Reporting of drug trial funding sources and author financial conflicts of interest in Cochrane and non-Cochrane meta-analyses: a cross-sectional study

Conflict of interest and risk of bias in systematic reviews on methylphenidate for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SRs) are pivotal to evidence-based medicine, yet there is limited research on conflicts of interest in SRs. Our aim was to investigate financial conflicts of interest and risk of bias (RoB) in SRs of a well-defined clinical topic.

METHODS

A librarian searched Medline, Cochrane Library, Embase, and PsycINFO for SRs investigating the effect of methylphenidate on ADHD in December 2020. The selection process adhered to the PRISMA guidelines. Two blinded reviewers independently searched open websites, including other publications, for information on financial conflicts of interest of all authors of the included SRs. A time limit of 3 years before or after the index SR was adopted. Declarations on conflict of interest were extracted from the included SRs for comparison. ROBIS was used for RoB assessment.

RESULTS

Out of 44 SRs included, 15 (34%) declared conflict of interest, 27 (61%) did not, and a declaration of conflict of interest was missing for 2 (5%). On open websites, conflict of interest was found for at least one author of 23 (52%) SRs: disclosed in 15 (34%) and not disclosed in 8 (18%) SRs. Seven (16%) SRs had low, 36 (82%) had high, and 1 (2%) had unclear RoB. Among SRs with financial conflict of interest found in open sources, 6/22 (27%) had low RoB compared to 1/21 (5%) if no such conflict of interest was identified. Among SRs with financial conflict of interest identified, 1/6 (17%) at low RoB did not disclose their conflict of interest, whereas the corresponding proportion among SRs at high RoB was 7/16 (44%). Eight (18%) SRs presented conflict of interest disclosed in the included primary studies. Four of them (50%) had low RoB, compared to 3/36 (8%) for SRs not reporting on this aspect.

CONCLUSION

Financial conflict of interest was underreported in 18% of the SRs using our reference standard, and overall it was present for every second SR. This group embraced both SRs at low RoB disclosing conflict of interest and SRs at high RoB not disclosing their conflict of interest. Further studies to explore this heterogeneity are warranted.

A structured approach to information retrieval improved identification of funding and researchers' conflicts of interest in trials included in Cochrane reviews

OBJECTIVES

To compare the contemporary Cochrane review approach for retrieving information on trial funding and researchers' conflicts of interest with a structured approach for information retrieval.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Methodological study of 100 Cochrane reviews from August to December 2020 and one randomly selected trial from each review. Reporting of trial funding and researchers' conflicts of interest in reviews was compared with information identified using a structured retrieval process, and time to retrieve information was noted. We also formulated a guide to systematic reviewers for efficient information retrieval.

RESULTS

Sixty-eight of 100 Cochrane reviews reported trial funding and 24 reported trial researchers' conflicts of interest. A simple structured approach, searching only trial publications (including conflicts of interest disclosure forms), identified funding for 16 additional trials and conflicts of interest information for 39 additional trials. A comprehensive structured approach, searching multiple information sources, identified funding for two additional trials and conflicts of interest for 14 additional trials. The median time to retrieve information was 10 minutes per trial (interquartile range: 7-15) for the simple approach and 20 minutes (11-43) for the comprehensive approach.

CONCLUSION

A structured information retrieval approach improves identification of funding and researchers' conflicts of interest in trials included in Cochrane reviews.

Pharmacological pain and sedation interventions for the prevention of intraventricular hemorrhage in preterm infants on assisted ventilation - an overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Germinal matrix hemorrhage and intraventricular hemorrhage (GMH-IVH) may contribute to neonatal morbidity and mortality and result in long-term neurodevelopmental sequelae. Appropriate pain and sedation management in ventilated preterm infants may decrease the risk of GMH-IVH; however, it might be associated with harms.

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the evidence from systematic reviews regarding the effects and safety of pharmacological interventions related to pain and sedation management in order to prevent GMH-IVH in ventilated preterm infants.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library August 2022 for reviews on pharmacological interventions for pain and sedation management to prevent GMH-IVH in ventilated preterm infants (< 37 weeks' gestation). We included Cochrane Reviews assessing the following interventions administered within the first week of life: benzodiazepines, paracetamol, opioids, ibuprofen, anesthetics, barbiturates, and antiadrenergics. Primary outcomes were any GMH-IVH (aGMH-IVH), severe IVH (sIVH), all-cause neonatal death (ACND), and major neurodevelopmental disability (MND). We assessed the methodological quality of included reviews using the AMSTAR-2 tool. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

