Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement

Repeated intravenous doses of human umbilical cord-derived mesenchymal stromal cells for bronchopulmonary dysplasia: results of a phase 1 clinical trial with 2-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Currently, there is a lack of effective treatments or preventive strategies for bronchopulmonary dysplasia (BPD). Pre-clinical studies with mesenchymal stromal cells (MSCs) have yielded encouraging results. The safety of administering repeated intravenous doses of umbilical cord tissue-derived mesenchymal stromal cells (UC-MSCs) has not yet been tested in extremely-low-gestational-age newborns (ELGANs).

AIMS

to test the safety and feasibility of administering three sequential intravenous doses of UC-MSCs every 7 days to ELGANs at risk of developing BPD.

METHODS

In this phase 1 clinical trial, we recruited ELGANs (birth weight ≤1250 g and ≤28 weeks in gestational age [GA]) who were on invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) with FiO2 ≥ 0.3 at postnatal days 7-14. Three doses of 5 × 106/kg of UC-MSCs were intravenously administered at weekly intervals. Adverse effects and prematurity-related morbidities were recorded.

RESULTS

From April 2019 to July 2020, 10 patients were recruited with a mean GA of 25.2 ± 0.8 weeks and a mean birth weight of 659.8 ± 153.8 g. All patients received three intravenous UC-MSC doses. The first dose was administered at a mean of 16.6 ± 2.9 postnatal days. All patients were diagnosed with BPD. All patients were discharged from the hospital. No deaths or any serious adverse events related to the infusion of UC-MSCs were observed during administration, hospital stays or at 2-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The administration of repeated intravenous infusion of UC-MSCs in ELGANs at a high risk of developing BPD was feasible and safe in the short- and mid-term follow-up.

Biofield therapies: Guidelines for reporting clinical trials

A set of guidelines has been developed to help improve reporting of clinical trials of biofield therapies. The need for enhanced transparency when reporting trials of this family of integrative health practices, e.g., External Qigong, Healing Touch, Reiki and Therapeutic Touch, has been advocated in systematic reviews of these studies. The guidelines, called Biofield Therapies: Reporting Evidence Guidelines (BiFi REGs), supplement CONSORT 2010 by including details of the intervention protocols relevant to biofield therapy trials. BiFi REGs evolved through a draft document created by a core group, two rounds of a Delphi process with an international group of subject matter experts and two panels, meeting via Zoom, which included editors of complementary and integrative medicine journals. BiFi REGs comprises a 15-item Intervention checklist. Modifications of two other CONSORT topic areas are also proposed to enhance their relevance to trials of biofield therapies. Included for each item are an explanation, and exemplars of reporting from peer-reviewed published reports of biofield therapy trials. When used in conjunction with all other items from CONSORT 2010, we anticipate that BiFi REGs will expedite the peer review process for biofield therapy trials, facilitate attempts at trial replication and help to inform decision-making in the clinical practice of biofield therapies.

A randomized controlled trial of a digital cognitive-behavioral therapy program (COMPASS) for managing depression and anxiety related to living with a long-term physical health condition

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the clinical efficacy of COMPASS, a therapist-supported digital therapeutic for reducing psychological distress (anxiety/depression) in people living with long-term physical health conditions (LTCs).

METHODS

A two-armed randomized-controlled trial recruiting from LTC charities. Participants with anxiety and/or depression symptoms related to their LTC(s) were randomized (concealed allocation via independent administrator) to COMPASS (access to 11 tailored modules plus five thirty-minute therapist support sessions) or standard charity support (SCS). Assessments were completed online pre-randomization, at 6- and 12-weeks post-randomization. Primary outcome was Patient Health Questionnaire Anxiety and Depression Scale; PHQ-ADS measured at 12-weeks. Analysis used intention-to-treat principles with adjusted mean differences estimated using linear mixed-effects models. Data-analyst was blinded to group allocation.

RESULTS

194 participants were randomized to COMPASS (N = 94) or SCS (N = 100). At 12-weeks, mean level of psychological distress was 6.82 (95% confidence interval; CI 4.55-9.10) points lower (p < 0.001) in the COMPASS arm compared with SCS (standardized mean difference of 0.71 (95% CI 0.48-0.95)). The COMPASS arm also showed moderate significant treatment effects on secondary outcomes including depression, anxiety and illness-related distress and small significant effects on functioning and quality-of-life. Rates of adverse events were comparable across the arms. Deterioration in distress at 12-weeks was observed in 2.2% of the SCS arm, and no participants in the COMPASS arm.

CONCLUSION

Compared with SCS, COMPASS digital therapeutic with minimal therapist input reduces psychological distress at post-treatment (12-weeks). COMPASS offers a potentially scalable implementation model for health services but its translation to these contexts needs further evaluating.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT04535778.

Revolutionizing lung health: Exploring the latest breakthroughs and future prospects of synbiotic nanostructures in lung diseases

The escalating prevalence of lung diseases underscores the need for innovative therapies. Dysbiosis in human body microbiome has emerged as a significant factor in these diseases, indicating a potential role for synbiotics in restoring microbial equilibrium. However, effective delivery of synbiotics to the target site remains challenging. Here, we aim to explore suitable nanoparticles for encapsulating synbiotics tailored for applications in lung diseases. Nanoencapsulation has emerged as a prominent strategy to address the delivery challenges of synbiotics in this context. Through a comprehensive review, we assess the potential of nanoparticles in facilitating synbiotic delivery and their structural adaptability for this purpose. Our review reveals that nanoparticles such as nanocellulose, starch, and chitosan exhibit high potential for synbiotic encapsulation. These offer flexibility in structure design and synthesis, making them promising candidates for addressing delivery challenges in lung diseases. Furthermore, our analysis highlights that synbiotics, when compared to probiotics alone, demonstrate superior anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, antibacterial and anticancer activities. This review underscores the promising role of nanoparticle-encapsulated synbiotics as a targeted and effective therapeutic approach for lung diseases, contributing valuable insights into the potential of nanomedicine in revolutionizing treatment strategies for respiratory conditions, ultimately paving the way for future advancements in this field.

The safety profile of mesenchymal stem cell therapy administered through intrathecal injections for treating neurological disorders: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Based on previous in vivo studies and human trials, intrathecal cell delivery is a safe and relevant therapeutic tool for improving patient's quality of life with neurological conditions. We aimed to characterise the safety profile of intrathecally delivered Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs).

METHODS

Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, KCI-Korean Journal Database, and Web of Science. Databases were searched from their inception until April 13, 2023. Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) that compared intrathecal delivery of MSCs to controls in adult populations were included. Adverse events (AEs) were pooled and meta-analysed using DerSimonian-Laird random effects models with a correction factor 0.5 added to studies with zero count cells. Pooled AEs were described using Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI). Then, a random-effects meta-regress model on study-level summary data was performed to explore the relationship between the occurrence of AEs and covariates thought to modify the overall effect estimate. Finally, publication bias was assessed.

RESULTS

303 records were reviewed, and nine RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were included in the quantitative synthesis (n = 540 patients). MSCs delivered intrathecally, as compared to controls, were associated with an increased probability of AEs of musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders (categorised by Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events-CTCAE version 5.0) (RR: 1.61, 95% CI 1.19-2.19, I2 = 0%). The random-effects meta-regress model suggested that fresh MSCs increased the probability of occurrence of AEs compared to cryopreserved MSCs (RR: 1.554; p-value = 0.048; 95% CI 1.004-2.404), and the multiple-dose, decreased the probability of AEs by 36% compared to single doses (RR: 0.644; p-value = 0.048; 95% CI 0.416-0.996); however, univariate random effects meta-regression models revealed a not significant association between the occurrence of AEs from MSCs intrathecal delivery and each covariate.

