Efforts to retrieve individual participant data sets for use in a meta-analysis result in moderate data sharing but many data sets remain missing

Importance: Results from observational studies and randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have led to the consensus that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and chloroquine (CQ) are not effective for COVID-19 prevention or treatment. Pooling individual participant data (IPD), including unanalyzed data from trials terminated early, enables further investigation of the efficacy and safety of HCQ/CQ. Objective: To assess efficacy of HCQ/CQ in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, both overall and in prespecified subgroups. Data Sources: ClinicalTrials.gov was searched multiple times in May-June 2020. Principal investigators of US-based RCTs evaluating HCQ/CQ in hospitalized COVID-19 patients were invited to collaborate in this IPD meta-analysis. Study Selection: RCTs in which: (1) HCQ/CQ was a treatment arm; (2) patient informed consent and/or individual study IRB approval allowed for data sharing; (3) principal investigators/their institutions signed a data use agreement for the present study; and (4) the outcomes defined in this study were recorded or could be extrapolated. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Wherever possible, harmonized de-identified data were collected via a common template spreadsheet sent to each principal investigator, then shared via a secure online data sharing platform to create a pooled data set. When this was not possible, individual study data were harmonized and merged manually. Data were analyzed by fitting a prespecified Bayesian ordinal regression model and standardizing the resulting predictions. Main Outcome(s) and Measure(s): 7-point ordinal scale, measured between day 28 and 35 post-enrollment. Results: Eight of 19 trials met eligibility criteria and agreed to participate. Patient-level data were available from 770 participants (412 HCQ/CQ vs 358 control). Baseline characteristics were similar between groups. We found no evidence of a difference in ordinal scores between days 28 and 35 post-enrollment in the pooled patient population (odds ratio, 0.97; 95% credible interval, 0.76-1.24; higher favors HCQ/CQ), and no convincing evidence of meaningful treatment effect heterogeneity among prespecified subgroups. Adverse event and serious adverse event rates were numerically higher with HCQ/CQ vs control (0.39 vs 0.29 and 0.13 vs 0.09 per patient, respectively). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this IPD meta-analysis reinforce those of individual RCTs that HCQ/CQ is not efficacious for treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

Download Full-text

Obtaining and managing data sets for individual participant data meta-analysis: scoping review and practical guide

BMC Medical Research Methodology ◽

10.1186/s12874-020-00964-6 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 20 (1) ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Matthew Ventresca ◽

Holger J. Schünemann ◽

Fergus Macbeth ◽

Mike Clarke ◽

Lehana Thabane ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Scoping Review ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Data Sets ◽

Individual Participant Data ◽

Practical Guide ◽

Individual Participant

Download Full-text

Overestimation of Postpartum Depression Prevalence Based on a 5-item Version of the EPDS: Systematic Review and Individual Participant Data Meta-analysis

The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry ◽

10.1177/0706743720934959 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 65 (12) ◽

pp. 835-844

Author(s):

Brett D. Thombs ◽

Brooke Levis ◽

Anita Lyubenova ◽

Dipika Neupane ◽

Zelalem Negeri ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Major Depression ◽

Postpartum Depression ◽

Maternal Mental Health ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Depression Scale ◽

Diagnostic Interview ◽

Data Sets ◽

Individual Participant Data ◽

Depression Prevalence ◽

Individual Participant

Objective: The Maternal Mental Health in Canada, 2018/2019, survey reported that 18% of 7,085 mothers who recently gave birth reported “feelings consistent with postpartum depression” based on scores ≥7 on a 5-item version of the Edinburgh Postpartum Depression Scale (EPDS-5). The EPDS-5 was designed as a screening questionnaire, not to classify disorders or estimate prevalence; the extent to which EPDS-5 results reflect depression prevalence is unknown. We investigated EPDS-5 ≥7 performance relative to major depression prevalence based on a validated diagnostic interview, the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM (SCID). Methods: We searched Medline, Medline In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, PsycINFO, and the Web of Science Core Collection through June 2016 for studies with data sets with item response data to calculate EPDS-5 scores and that used the SCID to ascertain depression status. We conducted an individual participant data meta-analysis to estimate pooled percentage of EPDS-5 ≥7, pooled SCID major depression prevalence, and the pooled difference in prevalence. Results: A total of 3,958 participants from 19 primary studies were included. Pooled prevalence of SCID major depression was 9.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 6.0% to 13.7%), pooled percentage of participants with EPDS-5 ≥7 was 16.2% (95% CI 10.7% to 23.8%), and pooled difference was 8.0% (95% CI 2.9% to 13.2%). In the 19 included studies, mean and median ratios of EPDS-5 to SCID prevalence were 2.1 and 1.4 times. Conclusions: Prevalence estimated based on EPDS-5 ≥7 appears to be substantially higher than the prevalence of major depression. Validated diagnostic interviews should be used to establish prevalence.

Download Full-text