Comparison of Publication of Pediatric Probiotic vs Antibiotic Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov

Time to publication for results of clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Researchers conducting trials have a responsibility to publish the results of their work in a peer-reviewed journal, and failure to do so may introduce bias that affects the accuracy of available evidence. Moreover, failure to publish results constitutes research waste.

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review research reports that followed clinical trials from their inception and their investigated publication rates and time to publication. We also aimed to assess whether certain factors influenced publication and time to publication.

SEARCH METHODS

We identified studies by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Epistemonikos, the Cochrane Methodology Register (CMR) and the database of the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), from inception to 23 August 2023. We also checked reference lists of relevant studies and contacted experts in the field for any additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Studies were eligible if they tracked the publication of a cohort of clinical trials and contained analyses of any aspect of the publication rate or time to publication of these trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors performed data extraction independently. We extracted data on the prevalence of publication and the time from the trial start date or completion date to publication. We also extracted data from the clinical trials included in the research reports, including country of the study's first author, area of health care, means by which the publication status of these trials were sought and the risk of bias in the trials.

MAIN RESULTS

A total of 204 research reports tracking 165,135 trials met the inclusion criteria. Just over half (53%) of these trials were published in full. The median time to publication was approximately 4.8 years from the enrolment of the first trial participant and 2.1 years from the trial completion date. Trials with positive results (i.e. statistically significant results favouring the experimental arm) were more likely to be published than those with negative or null results (OR 2.69, 95% CI 2.02 to 3.60; 19 studies), and they were published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.92, 95% CI 1.51 to 2.45; 4 studies). On average, trials with positive results took 2 years to publish, whereas trials with negative or null results took 2.6 years. Large trials were more likely to be published than smaller ones (adjusted OR 1.92, 95% CI 1.33 to 2.77; 11 studies), and they were published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.41, 95% CI 1.18 to 1.68; 7 studies). Multicentre trials were more likely to be published than single-centre trials (adjusted OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.40; 2 studies). We found no difference between multicentre and single-centre trials in time to publication. Trials funded by non-industry sources (e.g.governments or universities) were more likely to be published than trials funded by industry (e.g. pharmaceutical companies or for-profit organisations) (adjusted OR 2.13, 95% CI 1.82 to 2.49; 14 studies); they were also published in a shorter time (adjusted HR 1.46, 95% CI 1.15 to 1.86; 7 studies).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Our updated review shows that trial publication is poor, with only half of all trials that are conducted being published. Factors that may make publication more likely and lead to faster publication are positive results, large sample size and being funded by non-industry sources. Differences in publication rates result in publication bias and time-lag bias that may influence findings and therefore ultimately affect treatment decisions. Systematic review authors should consider the possibility of time-lag bias when conducting a systematic review, especially when updating their review.

FUNDING

This Cochrane review had no dedicated funding.

REGISTRATION

This review combines and updates two earlier Cochrane reviews. The two protocols and previous versions of the two updated reviews are available via 10.1002/14651858.MR000006 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000006.pub3 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000011 and 10.1002/14651858.MR000011.pub2.

Efficacy and Safety of Bifidobacterium longum Supplementation in Infants: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND

Strategies to stabilize and support overall infant health by increasing the number of Bifidobacterium longum in the infant gut are of interest, but few studies have systematically addressed this issue. We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Bifidobacterium longum use in infants using meta-analysis.

METHODS

We searched PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, and SinoMed for publications until 27 July 2022. The main outcomes of interest were weight gain, risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), and adverse events. Two authors independently performed study screening, risk of bias assessment, and data extraction. Outcome data were extracted from each included study and combined using mean difference (MD) or risk ratio (RR) and finally combined using a fixed-effect model or random-effect model.

RESULTS

A total of 4481 relevant studies were identified, of which 15 were found to be eligible for randomized controlled trials and were included in the meta-analysis. The combined extracted data showed that the intervention group containing Bifidobacterium longum had a significantly lower risk of NEC (RR = 0.539, 95% CI: 0.333, 0.874) compared to the control group. There was no statistical difference between the intervention and control groups regarding weight gain (MD = 0.029, 95% CI: -0.032, 0.090), the occurrence of adverse events (RR = 0.986, 95% CI: 0.843, 1.153), and serious adverse events (RR = 0.881, 95% CI: 0.493, 1.573).

CONCLUSIONS

Bifidobacterium longum may significantly reduce the risk of NEC in infants as well as being safe; thus, further research evidence is needed on whether there is a benefit on weight gain.

Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 for nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a comprehensive analysis of registered trials on ClinicalTrials.gov

Objective: Clinical trials play an important role in the development of healthcare. However, the current status of clinical trials on anti-PD-1/PD-L1 for nasopharyngeal carcinoma remains unclear. Therefore, this study aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of the registered trials related to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 for nasopharyngeal carcinoma on ClinicalTrials.gov. Methods: A search was conducted on the ClinicalTrials.gov database to identify all registered trials related to anti-PD-1/PD-L1 for nasopharyngeal carcinoma up to 26 February 2023. The characteristics of the trials were examined, and the studied drugs, disease conditions, as well as details of trials with available results were analyzed. Publication status was assessed by a PubMed search using the ClinicalTrials.gov NCT number. Results: A total of 112 interventional clinical trials registered between 2015 and 2023 were included. Of the trials, 90 were carried out in Asia, 72 were in phase 2, and 31 trials had either companies or universities as sponsors/collaborators. The sample sizes across the trials varied greatly, with a median of 71.5 participants per trial. The majority of trials were recruiting participants, with only 6 had posted results. PD-1 inhibitors were preferred over PD-L1, and Toripalimab emerged as the most extensively studied drug. About one-third (33.9%) of the studies looked into recurrent/metastatic nasopharyngeal cancer. Conclusion: This study provides an overview of all registered trials of anti-PD-1/PD-L1 for NPC. It is needed to improve the completeness, outcome selection, randomization and masking of trials and to be transparent and timely in reporting of results.

Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG aggravates vascular calcification in chronic kidney disease: A potential role for extracellular vesicles

AIMS

Lactobacillus rhamnosus GG (LGG) is a probiotic with great promise in future clinical application, which can significantly promote bone formation. However, the effect of LGG on CKD-related vascular calcification is unclear. In this study, we aimed to investigate the effect of LGG on CKD-related vascular calcification.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

After 2 weeks of 5/6 nephrectomy, CKD rats received a special diet (4 % calcium and 1.8 % phosphate) combined with 1,25-dihydroxyvitamin D3 to induce vascular calcification. Meanwhile, CKD rats in the LGG group were gavaged orally with LGG (1 × 109 CFU bacteria/day). 16S RNA amplicon sequencing was performed to analyze the effect of LGG treatment on gut microbiota composition. Furthermore, differential ultracentrifugation was utilized to extract EVs. The effects of EVs on vascular calcification were evaluated in rat VSMCs, rat aortic rings, and CKD rat calcification models. In this study, vascular calcification was assessed by microcomputed tomography analysis, alizarin red staining, calcium content determination, and the expression of osteogenic transcription factors RUNX2 and BMP2.

KEY FINDINGS

LGG remarkably aggravated vascular calcification. LGG supplementation significantly altered gut microbiota composition in CKD rats, particularly increasing Lactobacillus. Interestingly, EVs presented a significant promoting effect on the development of calcification. Finally, mechanistic analysis proved that EVs aggravated vascular calcification through PI3K/AKT signaling.

SIGNIFICANCE

These results do not support the supplementation of LGG in CKD-associated vascular calcification patients. Our study presented a fresh perspective on LGG with potential risks and adverse effects. CKD patients should use specific probiotic strains cautiously.

Association of Hospital Adoption of Probiotics With Outcomes Among Neonates With Very Low Birth Weight

Importance

For neonates with very low birth weight (VLBW), randomized clinical trials (RCTs) indicate that probiotic treatment decreases the risk of necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), with smaller decreases in the risk of sepsis and death. There is little evidence on the rate of probiotic adoption in US neonatal intensive care units (NICUs) and whether the benefits seen in trials have materialized in practice.

Objective

To estimate changes in probiotic use among neonates with VLBW and to test whether neonates with VLBW treated at NICUs adopting routine probiotic use experience better outcomes compared with neonates treated at nonadopting NICUs.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used Vermont Oxford Network data on neonates with VLBW in US NICUs from January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2019. Data were analyzed from January 2022 through February 2023.

Exposure

Probiotics adoption vs nonadoption. Adopting NICUs were defined as those that currently or previously treated at least 20% of neonates with VLBW with probiotics.

Main Outcomes

The primary outcomes were rates of NEC, in-hospital mortality, and sepsis, defined as bacterial or fungal infection occurring after day 3 from birth. A difference-in-differences analysis compared changes in VLBW infant outcomes between adopting and nonadopting NICUs before and after hospital-level adoption of probiotics. Additional analyses used the proportion of neonates treated with probiotics in each neonate's birth NICU and year.

Results

The analysis included 307 905 neonates with VLBW (mean [SD] gestational age, 28.4 [2.9] weeks; 50.0% male) at 807 US hospitals. The rate of probiotic treatment of neonates with VLBW rose from 1572 of 38 296 neonates (4.1%) in 2012 to 4788 of 37 910 (12.6%) in 2019. Only 123 of 745 NICUs (16.5%) adopted probiotics by 2019, with 4591 of 6017 neonates with VLBW (76.3%) receiving probiotics in 2019 at adopting NICUs. Incidence of NEC declined by 18% at adopting NICUs (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.95; P = .10) compared with nonadopting NICUs. Probiotic adoption was not associated with a significant reduction in sepsis (OR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.98-1.25; P = .09) or mortality (OR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.80-1.08; P = .33).

Conclusion and Relevance

In this cohort study, adoption of routine use of probiotics increased slowly in US NICUs and was associated with lower NEC risk but not with sepsis or mortality among neonates with VLBW. The findings for probiotic adoption and NEC, sepsis, and mortality were smaller than would have been predicted by the totality of RCT evidence but are consistent with a meta-analysis restricted to studies at low risk of bias.