boards, peer reviewers, journals, trial registries, policymakers, regulators, and other key stakeholders.

Lead-time models should not be used to estimate overdiagnosis in cancer screening.

Lead-time can mean two different things: Clinical lead-time is the lead-time for clinically relevant tumors; that is, those that are not overdiagnosed. Model-based lead-time is a theoretical construct where the time when the tumor would have caused symptoms is not limited by the person's death. It is the average time at which the diagnosis is brought forward for both clinically relevant and overdiagnosed cancers. When screening for breast cancer, clinical lead-time is about 1 year, while model-based lead-time varies from 2 to 7 years. There are two different methods to calculate overdiagnosis in cancer screening--the excess-incidence approach and the lead-time approach--that rely on two different lead-time definitions. Overdiagnosis when screening with mammography has varied from 0 to 75 %. We have explained that these differences are mainly caused by using different definitions and methods and not by variations in data. High levels of overdiagnosis of cancer have usually been explained by detection of many slow-growing tumors with long lead-times. This theory can be tested by studying if slow-growing tumors accumulate in the absence of screening, which they don't. Thus, it is likely that the natural history of many subclinical cancers is spontaneous regression.

Amphotericin B lipid soluble formulations versus amphotericin B in cancer patients with neutropenia.

BACKGROUND: Patients with cancer who are treated with chemotherapy or receive a bone marrow transplant have an increased risk of acquiring fungal infections. Such infections can be life-threatening. Antifungal drugs are therefore often given prophylactically to such patients, or when they have a fever. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of lipid soluble formulations of amphotericin B with conventional amphotericin B in cancer patients with neutropenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched PubMed from 1966 to 7 July 2014 and the reference lists of identified articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing lipid soluble formulations of amphotericin B with conventional amphotericin B. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias and abstracted data. MAIN RESULTS: We found 13 trials (1960 patients). Lipid-based amphotericin B was not more effective than conventional amphotericin B on mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.5; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.14) but decreased invasive fungal infection (RR 0.65; 95% CI 0.44 to 0.97), nephrotoxicity defined as a 100% increase in serum creatinine (RR 0.45; 95% CI 0.37 to 0.54), and number of dropouts (RR 0.78; 95% CI 0.62 to 0.97).For the drug used in most patients, AmBisome (4 trials, 1214 patients), there was no significant difference in mortality (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.54 to 1.10) whereas it tended to be more effective than conventional amphotericin B on invasive fungal infection (RR 0.63; 95% CI 0.39 to 1.01, P value 0.053).AmBisome, amphotericin B in Intralipid (6 trials, 379 patients), amphotericin B colloidal dispersion (ABCD) (2 trials, 262 patients), and amphotericin B lipid complex (ABLC) (1 trial, 105 patients) all decreased the occurrence of nephrotoxicity, but conventional amphotericin B was rarely administered under optimal circumstances. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not clear whether there are any advantages of lipid-based formulations if conventional amphotericin B is administered under optimal circumstances, and their high cost prohibits routine use in most settings. There is a need for large trials comparing lipid-based formulations of amphotericin B with conventional amphotericin B given in the same dose, with routine premedication for prevention of infusion-related toxicity, and with supplementation with fluid, potassium, and magnesium for prevention of nephrotoxicity.

Routine versus selective antifungal administration for control of fungal infections in patients with cancer.

BACKGROUND: Systemic fungal infection is considered to be an important cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients, particularly those with neutropenia. Antifungal drugs are often given prophylactically, or empirically to patients with persistent fever. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether commonly used antifungal drugs decrease mortality in cancer patients with neutropenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched PubMed from 1966 to 7 July 2014 and the reference lists of identified articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials of amphotericin B, fluconazole, ketoconazole, miconazole, itraconazole or voriconazole compared with placebo or no treatment in cancer patients with neutropenia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and abstracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Thirty-two trials involving 4287 patients were included. Prophylactic or empirical treatment with amphotericin B significantly decreased total mortality (relative risk (RR) 0.69, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.50 to 0.96), whereas the estimated RRs for fluconazole, ketoconazole, miconazole, and itraconazole were close to 1.00. No eligible trials were found with voriconazole. Amphotericin B and fluconazole decreased mortality ascribed to fungal infection (RR 0.45, 95% CI 0.26 to 0.76 and RR 0.42, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.73, respectively). The incidence of invasive fungal infection decreased significantly with administration of amphotericin B (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.73), fluconazole (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.57) and itraconazole (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.29 to 0.97), but not with ketoconazole or miconazole. Effect estimates were similar for those 13 trials that had adequate allocation concealment and were blinded. The reporting of harms was far too variable from trial to trial to allow a meaningful overview. For the 2011 and 2014 updates no additional trials were identified for inclusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Intravenous amphotericin B was the only antifungal agent that reduced total mortality. It should therefore be preferred when prophylactic or empirical antifungal therapy is introduced in cancer patients with neutropenia.

Nystatin prophylaxis and treatment in severely immunodepressed patients.