CONCLUSIONS

Intrathecal delivery of MSCs was associated with a slight increase in AEs associated with musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders, albeit without serious AEs. We conclude that intrathecal MSCs delivery is safe for patients with neurological conditions. However, further high-quality, large-scale RCTs are needed to confirm these findings.

Adverse event monitoring and reporting in pediatric neuromodulatory studies: A systematic review

Neuromodulatory interventions are relatively novel and approaches to studying harms and tolerability have varied. Using a checklist based on guidelines from Good Clinical Practice and the Harms Extension of the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) Statement, we identified how adverse events are measured, assessed, and reported in studies evaluating neuromodulation for the treatment of mental and neurodevelopmental disorders among children and adolescents. A systematic literature review identified 56 experimental and quasi-experimental studies evaluating transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), transcranial alternating (tACS) or direct (tDCS) current stimulation, transcranial pulse stimulation (TPS), and vagus or trigeminal nerve stimulation (VNS or TNS). For 22 studies (39%), the types of adverse events to be monitored were identified, and for 31 studies (55%), methods for collecting adverse event data were described. Methods for assessing adverse events were less commonly described with 23 studies (41%) having details on assessing event severity, and 11 studies (20%) having details on assessing event causality. Among 31 studies with reported results, headache, skin irritation, and general pain or discomfort were the most reported across studies. Seizure, untoward medical occurrences, and intracranial bleeding, edema, or other intracranial pathology were considered serious events, but these events were not reported as occurring in any results-based papers. Taken together, the findings from this review indicate that most studies of pediatric neuromodulatory interventions did not include descriptions of adverse event monitoring and evaluation. Comprehensive event monitoring and reporting across studies can significantly augment the current knowledge base.

Evaluating the balance of benefits and harms in chronic pain clinical trials: prioritizing individual participants over individual outcomes

BACKGROUND

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) generally assess efficacy and safety separately, with the conclusion of whether a treatment is beneficial based solely on the efficacy endpoint. However, assessing and combining efficacy and safety domains, using a single composite outcome measure, can provide a more comprehensive assessment of the overall effect of a treatment. Furthermore, composite outcomes can incorporate information regarding the relationship between the individual outcomes. In fact, such outcomes have been suggested in the clinical trials literature for at least 15 years.

OBJECTIVES

To (1) identify whether recent primary publications of chronic pain RCTs from major pain journals included a composite outcome measure of benefits and harms and (2) discuss the potential benefits of such outcomes in various stages of treatment development, including as outcome measures in RCTs, and to support decisions of Data and Safety Monitoring Boards and ordering of treatments in the context of treatment guidelines.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

RCTs published in 6 major pain journals published between 2016 and 2021 that investigated interventions for chronic pain were reviewed.

FINDINGS

Of 73 RCTs identified, only 2 included a composite outcome measure of benefits and harms. Both of these articles compared 2 active treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

Composite outcomes of benefits and harms are underutilized in chronic pain RCTs. The advantages and challenges of using such outcomes are discussed.

Measurement of Adverse Events in Studies of Digital Health Interventions for Psychosis: Guidance and Recommendations Based on a Literature Search and Framework Analysis of Standard Operating Procedures

BACKGROUND

Given the rapid expansion of research into digital health interventions (DHIs) for severe mental illness (SMI; eg, schizophrenia and other psychosis diagnoses), there is an emergent need for clear safety measures. Currently, measurement and reporting of adverse events (AEs) are inconsistent across studies. Therefore, an international network, iCharts, was assembled to systematically identify and refine a set of standard operating procedures (SOPs) for AE reporting in DHI studies for SMI.

DESIGN

The iCharts network comprised experts on DHIs for SMI from seven countries (United Kingdom, Belgium, Germany, Pakistan, Australia, United States, and China) and various professional backgrounds. Following a literature search, SOPs of AEs were obtained from authors of relevant studies, and from grey literature.

RESULTS

A thorough framework analysis of SOPs (n = 32) identified commonalities for best practice for certain domains, along with significant gaps in others; particularly around the classification of AEs during trials, and the provision of training/supervision for research staff in measuring and reporting AEs. Several areas which could lead to the observed inconsistencies in AE reporting and handling were also identified.

CONCLUSIONS

The iCharts network developed best-practice guidelines and a practical resource for AE monitoring in DHI studies for psychosis, based on a systematic process which identified common features and evidence gaps. This work contributes to international efforts to standardize AE measurement and reporting in this emerging field, ensuring that safety aspects of DHIs for SMI are well-studied across the translational pathway, with monitoring systems set-up from the outset to support safe implementation in healthcare systems.

Reporting of Complications in Rhinoplasty Randomized Controlled Trials: An Analysis Using the CONSORT Extension for Harms Checklist

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the completeness of adverse event (AE) reporting in randomized control trials (RCTs) focused on rhinoplasty, using the Consolidated Standards for Reporting (CONSORT) Extension for Harms checklist.

STUDY DESIGN

A cross-sectional design was employed to review RCTs related to rhinoplasty published between January 1, 2005, and January 28, 2022.

SETTING

The study analyzed clinical trials on rhinoplasty retrieved from PubMed.

METHODS

We performed a comprehension search on PubMed, blind and duplicate screening, and data extraction. Adherence to the 18 recommendations of the CONSORT Extension for Harms was evaluated, with 1 point assigned for each adhered item. Percent adherence was calculated based on the 18 points, taking into account the multiple subcategories within some recommendations. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize adherence-including frequencies, percentages, and 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Our search returned 240 articles, of which 56 met inclusion criteria. No RCTs adhered to all 18 CONSORT Extension for Harms items. Twenty-six (26/56, 46.4%) adhered to ≥50% of the items, and 30 (30/56, 53.6%) adhered to ≥33.3% of the items. Seven (7/56, 12.5%) RCTs adhered to no items. Across all RCTs, the average number of CONSORT-Harms items adhered to was 7.2 (7.2/18, 40.0%). The most adhered to item was item 10. Discussion balanced with regard to efficacy and AEs (80.4%, [70.0-90.8]).

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the inadequacy of AE reporting in rhinoplasty RCTs according to CONSORT-Harms guidelines. Urgent efforts are required to bridge this reporting gap and enhance transparency in surgical research, ultimately safeguarding patient well-being.

Adverse Events Reporting in Digital Interventions Evaluations for Psychosis: A Systematic Literature Search and Individual Level Content Analysis of Adverse Event Reports

BACKGROUND

Digital health interventions (DHIs) have significant potential to upscale treatment access to people experiencing psychosis but raise questions around patient safety. Adverse event (AE) monitoring is used to identify, record, and manage safety issues in clinical trials, but little is known about the specific content and context contained within extant AE reports. This study aimed to assess current AE reporting in DHIs.

STUDY DESIGN

A systematic literature search was conducted by the iCharts network (representing academic, clinical, and experts by experience) to identify trials of DHIs in psychosis. Authors were invited to share AE reports recorded in their trials. A content analysis was conducted on the shared reports.

STUDY RESULTS

We identified 593 AE reports from 18 DHI evaluations, yielding 19 codes. Only 29 AEs (4.9% of total) were preidentified by those who shared AEs as being related to the intervention or trial procedures. While overall results support the safety of DHIs, DHIs were linked to mood problems and psychosis exacerbation in a few cases. Additionally, 27% of studies did not report information on relatedness for all or at least some AEs; 9.6% of AE reports were coded as unclear because it could not be determined what had happened to participants.

CONCLUSIONS

The results support the safety of DHIs, but AEs must be routinely monitored and evaluated according to best practice. Individual-level analyses of AEs have merit to understand safety in this emerging field. Recommendations for best practice reporting in future studies are provided.

