Placebo? no thanks, it might be bad for me!

Adverse effects of immunotherapies for multiple sclerosis: a network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic disease of the central nervous system that affects mainly young adults (two to three times more frequently in women than in men) and causes significant disability after onset. Although it is accepted that immunotherapies for people with MS decrease disease activity, uncertainty regarding their relative safety remains.

OBJECTIVES

To compare adverse effects of immunotherapies for people with MS or clinically isolated syndrome (CIS), and to rank these treatments according to their relative risks of adverse effects through network meta-analyses (NMAs).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, two other databases and trials registers up to March 2022, together with reference checking and citation searching to identify additional studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included participants 18 years of age or older with a diagnosis of MS or CIS, according to any accepted diagnostic criteria, who were included in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined one or more of the agents used in MS or CIS, and compared them versus placebo or another active agent. We excluded RCTs in which a drug regimen was compared with a different regimen of the same drug without another active agent or placebo as a control arm.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methods for data extraction and pairwise meta-analyses. For NMAs, we used the netmeta suite of commands in R to fit random-effects NMAs assuming a common between-study variance. We used the CINeMA platform to GRADE the certainty of the body of evidence in NMAs. We considered a relative risk (RR) of 1.5 as a non-inferiority safety threshold compared to placebo. We assessed the certainty of evidence for primary outcomes within the NMA according to GRADE, as very low, low, moderate or high.

MAIN RESULTS

This NMA included 123 trials with 57,682 participants. Serious adverse events (SAEs) Reporting of SAEs was available from 84 studies including 5696 (11%) events in 51,833 (89.9%) participants out of 57,682 participants in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of SAEs, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 18 additional people would have a SAE compared to placebo. Low-certainty evidence suggested that three drugs may decrease SAEs compared to placebo (relative risk [RR], 95% confidence interval [CI]): interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (0.78, 0.66 to 0.94); dimethyl fumarate (0.79, 0.67 to 0.93), and glatiramer acetate (0.84, 0.72 to 0.98). Several drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo: moderate-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.08, 0.88 to 1.31); low-certainty evidence for ocrelizumab (0.85, 0.67 to 1.07), ozanimod (0.88, 0.59 to 1.33), interferon beta-1b (0.94, 0.78 to 1.12), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (0.96, 0.80 to 1.15), natalizumab (0.97, 0.79 to 1.19), fingolimod (1.05, 0.92 to 1.20) and laquinimod (1.06, 0.83 to 1.34); very low-certainty evidence for daclizumab (0.83, 0.68 to 1.02). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the other drugs: low-certainty evidence for cladribine (1.10, 0.79 to 1.52), siponimod (1.20, 0.95 to 1.51), ofatumumab (1.26, 0.88 to 1.79) and rituximab (1.01, 0.67 to 1.52); very low-certainty evidence for immunoglobulins (1.05, 0.33 to 3.32), diroximel fumarate (1.05, 0.23 to 4.69), peg-interferon beta-1a (1.07, 0.66 to 1.74), alemtuzumab (1.16, 0.85 to 1.60), interferons (1.62, 0.21 to 12.72) and azathioprine (3.62, 0.76 to 17.19). Withdrawals due to adverse events Reporting of withdrawals due to AEs was available from 105 studies (85.4%) including 3537 (6.39%) events in 55,320 (95.9%) patients out of 57,682 patients in all studies. Based on the absolute frequency of withdrawals, our non-inferiority threshold (up to a 50% increased risk) meant that no more than 1 in 31 additional people would withdraw compared to placebo. No drug reduced withdrawals due to adverse events when compared with placebo. There was very low-certainty evidence (meaning that estimates are not reliable) that two drugs met our non-inferiority criterion versus placebo, assuming an upper 95% CI RR limit of 1.5: diroximel fumarate (0.38, 0.11 to 1.27) and alemtuzumab (0.63, 0.33 to 1.19). Non-inferiority with placebo was not met due to imprecision for the following drugs: low-certainty evidence for ofatumumab (1.50, 0.87 to 2.59); very low-certainty evidence for methotrexate (0.94, 0.02 to 46.70), corticosteroids (1.05, 0.16 to 7.14), ozanimod (1.06, 0.58 to 1.93), natalizumab (1.20, 0.77 to 1.85), ocrelizumab (1.32, 0.81 to 2.14), dimethyl fumarate (1.34, 0.96 to 1.86), siponimod (1.63, 0.96 to 2.79), rituximab (1.63, 0.53 to 5.00), cladribine (1.80, 0.89 to 3.62), mitoxantrone (2.11, 0.50 to 8.87), interferons (3.47, 0.95 to 12.72), and cyclophosphamide (3.86, 0.45 to 33.50). Eleven drugs may have increased withdrawals due to adverse events compared with placebo: low-certainty evidence for teriflunomide (1.37, 1.01 to 1.85), glatiramer acetate (1.76, 1.36 to 2.26), fingolimod (1.79, 1.40 to 2.28), interferon beta-1a (Rebif) (2.15, 1.58 to 2.93), daclizumab (2.19, 1.31 to 3.65) and interferon beta-1b (2.59, 1.87 to 3.77); very low-certainty evidence for laquinimod (1.42, 1.01 to 2.00), interferon beta-1a (Avonex) (1.54, 1.13 to 2.10), immunoglobulins (1.87, 1.01 to 3.45), peg-interferon beta-1a (3.46, 1.44 to 8.33) and azathioprine (6.95, 2.57 to 18.78); however, very low-certainty evidence is unreliable. Sensitivity analyses including only studies with low attrition bias, drug dose above the group median, or only patients with relapsing remitting MS or CIS, and subgroup analyses by prior disease-modifying treatments did not change these figures. Rankings No drug yielded consistent P scores in the upper quartile of the probability of being better than others for primary and secondary outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found mostly low and very low-certainty evidence that drugs used to treat MS may not increase SAEs, but may increase withdrawals compared with placebo. The results suggest that there is no important difference in the occurrence of SAEs between first- and second-line drugs and between oral, injectable, or infused drugs, compared with placebo. Our review, along with other work in the literature, confirms poor-quality reporting of adverse events from RCTs of interventions. At the least, future studies should follow the CONSORT recommendations about reporting harm-related issues. To address adverse effects, future systematic reviews should also include non-randomized studies.

