Hiding negative trials by pooling them: a secondary analysis of pooled-trials publication bias in FDA-registered antidepressant trials

Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy: Updated comparisons and meta-analyses of newer versus older trials

BACKGROUND

Valid assessment of drug efficacy and safety requires an evidence base free of reporting bias. Using trial reports in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approval packages as a gold standard, we previously found that the published literature inflated the apparent efficacy of antidepressant drugs. The objective of the current study was to determine whether this has improved with recently approved drugs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Using medical and statistical reviews in FDA drug approval packages, we identified 30 Phase II/III double-blind placebo-controlled acute monotherapy trials, involving 13,747 patients, of desvenlafaxine, vilazodone, levomilnacipran, and vortioxetine; we then identified corresponding published reports. We compared the data from this newer cohort of antidepressants (approved February 2008 to September 2013) with the previously published dataset on 74 trials of 12 older antidepressants (approved December 1987 to August 2002). Using logistic regression, we examined the effects of trial outcome and trial cohort (newer versus older) on transparent reporting (whether published and FDA conclusions agreed). Among newer antidepressants, transparent publication occurred more with positive (15/15 = 100%) than negative (7/15 = 47%) trials (OR 35.1, CI95% 1.8 to 693). Controlling for trial outcome, transparent publication occurred more with newer than older trials (OR 6.6, CI95% 1.6 to 26.4). Within negative trials, transparent reporting increased from 11% to 47%. We also conducted and contrasted FDA- and journal-based meta-analyses. For newer antidepressants, FDA-based effect size (ESFDA) was 0.24 (CI95% 0.18 to 0.30), while journal-based effect size (ESJournals) was 0.29 (CI95% 0.23 to 0.36). Thus, effect size inflation, presumably due to reporting bias, was 0.05, less than for older antidepressants (0.10). Limitations of this study include a small number of trials and drugs-belonging to a single class-and a focus on efficacy (versus safety).

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting bias persists but appears to have diminished for newer, compared to older, antidepressants. Continued efforts are needed to further improve transparency in the scientific literature.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for post-traumatic stress disorder in children and adolescents: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Available evidence on the comparative efficacy and acceptability of psychotherapies for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in children and adolescents remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to compare and rank the different types and formats of psychotherapies for PTSD in children and adolescents.

METHODS

We searched eight databases and other international registers up to 31 December 2020. The pairwise meta-analyses and frequentist network meta-analyses estimated pooled standardised mean differences (SMDs) and ORs with random-effects model. Efficacy at post-treatment and follow-up, acceptability, depressive and anxiety symptoms were measured.

FINDINGS

We included 56 randomised controlled trials with 5327 patients comparing 14 different types of psychotherapies and 3 control conditions. For efficacy, cognitive processing therapy (CPT), behavioural therapy (BT), individual trauma-focused cognitive-behavioural therapy (TF-CBT), eye movement desensitisation and reprocessing, and group TF-CBT were significantly superior to all control conditions at post-treatment and follow-up (SMDs between -2.42 and -0.25). Moreover, CPT, BT and individual TF-CBT were more effective than supportive therapy (SMDs between -1.92 and -0.49). Results for depressive and anxiety symptoms were similar to the findings for the primary outcome. Most of the results were rated as 'moderate' to 'very low' in terms of confidence of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

CPT, BT and individual TF-CBT appear to be the best choices of psychotherapy for PTSD in young patients. Other types and different ways of delivering psychological treatment can be alternative options. Clinicians should consider the importance of each outcome and the patients' preferences in real clinical practice.

