Benefits and harms of Risperidone and Paliperidone for treatment of patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder: a meta-analysis involving individual participant data and clinical study reports

Background Schizophrenia and bipolar disorder are severe mental illnesses which are highly prevalent worldwide. Risperidone and Paliperidone are treatments for either illnesses, but their efficacy compared to other antipsychotics and growing reports of hormonal imbalances continue to raise concerns. As existing evidence on both antipsychotics are solely based on aggregate data, we aimed to assess the benefits and harms of Risperidone and Paliperidone in the treatment of patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, using individual participant data (IPD), clinical study reports (CSRs) and publicly available sources (journal publications and trial registries). Methods We searched MEDLINE, Central, EMBASE and PsycINFO until December 2020 for randomised placebo-controlled trials of Risperidone, Paliperidone or Paliperidone palmitate in patients with schizophrenia or bipolar disorder. We obtained IPD and CSRs from the Yale University Open Data Access project. The primary outcome Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) score was analysed using one-stage IPD meta-analysis. Random-effect meta-analysis of harm outcomes involved methods for coping with rare events. Effect-sizes were compared across all available data sources using the ratio of means or relative risk. We registered our review on PROSPERO, CRD42019140556. Results Of the 35 studies, IPD meta-analysis involving 22 (63%) studies showed a significant clinical reduction in the PANSS in patients receiving Risperidone (mean difference − 5.83, 95% CI − 10.79 to − 0.87, I2 = 8.5%, n = 4 studies, 1131 participants), Paliperidone (− 6.01, 95% CI − 8.7 to − 3.32, I2 = 4.3%, n = 13, 3821) and Paliperidone palmitate (− 7.89, 95% CI − 12.1 to − 3.69, I2 = 2.9%, n = 5, 2209). CSRs reported nearly two times more adverse events (4434 vs. 2296 publication, relative difference (RD) = 1.93, 95% CI 1.86 to 2.00) and almost 8 times more serious adverse events (650 vs. 82; RD = 7.93, 95% CI 6.32 to 9.95) than the journal publications. Meta-analyses of individual harms from CSRs revealed a significant increased risk among several outcomes including extrapyramidal disorder, tardive dyskinesia and increased weight. But the ratio of relative risk between the different data sources was not significant. Three treatment-related gynecomastia events occurred, and these were considered mild to moderate in severity. Conclusion IPD meta-analysis conclude that Risperidone and Paliperidone antipsychotics had a small beneficial effect on reducing PANSS score over 9 weeks, which is more conservative than estimates from reviews based on journal publications. CSRs also contained significantly more data on harms that were unavailable in journal publications or trial registries. Sharing of IPD and CSRs are necessary when performing meta-analysis on the efficacy and safety of antipsychotics.

Reporting of harms in oncological clinical study reports submitted to the European Medicines Agency compared to trial registries and publications—a methodological review

Background An accurate and comprehensive assessment of harms is a fundamental part of an accurate weighing of benefits and harms of an intervention when making treatment decisions; however, harms are known to be underreported in journal publications. Therefore, we sought to compare the completeness of reporting of harm data, discrepancies in harm data reported, and the delay to access results of oncological clinical trials between three sources: clinical study reports (CSRs), clinical trial registries and journal publications. Methods We used the EMA clinical data website to identify all trials submitted to the EMA between 2015 and 2018. We retrieved all CSRs and included all phase II, II/III or III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing targeted therapy and immunotherapy for cancer. We then identified related records in clinical trial registries and journals. We extracted harms data for eight pre-specified variables and determined the completeness of reporting of harm data in each of the three sources. Results We identified 42 RCTs evaluating 13 different drugs. Results were available on the EMA website in CSRs for 37 (88%) RCTs, ClinicalTrials.gov for 36 (86%), the European Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) for 20 (48%) and in journal publications for 32 (76%). Harms reporting was more complete in CSRs than other sources. We identified marked discrepancies in harms data between sources, e.g. the number of patients discontinuing due to adverse events differed in CSRs and clinical trial registers for 88% of trials with data in both sources. For CSRs and publications, the corresponding number was 90%. The median (interquartile range) delay between the primary trial completion date and access to results was 4.34 (3.09–7.22) years for CSRs, 2.94 (1.16–4.52) years for ClinicalTrials.gov, 5.39 (4.18–7.33) years for EUCTR and 2.15 (0.64–5.04) years for publications. Conclusions Harms of recently approved oncological drugs were reported more frequently and in more detail in CSRs than in trial registries and journal publications. Systematic reviews seeking to address harms of oncological treatments should ideally use CSRs as the primary source of data; however, due to problems with access, this is currently not feasible.

Efficacy and safety of sacubitril/valsartan in the treatment of heart failure: protocol for a systematic review incorporating unpublished clinical study reports

Background: Sacubitril/valsartan is a first-in-class angiotensin-receptor neprilysin inhibitor used to treat heart failure. The evidence for this novel medication is largely based on one pivotal phase III trial which was stopped early due to significant clinical benefits being shown. However potential limitations in trial design have been highlighted in recent literature, necessitating a thorough review of all evidence for sacubitril/valsartan. Methods: This review will be conducted using the PRISMA reporting guidelines. Relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for sacubitril/valsartan will be systematically searched for in Medline (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane library, Google Scholar, Web of Science, Toxline and Scopus. Clinical trials registries will be searched, as will eight grey literature databases. In addition, unpublished clinical study reports (CSRs) of relevant trials will be requested from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Clinical Study Data Request database. Studies will be included if they involve randomising adult patients with heart failure to either sacubitril/valsartan or usual care, with either an active comparator or placebo as a control. Heart failure of any subtype or NYHA class will be included. All relevant clinical and safety outcomes will be reviewed, particularly hospitalisation due to heart failure and cardiovascular mortality. Two reviewers will assess eligibility of selected studies for inclusion. Data extraction will be performed separately for trial publications, clinical trial registries and for CSRs using a piloted form. Methodological quality of included trials from published sources will be assessed separately using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2). Narrative synthesis of included studies will be conducted and, if appropriate, meta-analysis for clinical efficacy and safety outcomes. Discussion: This review will collate all available RCT data on sacubitril/valsartan including published and unpublished sources in order to obtain a more complete picture of the evidence base for sacubitril/valsartan. Registration: This protocol is registered on PROSPERO (reference CRD42020162031).