Combination therapy of Epidermal Growth Factor and Growth Hormone-Releasing Hexapeptide in acute ischemic stroke: a phase I/II non-blinded, randomized clinical trial

Objective

This study tested the hypothesis that a neuroprotective combined therapy based on epidermal growth factor (EGF) and growth hormone-releasing hexapeptide (GHRP6) could be safe for acute ischemic stroke patients, admitting up to 30% of serious adverse events (SAE) with proven causality.

Methods

A multi-centric, randomized, open-label, controlled, phase I-II clinical trial with parallel groups was conducted (July 2017 to January 2018). Patients aged 18-80 years with a computed tomography-confirmed ischemic stroke and less than 12 h from the onset of symptoms were randomly assigned to the study groups I (75 μg rEGF + 3.5 mg GHRP6 i.v., n=10), II (75 μg rEGF + 5 mg GHRP6 i.v., n=10), or III (standard care control, n=16). Combined therapy was given BID for 7 days. The primary endpoint was safety over 6 months. Secondary endpoints included neurological (NIHSS) and functional [Barthel index and modified Rankin scale (mRS)] outcomes.

Results

The study population had a mean age of 66 ± 11 years, with 21 men (58.3%), a baseline median NIHSS score of 9 (95% CI: 8-11), and a mean time to treatment of 7.3 ± 2.8 h. Analyses were conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. SAEs were reported in 9 of 16 (56.2%) patients in the control group, 3 of 10 (30%) patients in Group I (odds ratio (OR): 0.33; 95% CI: 0.06-1.78), and 2 of 10 (20%) patients in Group II (OR: 0.19; 95% CI: 0.03-1.22); only two events in one patient in Group I were attributed to the intervention treatment. Compliance with the study hypothesis was greater than 0.90 in each group. Patients treated with EGF + GHRP6 had a favorable neurological and functional evolution at both 90 and 180 days, as evidenced by the inferential analysis of NIHSS, Barthel, and mRS and by their moderate to strong effect size. At 6 months, proportion analysis evidenced a higher survival rate for patients treated with the combined therapy. Ancillary analysis including merged treated groups and utility-weighted mRS also showed a benefit of this combined therapy.

Conclusion

EGF + GHRP6 therapy was safe. The functional benefits of treatment in this study supported a Phase III study.

Clinical Trial Registration

RPCEC00000214 of the Cuban Public Registry of Clinical Trials, Unique identifier: IG/CIGB-845I/IC/1601.

Efficacy of a fish hydrolysate supplement on sleep quality: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover clinical trial

BACKGROUND & AIMS

Sleep disturbances are widespread in modern societies and linked to a variety of diseases, creating an urgent need for the development of products that help combat sleep difficulties. One suitable nutritional supplement may be a fish hydrolysate composed of low molecular weight peptides.

METHODS

This two-arm, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study investigated the effect of a 4-week fish hydrolysate intervention on sleep in a healthy German population reporting poor sleep quality, assessed with the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI). Further sleep parameters were measured using an online diary and a wrist wearable device. Additionally, questionnaires related to stress, anxiety, depression, and well-being were evaluated and salivary cortisol and product satisfaction were assessed.

RESULTS

The 4-week fish hydrolysate supplementation significantly improved subjective sleep quality measured with the PSQI-score (p = .002). Moreover, individuals reported improvements in sleep efficacy and a reduction in sleep disturbances and daytime sleepiness during fish hydrolysate intake (p = .013, p = .046, p = .004 respectively), but not during placebo phase (all p > .05). No significant intra-individual differences were found between fish hydrolysate and placebo supplementation (p > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Although no significant intra-individual differences were found between fish hydrolysate and placebo supplementation, the significant improvement in subjective sleep quality from baseline to treatment phase suggests that fish hydrolysate is a safe nutritional supplement to support individuals with self-reported sleep problems.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov with the Identifier NCT04983355.

Development and content validity of EVAD: A novel tool for evaluating and classifying the severity of adverse events for psychotherapeutic clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

Develop and obtain content validity of a new tool for Evaluating and Classifying the Severity of Adverse Events for Psychotherapeutic Clinical Trials (EVAD).

METHOD

Study of the development process of EVAD in four stages: (1) identify the domain and concept definition through a literature review, (2) instrument design, (3) expert judgment of the EVAD items through Gwent's concordance coefficient, and (4) applicability.

RESULTS

In the absence of a consistent conceptual framework of adverse events in psychotherapeutic clinical trials, we have developed a framework and defined it. We have designed EVAD items and their complementary tool for rating adverse events. Content validation by expert judges resulted in CVR = 1.0 for each item and CVI = 0.79 in sufficiency, 0.76 in clarity, 0.91 in coherence and 0.95 in relevance for all items (p < 0.001). Final version of EVAD were applied to three participants for 7 weeks. Overall EVAD seems to be clear and meaningful for participants.

CONCLUSIONS

EVAD is a semistructured interview based on a consistent conceptual framework, and proven content validity following the most important guidelines described in the literature.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03878186.

A retrospective analysis of serious adverse events and deaths in U.S.-based lifestyle clinical trials for cognitive health

Objective

This retrospective analysis examined serious adverse events (SAEs) and deaths in U.S. lifestyle clinical trials aimed at enhancing cognitive health in older adults.

Methods

Data was gathered from trials completed between January 1, 2000, and July 19, 2023, via ClinicalTrials.gov's API.

Results

Among these trials, 76% did not report results. The remaining studies fell into four intervention categories: Cognitive/Behavioral, Exercise/Movement, Diet/Supplement, and Multi-modal. When considering all trial types collectively, the findings suggest that lifestyle clinical trials are generally safe. There was no significant increase in the relative risk of experiencing an SAE in the intervention group compared to the control group. However, in terms of relative risk of death, an increase of 28% was observed in the intervention compared to the control, which was statistically significant (X2 (1, N = 36), p < 0.00688). Nevertheless, this increase did not surpass age-adjusted U.S. mortality rates. Assessing the data by intervention type, Diet/Supplement, and Multi-modal trials displayed an elevated relative risk of SAEs in the intervention. Diet/Supplement trials had a 16% increase (X2 (1, N = 2), p < 0.0263), and Multi-modal trials had a 365% increase (X2 (1, N = 5), p < 0.000213). Diet/Supplement trials also showed a 67% increased risk of death (X2 (1, N = 2), p < 0.000197).

Conclusions

These findings should be cautiously considered due to the low rate of reporting, but underscore the significance of reporting clinical trial results, enhancing transparency, and facilitating more accurate safety assessments in cognitive aging and lifestyle interventions for older adults.

Deaths and cardiopulmonary events following colorectal cancer screening-A systematic review with meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer screening programmes (CRCSPs) are implemented worldwide despite recent evidence indicating more physical harm occurring during CRCSPs than previously thought. Therefore, we aimed to review the evidence on physical harms associated with endoscopic diagnostic procedures during CRCSPs and, when possible, to quantify the risk of the most serious types of physical harm during CRCSPs, i.e. deaths and cardiopulmonary events (CPEs).

METHODS

Systematic review with descriptive statistics and random-effects meta-analyses of studies investigating physical harms following CRCSPs. We conducted a systematic search in the literature and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

We included 134 studies for review, reporting findings from 151 unique populations when accounting for multiple screening interventions per study. Physical harm can be categorized into 17 types of harm. The evidence was very heterogeneous with inadequate measurement and reporting of harms. The risk of bias was serious or critical in 95% of assessments of deaths and CPEs, and the certainty of the evidence was very low in all analyses. The risk of death was assessed for 57 populations with large variation across studies. Meta-analyses indicated that 3 to 23 deaths occur during CRCSPs per 100,000 people screened. Cardiopulmonary events were assessed for 55 populations. Despite our efforts to subcategorize CPEs into 17 distinct subtypes, 41% of CPE assessments were too poorly measured or reported to allow quantification. We found a tendency towards lower estimates of deaths and CPEs in studies with a critical risk of bias.