Shortcomings of Trials Assessing Antidepressants in the Management of Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Critical Review

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common disorder requiring complex, multidisciplinary management. Antidepressants are commonly used and recommended in guidelines for the treatment of patients with IBS. We assessed randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on antidepressants in patients with IBS, with specific attention to study design and data quality/reporting characteristics. Following a comprehensive search, data and RCT characteristics were systematically summarized. Fragility index, representing the number of positive “events” that the study relies on for its significance, was calculated. Eighteen RCTs were included. Overall, tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs), but not selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), appeared to be efficacious in IBS. Eight studies reported on adverse events (AEs), which were significantly greater in patients receiving antidepressants versus placebo. The median (mean) fragility index of TCA trials was 0 (1.5). RCTs with positive results had significantly lower placebo rates (20.8%) versus negative studies (45.7%; p < 0.0001). RCTs exhibited limitations related to study design (sample size and blinding), data analysis (outcomes and placebo response), and data reporting (selective reporting of AEs and publication bias). Careful consideration of limitations of RCTs on antidepressants in IBS is warranted to formulate a safe and beneficial treatment regimen for patients with IBS.

Comparative efficacy and acceptability of antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination for acute treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorder: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Depressive disorders are common in children and adolescents. Antidepressants, psychotherapies, and their combination are often used in routine clinical practice; however, available evidence on the comparative efficacy and safety of these interventions is inconclusive. Therefore, we sought to compare and rank all available treatment interventions for the acute treatment of depressive disorders in children and adolescents.

METHODS

We did a systematic review and network meta-analysis. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, PsycINFO, ProQuest, CINAHL, LiLACS, international trial registries, and the websites of regulatory agencies for published and unpublished randomised controlled trials from database inception until Jan 1, 2019. We included placebo-controlled and head-to-head trials of 16 antidepressants, seven psychotherapies, and five combinations of antidepressant and psychotherapy that are used for the acute treatment of children and adolescents (≤18 years old and of both sexes) with depressive disorder diagnosed according to standard operationalised criteria. Trials recruiting participants with treatment-resistant depression, bipolar disorder, psychotic depression, treatment duration of less than 4 weeks, or an overall sample size of fewer than ten patients were excluded. We extracted data following a predefined hierarchy of outcome measures, and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using validated methods. Primary outcomes were efficacy (change in depressive symptoms) and acceptability (treatment discontinuation due to any cause). We estimated summary standardised mean differences (SMDs) or odds ratios (ORs) with credible intervals (CrIs) using network meta-analysis with random effects. This study was registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015020841.

FINDINGS

From 20 366 publications, we included 71 trials (9510 participants). Depressive disorders in most studies were moderate to severe. In terms of efficacy, fluoxetine plus cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) was more effective than CBT alone (-0·78, 95% CrI -1·55 to -0·01) and psychodynamic therapy (-1·14, -2·20 to -0·08), but not more effective than fluoxetine alone (-0·22, -0·86 to 0·42). No pharmacotherapy alone was more effective than psychotherapy alone. Only fluoxetine plus CBT and fluoxetine were significantly more effective than pill placebo or psychological controls (SMDs ranged from -1·73 to -0·51); and only interpersonal therapy was more effective than all psychological controls (-1·37 to -0·66). Nortriptyline (SMDs ranged from 1·04 to 2·22) and waiting list (SMDs ranged from 0·67 to 2·08) were less effective than most active interventions. In terms of acceptability, nefazodone and fluoxetine were associated with fewer dropouts than sertraline, imipramine, and desipramine (ORs ranged from 0·17 to 0·50); imipramine was associated with more dropouts than pill placebo, desvenlafaxine, fluoxetine plus CBT, and vilazodone (2·51 to 5·06). Most of the results were rated as "low" to "very low" in terms of confidence of evidence according to Confidence In Network Meta-Analysis.

INTERPRETATION

Despite the scarcity of high-quality evidence, fluoxetine (alone or in combination with CBT) seems to be the best choice for the acute treatment of moderate-to-severe depressive disorder in children and adolescents. However, the effects of these interventions might vary between individuals, so patients, carers, and clinicians should carefully balance the risk-benefit profile of efficacy, acceptability, and suicide risk of all active interventions in young patients with depression on a case-by-case basis.

FUNDING

National Key Research and Development Program of China.