Preapproval and postapproval evidence on drugs for multiple sclerosis

OBJECTIVE

To review the evidence supporting the European Union marketing authorization of drugs for multiple sclerosis (MS) and assess how far postmarketing research addresses information gaps at the time of approval.

METHODS

Through its database, we identified drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency and gathered data on pivotal trials from the European Public Assessment Reports and corresponding publications. We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and trial registries for postmarketing randomized controlled trials testing the drugs identified in any form of the disease.

RESULTS

Since approval of interferon and glatiramer up to 2017, the Agency has examined 10 drugs for the treatment of MS, and 8 were included in this study: alemtuzumab, daclizumab, dimethyl fumarate, fampridine, fingolimod, peginterferon-β-1a, natalizumab, and teriflunomide. We analyzed 16 pivotal trials enrolling almost 16,000 participants. Eleven compared new drugs to placebo, 5 to interferon-β-1a. Annualized relapse rate was the primary outcome in two-thirds and coprimary with disability progression in the 2 studies of alemtuzumab. Of the 52 postmarketing trials, 24 reported final results and 28 were ongoing, terminated, or completed but no results were available. None directly compared the approved drugs, thus leaving their respective therapeutic values unknown. Data on the prevention of disease progression were scarce: none of the disease-modifying drugs showed any effect on disability progression.

CONCLUSION

The lack of comparative evidence and data on clinical effectiveness hamper the assessment of therapeutic value and place in therapy of drugs approved for MS.