DISCUSSION

Deaths and CPEs during CRCSPs are rare, yet they do occur during CRCSPs. We believe that our findings are conservative due to the heterogeneity and low quality of the evidence. A standardized system for the measurement and reporting of the harms of screening is warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration number CRD42017058844.

Adverse Events Reported in Trials Assessing Manual Therapy to the Extremities: A Systematic Review

Objective: This review aimed to describe the quality and comprehensiveness of adverse event (AE) reporting in clinical trials incorporating manual therapy (MT) as an intervention for extremity conditions using the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Harms extension as the benchmark. The secondary aim was to determine whether the quality of AE reporting improved after the availability of the CONSORT reporting checklist. Design: Systematic review. Methods: A literature search was conducted using multiple databases to identify trials where MT was used to treat extremity conditions. Studies that reported AEs were identified and evaluated using the CONSORT-Harms extension. The frequency of trials reporting study AEs before and after the publication of the updated 2010 CONSORT statement was calculated, along with the categorization of how study AEs were reported. Results: Of the 55,539 studies initially identified, 220 trials met all inclusion criteria. Eighty trials (36.4%) reported AE occurrence. None of the studies that reported AEs adhered to all 10 criteria proposed by the 2010 CONSORT-Harms extension. The most commonly reported criterion was number four, which clarified how AE-related information was collected (30% of trials). The least reported criterion was number six, which describes the participant withdrawals for each arm due to AEs and the experience with the allocated treatment (1.3% of trials). The nomenclature used to describe AEs varied substantially. Fifty-nine of 76 trials (33.3%) were published after the updated CONSORT Harms-checklist was available, compared to 21 of 44 trials (46.7%) published before it was available. Conclusion: Reporting of AEs in trials investigating MT for extremity conditions is poor. Every included trial lacked adherence to all 10 criteria proposed by the CONSORT-Harms Extension. The quality and comprehensiveness of AE reporting did not improve after the most recent CONSORT update recommending AE reporting. Clinicians must obtain informed consent before performing any intervention, including MT, which requires disclosing potential risks, which could be better known with improved tracking, analyzing, and reporting of AEs. The authors recommend improved adherence to best practices for adequately tracking and reporting AEs in future MT trials.

Recording harms in randomised controlled trials of behaviour change interventions: a qualitative study of UK clinical trials units and NIHR trial investigators

BACKGROUND

Harms, also known as adverse events (AEs), are recorded and monitored in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to ensure participants' safety. Harms are recorded poorly or inconsistently in RCTs of Behaviour Change Interventions (BCI); however, limited guidance exists on how to record harms in BCI trials. This qualitative study explored experiences and perspectives from multi-disciplinary trial experts on recording harms in BCI trials.

METHODS

Data were collected through fifteen in-depth semi-structured qualitative interviews and three focus groups with thirty-two participants who work in the delivery and oversight of clinical trials. Participants included multi-disciplinary staff from eight CTUs, Chief investigators, and patient and public representatives. Interviews and focus group recordings were transcribed verbatim and thematic analysis was used to analyse the transcripts.

RESULTS

Five themes were identified, namely perception and understanding of harm, proportionate reporting and plausibility, the need for a multi-disciplinary approach, language of BCI harms and complex harms for complex interventions. Participants strongly believed harms should be recorded in BCI trials; however, making decisions on "how and what to record as harms" was difficult. Recording irrelevant harms placed a high burden on trial staff and participants, drained trial resources and was perceived as for little purpose. Participants believed proportionate recording was required that focused on events with a strong plausible link to the intervention. Multi-disciplinary trial team input was essential for identifying and collecting harms; however, this was difficult in practice due to lack of knowledge on harms from BCIs, lack of input or difference in opinion. The medical language of harms was recognised as a poor fit for BCI trial harms but was familiar and established within internal processes. Future guidance on this topic would be welcomed and could include summarised literature.

CONCLUSIONS

Recording harms or adverse events in behaviour change intervention trials is complex and challenging; multi-disciplinary experts in trial design and implementation welcome forthcoming guidance on this topic. Issues include the high burden of recording irrelevant harms and use of definitions originally designed for drug trials. Proportionate recording of harms focused on events with a strong plausible link to the intervention and multi-disciplinary team input into decision making are essential.

An Overview of Regression Models for Adverse Events Analysis

Over the last few years, several review articles described the adverse events analysis as sub-optimal in clinical trials. Indeed, the context surrounding adverse events analyses often imply an overwhelming number of events, a lack of power to find associations, but also a lack of specific training regarding those complex data. In randomized controlled trials or in observational studies, comparing the occurrence of adverse events according to a covariable of interest (e.g., treatment) is a recurrent question in the analysis of drug safety data, and adjusting other important factors is often relevant. This article is an overview of the existing regression models that may be considered to compare adverse events and to discuss model choice regarding the characteristics of the adverse events of interest. Many dimensions may be relevant to compare the adverse events between patients, (e.g., timing, recurrence, and severity). Recent efforts have been made to cover all of them. For chronic treatments, the occurrence of intercurrent events during the patient follow-up usually needs the modeling approach to be adapted (at least with regard to their interpretation). Moreover, analysis based on regression models should not be limited to the estimation of relative effects. Indeed, absolute risks stemming from the model should be presented systematically to help the interpretation, to validate the model, and to encourage comparison of studies.

Biofield therapies: Guidelines for reporting clinical trials

A set of guidelines has been developed to help improve reporting of clinical trials of biofield therapies. The need for enhanced transparency when reporting trials of this family of integrative health practices, e.g., External Qigong, Healing Touch, Reiki and Therapeutic Touch, has been advocated in systematic reviews of these studies. The guidelines, called Biofield Therapies: Reporting Evidence Guidelines (BiFi REGs), supplement CONSORT 2010 by including details of the intervention protocols relevant to biofield therapy trials. BiFi REGs evolved through a draft document created by a core group, two rounds of a Delphi process with an international group of subject matter experts and two panels, meeting via Zoom, which included editors of complementary and integrative medicine journals. BiFi REGs comprises a 15-item Intervention checklist. Modifications of two other CONSORT topic areas are also proposed to enhance their relevance to trials of biofield therapies. Included for each item are an explanation, and exemplars of reporting from peer-reviewed published reports of biofield therapy trials. When used in conjunction with all other items from CONSORT 2010, we anticipate that BiFi REGs will expedite the peer review process for biofield therapy trials, facilitate attempts at trial replication and help to inform decision-making in the clinical practice of biofield therapies.

Inadequate harms reporting among randomized controlled trials cited as supporting evidence in the AAOS management of hip fractures in older adults clinical practice guideline recommendations

BACKGROUND

Recommendations within clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are heavily influenced by results from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Therefore, it is imperative that all RCT outcomes are reported thoroughly to ensure CPGs are created using accurate information. Here, we evaluate the quality of harms reporting using the CONSORT Extension for Harms in RCTs underpinning recommendations in the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) Management of Hip Fractures in Older Adults CPG.

METHODS

Each RCT cited as evidence for recommendations in the AAOS Management of Hip Fractures in Older Adults CPG was evaluated using the CONSORT Extension for Harms to determine the quality of harms reporting. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, percentages, 95 % confidence intervals) were used to summarize adherence to CONSORT Harms items. A linear regression model was used to evaluate the CONSORT Harms influence on the quality of reporting over time.