BACKGROUND: Nystatin is sometimes used prophylactically in patients with severe immunodeficiency or in the treatment of fungal infection in such patients, although its effect seems to be equivocal. OBJECTIVES: To study whether nystatin decreases morbidity and mortality when given prophylactically or therapeutically to patients with severe immunodeficiency. SEARCH METHODS: We searched PubMed from 1966 to 7 July 2014 and the reference lists of identified articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing nystatin with placebo, an untreated control group, fluconazole or amphotericin B. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data on mortality, invasive fungal infection and colonisation were independently extracted by both authors. A random-effects model was used unless the P value was greater than 0.10 for the test of heterogeneity. MAIN RESULTS: We included 14 trials (1569 patients). The drugs were given prophylactically in 12 trials and as treatment in two. Eleven trials were in acute leukaemia, solid cancer, or bone marrow recipients; one in liver transplant patients; one in critically ill surgical and trauma patients; and one in AIDS patients. Nystatin was compared with placebo in three trials, with fluconazole in 10, and amphotericin B in one; the dose varied from 0.8 MIE to 72 MIE daily and was 2 mg/kg/d in a liposomal formulation. The effect of nystatin was similar to that of placebo on fungal colonisation (relative risk (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.65 to 1.13). There was no statistically significant difference between fluconazole and nystatin on mortality (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.03) whereas fluconazole was more effective in preventing invasive fungal infection (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.93) and colonisation (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.68). There were no proven fungal infections in a small trial that compared amphotericin B with liposomal nystatin. The results were very similar if the three studies that were not performed in cancer patients were excluded. For the 2011 and 2014 updates no additional trials were identified for inclusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Nystatin cannot be recommended for prophylaxis or the treatment of Candida infections in immunodepressed patients.

Amphotericin B versus fluconazole for controlling fungal infections in neutropenic cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Systemic fungal infection is considered to be an important cause of morbidity and mortality in cancer patients, particularly those with neutropenia. Antifungal drugs are often given prophylactically, or empirically to patients with persistent fever. OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of fluconazole and amphotericin B on morbidity and mortality in patients with cancer complicated by neutropenia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched PubMed from 1966 to 7 July 2014 and the reference lists of identified articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing fluconazole with amphotericin B. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility and risk of bias, and abstracted data. MAIN RESULTS: Seventeen trials (3798 patients, 381 deaths) were included. In two large three-armed trials, results for amphotericin B were combined with results for nystatin in a 'polyene' group. Because nystatin is an ineffective drug in these circumstances, this approach creates a bias in favour of fluconazole. Furthermore, most patients were randomised to oral amphotericin B, which is poorly absorbed and poorly documented. There was overlap among the 'polyene' trials but we were unable to obtain any information from the trial authors or from Pfizer, the manufacturer of fluconazole, to clarify these issues. There were no significant differences in effect between fluconazole and amphotericin B, but the confidence intervals were wide. More patients dropped out of the study when they received amphotericin B, but as none of the trials were blinded decisions on premature interruption of therapy could have been biased. Furthermore, amphotericin B was not given under optimal circumstances, with premedication to reduce infusion-related toxicity, slow infusion, and with fluid, potassium and magnesium supplements to prevent nephrotoxicity. The major harms were hepatic impairment and gastrointestinal adverse effects with fluconazole and infusion-related toxicity, renal impairment and gastrointestinal adverse effects with amphotericin B. For the 2011 and 2014 updates no additional trials were identified for inclusion. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Amphotericin B has been disfavoured in several of the trials through their design or analysis, or both. Since intravenous amphotericin B is the only antifungal agent for which an effect on mortality has been shown, and since it is considerably cheaper than fluconazole, it should be the preferred agent.

Voriconazole versus amphotericin B or fluconazole in cancer patients with neutropenia.

BACKGROUND: Opportunistic fungal infections are a major cause of morbidity and mortality in neutropenic cancer patients and antifungal therapy is used both empirically and therapeutically in these patients. OBJECTIVES: To compare the benefits and harms of voriconazole with those of amphotericin B and fluconazole when used for prevention or treatment of invasive fungal infections in cancer patients with neutropenia. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in The Cochrane Library (2014, Issue 1 2014), MEDLINE (to January 2014). Letters, abstracts and unpublished trials were accepted. Contact was made with trial authors and industry. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised clinical trials comparing voriconazole with amphotericin B or fluconazole. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data on mortality, invasive fungal infection, colonisation, use of additional (escape) antifungal therapy and adverse effects leading to discontinuation of therapy were extracted independently by two review authors. MAIN RESULTS: Three trials were included. One trial compared voriconazole to liposomal amphotericin B as empirical treatment of fever of unknown origin (suspected fungal infection) in neutropenic cancer patients (849 patients, 58 deaths). The second trial compared voriconazole to amphotericin B deoxycholate in the treatment of confirmed and presumed invasive Aspergillus infections (391 patients, 98 deaths). The third trial compared fluconazole to voriconazole for prophylaxis of fungal infections in patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplantation (600 patients, number of deaths not stated). In the first trial, voriconazole was significantly inferior to liposomal amphotericin B according to the trial authors' prespecified criteria. More patients died in the voriconazole group and a claimed significant reduction in the number of breakthrough fungal infections disappeared when patients arbitrarily excluded from the analysis by the trial authors were included. In the second trial, the deoxycholate preparation of amphotericin B was used without any indication of the use of premedication to counter side effects and replacement of electrolytes or use of salt water. This choice of comparator resulted in a marked difference in the duration of treatment on the trial drugs (77 days with voriconazole versus 10 days with amphotericin B) and precluded meaningful comparisons of the benefits and harms of the two drugs. The third trial failed to find a difference in fungal free survival or invasive fungal infections at 180 days when voriconazole was compared to fluconazole. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Liposomal amphotericin B is significantly more effective than voriconazole for empirical therapy of fungal infections in neutropenic cancer patients and should be preferred. For treatment of aspergillosis, there are no trials that have compared voriconazole with amphotericin B given under optimal conditions. For prophylactic fungal treatment in patients receiving allogeneic stem cell transplantation, there was no difference between voriconazole and fluconazole regarding fungal free survival or invasive fungal infections.