We included seven Cochrane Reviews and one Cochrane Review protocol. The reviews on clonidine and paracetamol did not include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) matching our inclusion criteria. We included 40 RCTs (3791 infants) from reviews on paracetamol for patent ductus arteriosus (3), midazolam (3), phenobarbital (9), opioids (20), and ibuprofen (5). The quality of the included reviews was high. The certainty of the evidence was moderate to very low, because of serious imprecision and study limitations. Germinal matrix hemorrhage-intraventricular hemorrhage (any grade) Compared to placebo or no intervention, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of paracetamol on aGMH-IVH (risk ratio (RR) 0.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 2.07; 2 RCTs, 82 infants; very low-certainty evidence); midazolam may result in little to no difference in the incidence of aGMH-IVH (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.87 to 3.24; 3 RCTs, 122 infants; low-certainty evidence); the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital on aGMH-IVH (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.19; 9 RCTs, 732 infants; very low-certainty evidence); opioids may result in little to no difference in aGMH-IVH (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.12; 7 RCTs, 469 infants; low-certainty evidence); ibuprofen likely results in little to no difference in aGMH-IVH (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.21; 4 RCTs, 759 infants; moderate-certainty evidence). Compared to ibuprofen, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of paracetamol on aGMH-IVH (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.31 to 4.34; 1 RCT, 30 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to midazolam, morphine may result in a reduction in aGMH-IVH (RR 0.28, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.87; 1 RCT, 46 infants; low-certainty evidence). Compared to diamorphine, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine on aGMH-IVH (RR 0.65, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.07; 1 RCT, 88 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Severe intraventricular hemorrhage (grade 3 to 4) Compared to placebo or no intervention, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of paracetamol on sIVH (RR 1.80, 95% CI 0.43 to 7.49; 2 RCTs, 82 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and of phenobarbital (grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.25; 9 RCTs, 732 infants; very low-certainty evidence); opioids may result in little to no difference in sIVH (grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.34; 6 RCTs, 1299 infants; low-certainty evidence); ibuprofen may result in little to no difference in sIVH (grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.26; 4 RCTs, 747 infants; low-certainty evidence). No studies on midazolam reported this outcome. Compared to ibuprofen, the evidence is very uncertain about the effects of paracetamol on sIVH (RR 2.65, 95% CI 0.12 to 60.21; 1 RCT, 30 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to midazolam, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine on sIVH (grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.08, 95% CI 0.00 to 1.43; 1 RCT, 46 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to fentanyl, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine on sIVH (grade 3 to 4) (RR 0.59, 95% CI 0.18 to 1.95; 1 RCT, 163 infants; very low-certainty evidence). All-cause neonatal death Compared to placebo or no intervention, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of phenobarbital on ACND (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.72; 3 RCTs, 203 infants; very low-certainty evidence); opioids likely result in little to no difference in ACND (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.55; 5 RCTs, 1189 infants; moderate-certainty evidence); the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of ibuprofen on ACND (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.38 to 2.64; 2 RCTs, 112 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to midazolam, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine on ACND (RR 0.31, 95% CI 0.01 to 7.16; 1 RCT, 46 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Compared to diamorphine, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of morphine on ACND (RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.43 to 3.19; 1 RCT, 88 infants; very low-certainty evidence). Major neurodevelopmental disability Compared to placebo, the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of opioids on MND at 18 to 24 months (RR 2.00, 95% CI 0.39 to 10.29; 1 RCT, 78 infants; very low-certainty evidence) and at five to six years (RR 1.6, 95% CI 0.56 to 4.56; 1 RCT, 95 infants; very low-certainty evidence). No studies on other drugs reported this outcome.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

None of the reported studies had an impact on aGMH-IVH, sIVH, ACND, or MND. The certainty of the evidence ranged from moderate to very low. Large RCTs of rigorous methodology are needed to achieve an optimal information size to assess the effects of pharmacological interventions for pain and sedation management for the prevention of GMH-IVH and mortality in preterm infants. Studies might compare interventions against either placebo or other drugs. Reporting of the outcome data should include the assessment of GMH-IVH and long-term neurodevelopment.

The Impact of Drug Trials With Financial Conflict of Interests on the Meta-analyses: A Meta-epidemiological Study

BACKGROUND

To assess the impact of trials with potential financial conflict of interests (FCOIs) on evidence synthesis in meta-analyses (MAs).

METHODS

A total of 96 MAs from the Cochrane Library about drug trials were investigated. The primary outcomes examined the proportion of conclusions that would change with the exclusion of trials with potential FCOIs. If the proportion of changed conclusions was below the non-inferiority margin of 10%, we considered that it was not inferior to include the trials with potential FCOIs in the MAs.