RESULTS

Among the 156 RCTs identified, there were a total of 31,848 participants. Most RCTs were conducted at a single center (137; 87.8 %) and in a single-blind manner (130; 83.3 %). Fifty-four (34.6 %) RCTs did not provide funding statements. Trials adequately reported an average of 6.65 out of 18 CONSORT Extension for Harms items (37.0 %). One RCT adequately reported all items, while five reported zero items. Forty-seven RCTs (30.1 %) reported ≥ 50 % of items and 73 (46.8 %) reported ≤ 33.3 % of items. The linear regression model demonstrated no significant increase in mean adherence over time (adjusted R2 = -0.006; p = 0.563).

CONCLUSION

Our results highlight inadequate harms reporting among RCTs in the AAOS Management of Hip Fractures in Older Patients CPG. While the CONSORT Harms Extension was intended to enhance reporting, the linear regression model did not demonstrate significant improvements over time.

Prediction of duloxetine efficacy in addition to self-management in painful temporomandibular disorders: A randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Conditioned pain modulation (CPM) is a potential predictor of treatment response that has not been studied in temporomandibular disorders (TMD).

OBJECTIVES

We conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial (RCT) of duloxetine in addition to self-management (SM) strategies to investigate its efficacy to reduce pain intensity in painful TMD patients. Moreover, we investigated whether baseline CPM would predict the duloxetine efficacy to reduce TMD pain intensity.

METHODS

Eighty participants were randomised to duloxetine 60 mg or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary outcomes were the change in the pain intensity from baseline to week-12 and CPM-sequential paradigm at baseline. Safety, physical and emotional functioning outcomes were also evaluated.

RESULTS

Of 80 participants randomised, 78 were included in intention-to-treat analysis. Pain intensity decreased for SM-duloxetine and SM-placebo but did not differ between groups (p = .82). A more efficient CPM was associated with a greater pain intensity reduction regardless of the treatment group (p = .035). Physical and emotional functioning did not differ between groups, but adverse events (p = .014), sleep impairment (p = .003) and catastrophizing symptoms (p = .001) were more prevalent in SM-duloxetine group.

CONCLUSION

This study failed to provide evidence of a beneficial effect of adding duloxetine to SM strategies for treatment of painful TMD. Nonetheless, this RCT has shown the feasibility of applying pain modulation assessment to predict short-term treatment response in painful TMD patients, which confirms previous finds that CPM evaluation may serve a step forward in individualising pain treatment.

A Review of Probiotic Ingredient Safety Supporting Monograph Development Conducted by the United States Pharmacopeia (USP)

The United States Pharmacopeia (USP) is an independent, nonprofit science-based organization whose mission is to improve global health through public standards and related products for medicines, food and dietary supplements. Probiotic-based dietary supplements are increasingly popular in the marketplace and USP has developed fourteen monographs specific to probiotic ingredients, including representatives from the Genera Lactobacillus, Bacillus, Streptococcus, and Bifidobacterium. These monographs include the definition of the article, tests for identification, quantification assays (enumeration in the case of probiotics), limits for contaminants, and other quality parameters when appropriate. In addition to quality, the USP also considers the safety of probiotics for monograph development. This report includes an overview of the USP admission evaluation process for probiotics as well as a tabular summary of the probiotic monographs currently available. Pharmacopeia monographs can guide manufacturers and brand owners and protect consumers through establishment of quality standards.

Effect of Body Mass Index on Effectiveness of CT versus Invasive Coronary Angiography in Stable Chest Pain: The DISCHARGE Trial

Background Recent trials support the role of cardiac CT in the evaluation of symptomatic patients suspected of having coronary artery disease (CAD); however, body mass index (BMI) has been reported to negatively impact CT image quality. Purpose To compare initial use of CT versus invasive coronary angiography (ICA) on clinical outcomes in patients with stable chest pain stratified by BMI category. Materials and Methods This prospective study represents a prespecified BMI subgroup analysis of the multicenter Diagnostic Imaging Strategies for Patients with Stable Chest Pain and Intermediate Risk of Coronary Artery Disease (DISCHARGE) trial conducted between October 2015 and April 2019. Adult patients with stable chest pain and a CAD pretest probability of 10%-60% were randomly assigned to undergo initial CT or ICA. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), including cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke. The secondary end point was an expanded MACE composite, including transient ischemic attack, and major procedure-related complications. Competing risk analyses were performed using the Fine and Gray subdistribution Cox proportional hazard model to assess the impact of the relationship between BMI and initial management with CT or ICA on the study outcomes, whereas noncardiovascular death and unknown causes of death were considered competing risk events. Results Among the 3457 participants included, 831 (24.0%), 1358 (39.3%), and 1268 (36.7%) had a BMI of less than 25, between 25 and 30, and greater than 30 kg/m2, respectively. No interaction was found between CT or ICA and BMI for MACE (P = .29), the expanded MACE composite (P = .38), or major procedure-related complications (P = .49). Across all BMI subgroups, expanded MACE composite events (CT, 10 of 409 [2.4%] to 23 of 697 [3.3%]; ICA, 26 of 661 [3.9%] to 21 of 422 [5.1%]) and major procedure-related complications during initial management (CT, one of 638 [0.2%] to five of 697 [0.7%]; ICA, nine of 630 [1.4%] to 12 of 422 [2.9%]) were less frequent in the CT versus ICA group. Participants with a BMI exceeding 30 kg/m² exhibited a higher nondiagnostic CT rate (7.1%, P = .044) compared to participants with lower BMI. Conclusion There was no evidence of a difference in outcomes between CT and ICA across the three BMI subgroups. Clinical trial registration no. NCT02400229 © RSNA, 2024 Supplemental material is available for this article.

Biofield Therapies: Guidelines for Reporting Clinical Trials

Highlights Guidelines have been created to improve the reporting of clinical trials of biofield therapies, e.g. External Qigong, Healing Touch, Reiki, and Therapeutic Touch. Appropriate use of these guidelines is likely to strengthen the evidence base for biofield therapies as well as increase their usage as stand-alone practices and as complementary therapies within mainstream healthcare.

Effectiveness of naturopathy for pregnancy in women with diminished ovarian reserve: feasibility randomized controlled trial

RESEARCH QUESTION

Is conducting a randomized control trial (RCT) to assess the effectiveness of whole-system naturopathy in improving pregnancy rates among women with diminished ovarian reserve (DOR) feasible?

DESIGN

A two-arm, parallel group, assessor-blinded feasibility RCT was conducted. Women with DOR, trying to conceive naturally or by ART, were randomly assigned to naturopathy plus usual care, or usual care alone for 16 weeks. Primary outcomes were feasibility (recruitment, adherence, retention rates), acceptability and safety. Secondary outcomes included ongoing pregnancy rates, live birth rates and health-related outcomes (mental health, quality of life, diet, exercise, sleep and weight). Statistical significance of the differences between the two groups (P-values) were exploratory.

RESULTS

One hundred and fifteen women completed the screening survey between March and November 2022. Of these, 66 women were assessed for eligibility and 41 (62%) consented. Recruitment resulted in seven enrolments each month. All 41 participants (100%) adhered to the intervention, 38 (93%) completed end-point questionnaires, 32 (78%) found study participation to be acceptable and 18 out of 21 (86%) from the intervention group would recommend a naturopathic intervention to other women with DOR. The naturopathic treatment was associated with only mild and temporary adverse events. No between-group differences were observed for pregnancy and live birth rates.

CONCLUSION

The evaluation of whole-system naturopathy through a RCT was feasible and the treatment was acceptable and well tolerated according to women with DOR. Outcomes from this study will help inform sample size calculations powered for fertility outcomes for future RCTs on this topic.