Drug versus placebo randomized controlled trials in neonates: A review of ClinicalTrials.gov registry

BACKGROUND

Despite specific initiatives and identified needs, most neonatal drugs are still used off-label, with variable dosage administrations and schedules. In high risk preterm and term neonates, drug evaluation is challenging and randomized controlled trials (RCT) are difficult to conduct and even more is the use of a placebo, required in the absence of a reference validated drug to be used as comparator.

METHODS

We analyzed the complete ClinicalTrials.gov registry 1) to describe neonatal RCT involving a placebo, 2) to report on the medical context and ethical aspects of placebo use.

RESULTS

Placebo versus drug RCT (n = 146), either prevention trials (n = 57, 39%) or therapeutic interventions (n = 89, 61%), represent more than a third of neonatal trials registered in the National Institute of Health clinical trial database (USA) since 1999. They mainly concerned preterm infants, evaluating complications of prematurity. Most trials were conducted in the USA, were single centered, and funded by non-profit organizations. For the three top drug trials evaluating steroids (n = 13, 9.6%), erythropoietin (EPO, n = 10, 6.8%) and nitric oxide (NO, n = 9, 6.2%), the objectives of the trial and follow-up were analyzed in more details.

CONCLUSION

Although a matter of debate, the use of placebo should be promoted in neonates to evaluate a potential new treatment, in the absence of reference drug. Analysis of the trials evaluating steroids showed that long-term follow-up of exposed patients, although required by international guidelines, is frequently missing and should be planned to collect additional information and optimize drug evaluation in these high-risk patients.

The Ethics of Sports Medicine Research

This article explores the background and foundations of ethics in research. Some important documents and codes are mentioned, such as The Belmont Report and the International Conference of Harmonisation. Some influential historical events involving research ethics are recounted. The article provides a detailed discussion of the Declaration of Helsinki, which is considered the international standard for guidelines in medical research ethics. The most salient features of the Declaration are described and related to orthopaedic surgery and sports medicine. Some of the most controversial aspects of the Declaration are discussed, which helps examine contentious areas of research in sports medicine.

Are new models needed to optimize the utilization of new medicines to sustain healthcare systems?

Medicines have made an appreciable contribution to improving health. However, even high-income countries are struggling to fund new premium-priced medicines. This will grow necessitating the development of new models to optimize their use. The objective is to review case histories among health authorities to improve the utilization and expenditure on new medicines. Subsequently, use these to develop exemplar models and outline their implications. A number of issues and challenges were identified from the case histories. These included the low number of new medicines seen as innovative alongside increasing requested prices for their reimbursement, especially for oncology, orphan diseases, diabetes and HCV. Proposed models center on the three pillars of pre-, peri- and post-launch including critical drug evaluation, as well as multi-criteria models for valuing medicines for orphan diseases alongside potentially capping pharmaceutical expenditure. In conclusion, the proposed models involving all key stakeholder groups are critical for the sustainability of healthcare systems or enhancing universal access. The models should help stimulate debate as well as restore trust between key stakeholder groups.

Clinical evidence inputs to comparative effectiveness research could impact the development of novel treatments

Aim: This study aims to analyze the impacts of a range of clinical evidence generation scenarios associated with comparative effectiveness research (CER) on pharmaceutical innovation. Materials & methods: We used the Global Pharmaceutical Policy Model to project the effect of changes in pharmaceutical producer costs, revenues and timings on drug innovation and health for the age 55+ populations in the USA and Europe through year 2060 using three clinical scenarios. Results: Changes in producer incentives from widespread CER evidence generation and use had varied but often large predicted impacts on simulated outcomes in 2060. Effect on the number of new drug introductions ranged from a 81.1% reduction to a 45.5% increase, and the effect on population-level life expectancy ranged from a 15.6% reduction to a 11.4% increase compared to baseline estimates. Conclusion: The uncertainty surrounding the consequences of increased clinical evidence generation and use on innovation calls for a carefully measured approach to CER implementation, balancing near-term benefits to spending and health with long-term implications for innovation.