RESULTS

Only 54.17% of MAs reported the funding sources of each included trial, and in 21.88% of MAs, the author-industry-related financial ties of each included trial were reported. When trials with FCOIs were excluded, the changed conclusions of effectiveness and major adverse events were 13.16% and 11.11%, respectively, and the I2 decreased by 13.56% and 10.09%, respectively. For serious adverse events, the exclusion of FCOIs trials did not lead to any change in conclusions; however, the I2 decreased by 24.24%. The impact of trials without reported FCOIs was also examined on evidence synthesis, and the results showed that the changed conclusions of effectiveness and major adverse events were 5.26% and 6.25%, respectively, indicating non-inferiority. However, the I2 increased by 13.60% and 12.37%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

In this meta-epidemiological study, we demonstrated that trials with FCOIs may not only influence the final outcome of MAs but may also increase the heterogeneity of results. It is suggested that all MAs fully report the FCOIs involved in evidence-based research and explore the impact of its FCOIs to better provide a more valuable reference for patients, clinicians, and policy-makers.

Identifying unanswered questions and setting the agenda for future systematic research in Multiple Sclerosis. A worldwide, multi-stakeholder Priority Setting project

BACKGROUND

Eliciting the research priorities of people affected by a condition, carers and health care professionals can increase research value and reduce research waste. The Cochrane Multiple Sclerosis and Rare Disease of CNS Group, in collaboration with the Cochrane Neurological Sciences Field, launched a priority setting exercise with the aim of prioritizing pressing questions to ensure that future systematic reviews are as useful as possible to the people who need them, in all countries, regardless of their economic status.

METHOD

Sixteen high priority questions on different aspects of MS were developed by members of a multi-stakeholder priority setting Steering Group (SG). In an anonymous online survey translated into 12 languages researchers, clinicians, people with MS (PwMS) and carers were asked to identify and rank, 5 out of 16 questions as high priority and to provide an explanation for their choice. An additional free-text priority research topic suggestion was allowed.

RESULTS

The survey was accessible through MS advocacy associations' social media and Cochrane web pages from October 20, 2020 to February 6, 2021. 1.190 responses (86.73% of all web contacts) were evaluable and included in the analysis. Responses came from 55 countries worldwide, 7 of which provided >75% of respondents and 95% of which were high and upper-middle income countries. 58.8% of respondents live in the EU, 23% in the Americas, 8.9% in the Western Pacific, 2.8% in the Eastern Mediterranean and 0.3% in South Eastern Asia. About 75% of the respondents were PwMS. The five research questions to be answered with the highest priority were: Question (Q)1 "Does MRI help predict disability worsening of PwMS?" (19.9%), Q5 "What are the benefits and harms of treating PwMS with one disease-modifying drug compared to another?" (19.3%), Q3 "Does multidisciplinary care by teams of different social and health professionals improve health outcomes and experiences for PwMS?" (11.9%), Q16 "Does psychological health affect disease progression in PwMS?" (9.2%) and Q10 "What are the benefits and harms of exercise for PwMS?" (7.2%). The multivariable logistic regression analysis indicated a significant influence of geographic area and income level on the ranking of Q1 and a marginal for Q16 as top a priority after accounting for the effect of all other predictors. Approximately 50% of the respondents indicated that they had an important additional suggestion to be considered.

CONCLUSION

This international collaborative initiative in the field of MS offers a worldwide perspective on the research questions perceived as pivotal by a geographically representative sample of multiple stakeholders in the field of MS. The results of the survey could guide the prioritization of research on pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions which could be meaningful and useful for PwMS and carers, avoiding the duplication of efforts and research waste. High quality systematic reviews elicited by priority setting exercises may offer the best available evidence and inform decisions by healthcare providers and policy-makers which can be adapted to the different realities around the world.

Reporting of adverse events, conflict of interest and funding in randomised controlled trials of antibiotics: a secondary analysis

OBJECTIVES

Transparent reporting of trials is necessary to assess their internal and external validity. Currently, little is known about the quality of reporting in antibiotics trials. Our study investigates the reporting of adverse events, conflicts of interest and funding information in trials of penicillins, cephalosporins and macrolides.

DESIGN

A secondary analysis of trials included in a convenience sample of three systematic reviews.

METHODS

All randomised controlled trials included in the systematic reviews were included, although duplicates were removed. Eligible trials compared the specified antibiotics to placebo, for any indication. Author pairs independently extracted the data on reporting of adverse events from parent reviews, and data on funding and conflict of interest information from the trial reports. We calculated the overall proportion of trials reporting adverse events, conflict of interest information and funding information, and their proportion before and after the publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2001 Statement.

RESULTS

We included 432 trials. Overall, 62% of trials reported adverse events of any kind, although reporting of deaths or antibiotic resistance was less frequent (20% and 37%, respectively). Conflict-of-interest information was provided in 26% of the trials, and funding information was provided in 66% of the trials. There was no significant difference in reporting of adverse events before and after the publication of CONSORT 2001 Statement (62% vs 62%, p=0.92). Conflict of interest statements were provided more frequently (2% vs 55%, p<0.001) and conflict was present more often (0% vs 14%, p<0.001). There was no difference in the provision of the information about trial funding before (62%) and after (70%) CONSORT 2001 publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Information about adverse events, conflict of interest and funding, remains under-reported in trials of antibiotics.