Quality of reporting and nature of harms in clinical trials on supervised exercise in patients with rheumatoid arthritis or axial spondyloarthritis

To describe the quality of reporting and the nature of reported harms in clinical studies on the effectiveness of supervised exercises in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). We performed a systematic review, searching eight databases up to February 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating supervised exercises in adults with RA or axSpA were considered eligible. Data on harms were extracted according to the CONSORT Harms 2022 Checklist. Among others, it was recorded if harms were prespecified or non-prespecified. Moreover, the nature of reported harms was listed. Forty RCTs were included for RA and 25 for axSpA, of which 29 (73%) and 13 (52%) reported information on harms. In 13 (33%) RCTs in RA and four (16%) in axSpA, the collection of harms outcomes was described in the methods section. Prespecified outcomes were reported by eight (RA) and two (axSpA) RCTs. Non-specified harms outcomes were reported by six (RA) and four (axSpA) RCTs. Prespecified harms outcomes included measures of pain, disease activity, inflammation, and structural joint changes. The nature of non-prespecified harms outcomes varied largely, with pain being most common. A considerable proportion of trials on supervised exercise in RA or axSpA does not or inadequately report harms outcomes. Pain was the most commonly reported prespecified or non-specified harm. For a considerate interpretation of the balance between benefits and harms of supervised exercise in RA or axSpA, use of the CONSORT Harms 2022 Checklist for the design, conduct and reporting of trials is advocated.

Biofield Therapies: Guidelines for Reporting Clinical Trials

A set of guidelines has been developed to help improve reporting of clinical trials of biofield therapies. The need for enhanced transparency when reporting trials of this family of integrative health practices, eg, External Qigong, Healing Touch, Reiki and Therapeutic Touch, has been advocated in systematic reviews of these studies. The guidelines, called Biofield Therapies: Reporting Evidence Guidelines (BiFi REGs), supplement CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 by including details of the intervention protocols relevant to biofield therapy trials. BiFi REGs evolved through a draft document created by a core group, two rounds of a Delphi process with an international group of subject matter experts and two panels, meeting via Zoom, which included editors of complementary and integrative medicine journals. BiFi REGs comprises a 15-item Intervention checklist. Modifications of two other CONSORT topic areas are also proposed to enhance their relevance to trials of biofield therapies. Included for each item are an explanation, and exemplars of reporting from peer-reviewed published reports of biofield therapy trials. When used in conjunction with all other items from CONSORT 2010, we anticipate that BiFi REGs will expedite the peer review process for biofield therapy trials, facilitate attempts at trial replication and help to inform decision-making in the clinical practice of biofield therapies.

European Glaucoma Society - A guide on surgical innovation for glaucoma

PROLOGUE: Glaucoma surgery has been, for many decades now, dominated by the universal gold standard which is trabeculectomy augmented with antimetabolites. Tubes also came into the scene to complement what we use to call conventional or traditional glaucoma surgery. More recently we experienced a changing glaucoma surgery environment with the "advent" of what we have become used to calling Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgery (MIGS). What is the unmet need, what is the gap that these newcomers aim to fill? Hippocrates taught us "bring benefit, not harm" and new glaucoma techniques and devices aim to provide safer surgery compared to conventional surgery. For the patient, but also for the clinician, safety is important. Is more safety achieved with new glaucoma surgery and, if so, is it associated with better, equivalent, or worse efficacy? Is new glaucoma surgery intended to replace conventional surgery or to complement it as an 'add-on' to what clinicians already have in their hands to manage glaucoma? Which surgery should be chosen for which patient? What are the options? Are they equivalent? These are too many questions for the clinician! What are the answers to the questions? What is the evidence to support answers? Do we need more evidence and how can we produce high-quality evidence? This EGS Guide explores the changing and challenging glaucoma surgery environment aiming to provide answers to these questions. The EGS uses four words to highlight a continuum: Innovation, Education, Communication, and Implementation. Translating innovation to successful implementation is crucially important and requires high-quality evidence to ensure steps forward to a positive impact on health care when it comes to implementation. The vision of EGS is to provide the best possible well-being and minimal glaucomainduced visual disability in individuals with glaucoma within an affordable healthcare system. In this regard, assessing the changes in glaucoma surgery is a pivotal contribution to better care. As mentioned, this Guide aims to provide answers to the crucial questions above. However, every clinician is aware that answers may differ for every person: an individualised approach is needed. Therefore, there will be no uniform answer for all situations and all patients. Clinicians would need, through the clinical method and possibly some algorithm, to reach answers and decisions at the individual level. In this regard, evidence is needed to support clinicians to make decisions. Of key importance in this Guide is to provide an overview of existing evidence on glaucoma surgery and specifically on recent innovations and novel devices, but also to set standards in surgical design and reporting for future studies on glaucoma surgical innovation. Designing studies in surgery is particularly challenging because of many subtle variations inherent to surgery and hence multiple factors involved in the outcome, but even more because one needs to define carefully outcomes relevant to the research question but also to the future translation into clinical practice. In addition this Guide aims to provide clinical recommendations on novel procedures already in use when insufficient evidence exists. EGS has a long tradition to provide guidance to the ophthalmic community in Europe and worldwide through the EGS Guidelines (now in their 5th Edition). The EGS leadership recognized that the changing environment in glaucoma surgery currently represents a major challenge for the clinician, needing specific guidance. Therefore, the decision was made to issue this Guide on Glaucoma Surgery in order to help clinicians to make appropriate decisions for their patients and also to provide the framework and guidance for researchers to improve the quality of evidence in future studies. Ultimately this Guide will support better Glaucoma Care in accordance with EGS's Vision and Mission. Fotis Topouzis EGS President

Comparing technology and regulatory landscape of probiotics as food, dietary supplements and live biotherapeutics

Application of beneficial microorganisms as probiotics targets a broad range of intended uses, from maintaining health and supporting normal bodily functions to curing and preventing diseases. Currently, three main regulatory fields of probiotic products can be defined depending on their intended use: the more similar probiotic foods and probiotic dietary supplements, and live biotherapeutic products. However, it is not always straightforward to classify a probiotic product into one of these categories. The regulatory nuances of developing, manufacturing, investigating and applying each category of probiotic products are not universal, and not always apparent to those unfamiliar with the various global probiotic regulatory guidelines. Various global markets can be significantly different regarding legislation, possible claims, market value and quality requirements for the development and commercialization of probiotic products. Furthermore, different probiotic product categories are also linked with variable costs at different stages of product development. This review outlines the current landscape comparing probiotic foods, probiotic dietary supplements, and live biotherapeutics as probiotic products from a regulatory lens, focusing on product development, manufacturing and production, and clinical research agenda. The aim is to inform and promote a better understanding among stakeholders by outlining the expectations and performance for each probiotic product category, depending on their intended use and targeted geographical region.

Effectiveness of telehealth in preventive care: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of tele-exercise programme involving older people with possible sarcopenia or at risk of fall

BACKGROUND

Continuous loss of muscle mass and strength are the consequences of the ageing process, which increase the risk of falls among older people. Falls can lead to severe consequences such as bone fractures and hampered physical and psychological well-being. Regular exercise is the key to reversing muscle atrophy and relieving sarcopenia. However, the frailty of older people and the recent COVID-19 pandemic may affect their confidence to leave home to attend classes in the community. A feasible and effective alternative should be explored.

METHODS

The primary objective is to evaluate the effectiveness of tele-exercise (TE) in relation to physical functioning and exercise adherence among community-dwelling older people at risk of falls in comparison with a community-based group (CB). The secondary objective includes evaluating older people's experience with tele-exercise, emphasizing their psychological welfare, social well-being, and acceptance of the telehealth approach. The design, conduct, and report follow the SPIRIT guidelines (Standard Protocol Items: recommended items to address in a Clinical Trial Protocol and Related Documents). Older people will be recruited from 10 local community centres in Hong Kong and randomly allocated into two groups. All participants will attend the exercise training 3 days per week for 3 months but the mode of delivery will differ, either online as the tele-exercise group (TE) or face-to-face as the community-based group (CB). The outcome measures include muscle strength, physical function, exercise adherence and dropout rate, psychological and social well-being will be assessed at the baseline, and the 3rd, 6th and 12th month. Some participants will be invited to attend focus group interviews to evaluate their overall experience of the tele-exercise training.