EMA’s mishandling of an investigation into suspected serious neurological harms of HPV vaccines

Concern has been raised about whether HPV vaccines might cause serious neurological disorders including postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and chronic regional pain syndrome (CRPS). The European Medicines Agency (EMA) investigated the issue and declared in 2015 that there is no link between HPV vaccines and serious neurological adverse events. However, the certainty conveyed in EMA’s official report is undermined by a leaked, confidential document that reveals important disagreements among the experts. Furthermore, in its assessments, EMA relied on the data the drug companies had provided to them even though it had been demonstrated that the companies had underreported possible neurological harms. Even though active comparators were used (aluminium adjuvants and other vaccines), our research group found significantly more serious neurological harms in the HPV vaccine groups than in the comparator groups in a systematic review based on clinical study reports in EMA’s possession. We outline areas where we believe the basis for EMA’s decision was flawed; highlight that the relationship between HPV vaccines and POTS remains uncertain; and suggest ways forward to resolve the uncertainty and debate.

Transparency of Regulatory Data across the European Medicines Agency, Health Canada, and US Food and Drug Administration

Based on an analysis of relevant laws and policies, regulator data portals, and information requests, we find that clinical data, including clinical study reports, submitted to the European Medicines Agency and Health Canada to support approval of medicines are routinely made publicly available.

Extensive selective reporting of quality of life in clinical study reports and publications of placebo-controlled trials of antidepressants

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

Disinfection and outcome of root canal treatment using single-file or multifile systems and Ca(OH)2 medication

This clinical study reports on the antibacterial effects and outcome of endodontic treatment using either a single-file or a multifile system, associated with calcium hydroxide interappointment medication. The root canals of single-rooted teeth with apical periodontitis were treated by using either Reciproc or BioRaCe instrument systems, 2.5% NaOCl irrigation, and calcium hydroxide medication. Bacteriological samples taken before preparation and immediately before obturation were evaluated for total bacterial counts by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Patients were followed up and the treatment outcome was assessed by clinical and radiographic criteria. Decreasing lesions were classified as success in a lenient criterion or failure in a rigid one. Bacteria were detected in all initial samples (47 cases) and were significantly reduced after treatment in both groups (p<0.001). In the Reciproc and BioRaCe groups, 7/25 (28%) and 11/22 (50%) root canals yielded negative qPCR results before obturation, respectively (p>0.05). Quantitative bacterial reduction was similar between groups (p>0.05). The success rate in the BioRaCe group was 95.5% and 77% in the loose and rigid criterion, respectively. In the Reciproc group, corresponding figures were 88% and 76%. Differences in outcome were not significant (p>0.05). No diseased case showed negative qPCR results for bacteria. A difference of >1 Log10 counts was observed between healed and diseased cases. Root canal treatments of teeth with apical periodontitis using a single-file or a multifile system for preparation, associated with NaOCl irrigation and calcium hydroxide interappointment medication, showed similar antibacterial effectiveness and success rate.

Comparative effectiveness of biological medicines in rheumatoid arthritis: systematic review and network meta-analysis including aggregate results from reanalysed individual patient data

Objective To assess the comparative effectiveness of biological medicines in rheumatoid arthritis in sufficiently similar patient populations, based on the current definitions of key outcomes. Design Systematic review and network meta-analysis including aggregate results from reanalysed individual patient data. Data sources Clinical study reports and aggregate results from reanalyses of individual patient data on key outcomes for rheumatoid arthritis provided by study sponsors for studies conducted up to 2017, and several databases and registries from inception up to February 2017. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised controlled trials investigating patient relevant outcomes in adults with rheumatoid arthritis treated with biological medicines in combination with methotrexate after methotrexate failure for at least 24 weeks. Results 45 eligible trials were identified. Combining data from clinical study reports and aggregate results from reanalyses of individual patient data allowed extensive analyses yielding sufficiently similar populations and homogeneous study results for network meta-analyses, including up to 35 studies on eight biological medicines combined with methotrexate. These analyses showed few statistically significant differences between the combination treatments. For example, anakinra showed less benefit than almost all the other seven biological medicines regarding clinical remission or low disease activity (clinical disease activity index ≤2.8 or ≤10, respectively) and certolizumab pegol showed more harm than the other seven biological medicines regarding serious adverse events or infections. Some outcomes had very wide 95% confidence intervals, potentially implying unidentified differences between the eight biological medicines, but wide 95% confidence intervals were less prominent for low disease activity, serious adverse events, and infections. Owing to a lack of head-to-head trials, results were mainly based on indirect comparisons with a limited number of studies, and recently approved Janus kinase inhibitors could not be included. Conclusions For patients with rheumatoid arthritis after methotrexate failure, only minor differences in benefits and harms were seen between biological medicines in combination with methotrexate. However, the analysis was hampered by a lack of long term direct comparisons. The substantial information gain achieved by the reanalysis of individual patient data calls for the routine availability of individual patient data.