DISCUSSION

Tele-exercise reduces the barriers to exercise, such as time constraints, inaccessibility to facilities, and the fear of frail older people leaving their homes. Promoting an online home-based exercise programme for older people can encourage them to engage in regular physical activity and increase their exercise adherence even when remaining at home. The use of telehealth can potentially result in savings in cost and time. The final findings will provide insights on delivering exercise via telehealth to older people and propose an exercise delivery and maintenance model for future practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( https://www.chictr.org.cn/hvshowprojectEN.html?id=219002&v=1.1 ), registration number: ChiCTR2200063370. Registered on 5 September 2022.

Chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy for acute neck pain: A 4-arm clinical placebo randomized controlled trial. A prospective study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Neck pain poses enormous individual and societal costs worldwide. Spinal manipulative therapy and Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug treatment are frequently used despite a lack of compelling efficacy data. This protocol describes a multicentre 4-arm, clinical placebo randomized controlled trial (RCT), investigating the efficacy of chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (CSMT) versus sham CSMT, ibuprofen, and placebo medicine for acute neck pain. This superiority study will employ parallel groups, featuring a 1:1:1:1 allocation ratio.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We will randomize 320 participants equally into four groups: CSMT, sham CSMT, ibuprofen, or placebo medicine. CSMT groups are single-blinded, while the medicine groups are double-blinded. Data will be collected at baseline (Day 0), during treatment and post-treatment. The primary endpoint will assess the difference in mean pain intensity from Day 0 to Day 14 on a numeric rating scale 0-10; the CSMT group is compared to sham CSMT, ibuprofen, and placebo medicine groups, respectively. Secondary endpoints will assess mean pain intensity and mean duration at different time points, and adverse events, blinding success, and treatment satisfaction, including comparison between ibuprofen and placebo medicine. Power calculation is based on a mean neck pain rating of 5 at Day 0, with standard deviation of 1 in all groups. Mean pain reduction at Day 14 is expected to be 60% in the CSMT group, 40% in sham CSMT and ibuprofen groups, and 20% in the placebo medicine group. A linear mixed model will compare the mean values for groups with corresponding 95% confidence intervals. P values below 0.017 will be considered statistically significant. All analyses will be conducted blinded from group allocation.

DISCUSSION

This RCT aims towards the highest research standards possible for manual-therapy RCTs owing to its two placebo arms. If CSMT and/or ibuprofen proves to be effective, it will provide evidence-based support for CSMT and/or ibuprofen for acute neck pain.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT05374057. EU Clinical Trials Register: EudraCT number: 2021-005483-21.

Stakeholder endorsement advancing the implementation of a patient-reported domain for harms in rheumatology clinical trials: Outcome of the OMERACT Safety Working Group

OBJECTIVES

To develop an understanding of the concept of safety/harms experienced by patients involved in clinical trials for their rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases (RMDs) and to seek input from the OMERACT community before moving forward to developing or selecting an outcome measurement instrument.

METHODS

OMERACT 2023 presented and discussed interview results from 34 patients indicating that up to 171 items might be important for patients' harm-reporting.

RESULTS

Domain was defined in detail and supported by qualitative work. Participants in the Special-Interest-Group endorsed (96 %) that enough qualitative data are available to start Delphi survey(s).

CONCLUSION

We present a definition of safety/harms that represents the patient voice (i.e., patients' perception of safety) evaluating the symptomatic treatment-related adverse events for people with RMDs enrolled in clinical trials.

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.

The IBD-FITT study - moderate-intensity exercise for patients with inflammatory bowel disease with moderate disease activity: an open-label randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD), Crohn's disease, and ulcerative colitis are chronic autoimmune lifelong diseases with fluctuating activity over time. The treatment includes medical therapy and surgery, however, there is no definite cure. Therefore, the quest for new and supplementary treatment options is imperative to improve patients' general health and quality of life. Physical activity and exercise have been suggested to be elements in both the prevention and supplementary treatment of IBD; however, this is based on limited underpowered trials. Thus, the role of exercise as a treatment option still has to be settled. We aim to investigate the effect of a 12-week exercise intervention in adult patients with moderately active IBD on three categories of outcomes (1) disease-specific health-related quality of life (IBDQ); (2) general health status of the patients, i.e., waist circumference, disease activity by clinical scorings systems (Harvey Bradshaw Index, Simple Clinical Colitis Activity Index), blood pressure, blood lipids, and non-disease specific quality of life (EQ5D) scores; and (3) explorative outcomes on biomarkers (C-reactive protein and fecal calprotectin) plus different biomarkers of immunology (cytokine panel).

METHODS

We will apply a superiority design in this open-label randomized clinical trial including 150 patients equally allocated to intervention and usual care. The intervention will be based on a 12-week aerobic exercise program and will include two supervised exercise sessions of 60 min per week, combined with one weekly home training session. We have defined a moderate exercise level as 60-80% of patients' maximum heart rate. The patients in the intervention group will also be offered an online video lesson of 15-25 min on lifestyle guidance, and the same online video lesson will be offered in the comparator group. Questionnaires on quality of life will be forwarded electronically both at inclusion and at the end of the study, and the patients will have blood samples, and fecal samples for calprotectin at baseline, weeks 4 and 8, as well as after 12 weeks (study end).

DISCUSSION

This will be a clinical trial investigating the effect of exercise on patients with Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis. This trial will add to the evidence on the possible effect of exercise and might clarify whether exercise can benefit as a supplementary treatment addendum. Thus, the trial may provide a new patient-active disease management approach.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04816812. Date of first registration: March 23, 2021.

Adherence to Complication Reporting for Randomized Controlled Trials Contained in Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome

Purpose

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are frequently used in creating recommendations contained within clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). However, investigations outside of hand surgery have reported that RCTs within CPGs infrequently report complications and harms-related data. Our purpose was to assess adherence to complication reporting and harms-related outcomes contained in the Consolidated Standards for Reporting (CONSORT) Extension of Harms and Standards for Reporting of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (STARD) reporting checklists for RCTs within the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery (AAOS) CPGs for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).

Methods

We identified all RCTs within the AAOS CTS CPGs. All therapeutic RCTs and diagnostic studies were included. We used the CONSORT Harms Checklist criteria to assess adherence to the reporting of adverse events for therapeutic RCTs and the STARD criteria to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the articles. We defined adequate compliance as adherence to ≥50% of the checklist items.

Results

We identified 82 therapeutic RCTs and 90 diagnostic accuracy articles within the AAOS CTS CPG. For therapeutic RCTs, we found that the average compliance with the published checklists was 19%. For diagnostic studies, the average compliance with checklists was found to be 55%. Eleven therapeutic RCTs (13%) and 60 diagnostic studies (67%) were determined to have adequate compliance for the CONSORT and STARD checklists, respectively.

Conclusions

Randomized controlled trials in the AAOS CPGs for CTS have low compliance with the CONSORT Extension for Harms Checklist. Although the overall adherence to the items published in the STARD statement for diagnostic accuracy evaluation remains higher, future efforts should be made to improve the adherence rates to both checklists.

Clinical relevance

Improved standardization of complication reporting may aid in comparing outcomes across multiple clinical investigations of upper-extremity procedures.

The risk of bleeding and perforation from sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analyses

INTRODUCTION

Physical harm from Colorectal Cancer Screening tends to be inadequately measured and reported in clinical trials. Also, studies of ongoing Colorectal Cancer Screening programs have found more frequent and severe physical harm from screening procedures, e.g., bleeding and perforation, than reported in previous trials. Therefore, the objectives of the study were to systematically review the evidence on the risk of bleeding and perforation in Colorectal Cancer Screening.

DESIGN

Systematic review with descriptive statistics and random-effects meta-analyses.

METHODS

We systematically searched five databases for studies investigating physical harms related to Colorectal Cancer Screening. We assessed the internal and the external validity using the ROBINS-I tool and the GRADE approach. Harm estimates was calculated using mixed Poisson regression models in random-effect meta-analyses.

RESULTS

We included 89 studies. Reporting and measurement of harms was inadequate in most studies. In effect, the risk of bias was critical in 97.3% and serious in 98.3% of studies. All GRADE ratings were very low. Based on severe findings with not-critical risk of bias and 30 days follow-up, the risk of bleedings per 100,000 people screened were 8 [2;24] for sigmoidoscopy, 229 [129;408] for colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test, 68 [39;118] for once-only colonoscopy, and 698 [443;1045] for colonoscopy following any screening tests. The risk of perforations was 88 [56;138] for colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test and 53 [25;112] for once-only colonoscopy. There were no findings within the subcategory severe perforation with long-term follow-up for colonoscopy following any screening tests and sigmoidoscopy.

DISCUSSION

Harm estimates varied widely across studies, reporting and measurement of harms was mostly inadequate, and the risk of bias and GRADE ratings were very poor, collectively leading to underestimation of harm. In effect, we consider our estimates of perforation and bleeding as conservative, highlighting the need for better reporting and measurement in future studies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42017058844.

Effectiveness of Exercise Interventions for Preventing Neck Pain: A Systematic Review With Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE: To update the evidence on the effectiveness of exercise interventions to prevent episodes of neck pain. DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis. LITERATURE SEARCH: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, SPORTDiscus, PEDro, and trial registries from inception to December 2, 2022. Forward and backward citation searches. STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that enrolled adults without neck pain at baseline and compared exercise interventions to no intervention, placebo/sham, attention control, or minimal intervention. Military populations and astronauts were excluded. DATA SYNTHESIS: Random-effects meta-analysis. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane RoB 2 tool. The certainty of evidence was judged according to the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Of 4703 records screened, 5 trials (1722 participants at baseline) were included and eligible for meta-analysis. Most (80%) participants were office workers. Risk of bias was rated as some concerns for 2 trials and high for 3 trials. There was moderate-certainty evidence that exercise interventions probably reduce the risk of a new episode of neck pain (OR, 0.49; 95% confidence interval: 0.31, 0.76) compared to no or minimal intervention in the short-term (≤12 months). The results were not robust to sensitivity analyses for missing outcome data. CONCLUSION: There was moderate-certainty evidence supporting exercise interventions for reducing the risk for an episode of neck pain in the next 12 months. The clinical significance of the effect is unclear. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2023;53(10):1-16. Epub: 8 September 2023. doi:10.2519/jospt.2023.12063.

Publication status and reporting quality of case reports on acupuncture-related adverse events: A systematic reviews of case studies

Introduction

Case reports on acupuncture-related adverse events (AEs) have been consistently published in the literature. This review aims to assess the current publication status of case reports on acupuncture-related AEs and evaluate their reporting quality in order to identify areas for improvement.

Methods

This study is a systematic review (SR) of case reports. Studies describing cases for acupuncture-related AEs between 2010 and 2023 (until July) were searched in PubMed, Embase, and local databases (China and Korea), as well as by hand-searching references included in published relevant SRs. A bibliometric analysis was conducted to examine the publication trends of the included literature. The appropriateness of the acupuncture described in the cases, the causality assessment between AEs and acupuncture treatment, and the presence of necessary items from the CAse REport guidelines (CARE) checklist were narratively analyzed.

Results

A total of 169 case reports were included in this review. Over the past decade, an average of 12 case reports on acupuncture-related AEs were published annually. However, only 38.2% of the articles provided sufficient information to determine the appropriateness of the acupuncture treatment used in the reported cases, and considerable numbers of the included case reports did not suggest enough information for the assessment of a causal relationship. The majority of cases did not report the timeline (n = 164), patient perspectives (n = 157), and informed consent (n = 121) items from the CARE checklist.

Discussion

Acupuncture-related AEs persist in being frequently reported in the literature. Nonetheless, the information concerning acupuncture and causality assessment within these publications is still found to be insufficient. The development of reporting guidelines for future case reports on acupuncture-related AEs is anticipated to promote an academic environment conducive to more comprehensive reporting.

Appropriate design and reporting of superiority, equivalence and non-inferiority clinical trials incorporating a benefit-risk assessment: the BRAINS study including expert workshop

Background

Randomised controlled trials are designed to assess the superiority, equivalence or non-inferiority of a new health technology, but which trial design should be used is not always obvious in practice. In particular, when using equivalence or non-inferiority designs, multiple outcomes of interest may be important for the success of a trial, despite the fact that usually only a single primary outcome is used to design the trial. Benefit-risk methods are used in the regulatory clinical trial setting to assess multiple outcomes and consider the trade-off of the benefits against the risks, but are not regularly implemented in publicly funded trials.

Objectives

The aim of the project is to aid the design of clinical trials with multiple outcomes of interest by defining when each trial design is appropriate to use and identifying when to use benefit-risk methods to assess outcome trade-offs (qualitatively or quantitatively) in a publicly funded trial setting.

Methods

A range of methods was used to elicit expert opinion to answer the project objectives, including a web-based survey of relevant researchers, a rapid review of current literature and a 2-day consensus workshop of experts (in 2019).

Results

We created a list of 19 factors to aid researchers in selecting the most appropriate trial design, containing the following overarching sections: population, intervention, comparator, outcomes, feasibility and perspectives. Six key reasons that indicate a benefit-risk method should be considered within a trial were identified: (1) when the success of the trial depends on more than one outcome; (2) when important outcomes within the trial are in competing directions (i.e. a health technology is better for one outcome, but worse for another); (3) to allow patient preferences to be included and directly influence trial results; (4) to provide transparency on subjective recommendations from a trial; (5) to provide consistency in the approach to presenting results from a trial; and (6) to synthesise multiple outcomes into a single metric. Further information was provided to support the use of benefit-risk methods in appropriate circumstances, including the following: methods identified from the review were collated into different groupings and described to aid the selection of a method; potential implementation of methods throughout the trial process were provided and discussed (with examples); and general considerations were described for those using benefit-risk methods. Finally, a checklist of five pieces of information that should be present when reporting benefit-risk methods was defined, with two additional items specifically for reporting the results.

Conclusions

These recommendations will assist research teams in selecting which trial design to use and deciding whether or not a benefit-risk method could be included to ensure research questions are answered appropriately. Additional information is provided to support consistent use and clear reporting of benefit-risk methods in the future. The recommendations can also be used by funding committees to confirm that appropriate considerations of the trial design have been made.

Limitations

This research was limited in scope and should be considered in conjunction with other trial design methodologies to assess appropriateness. In addition, further research is needed to provide concrete information about which benefit-risk methods are best to use in publicly funded trials, along with recommendations that are specific to each method.

Study registration

The rapid review is registered as PROSPERO CRD42019144882.

Funding

Funded by the Medical Research Council UK and the National Institute for Health and Care Research as part of the Medical Research Council-National Institute for Health and Care Research Methodology Research programme.

Overlooked Outcomes in Pediatric Obesity Management-Unintended Consequences

This Viewpoint describes unintended consequences of pediatric obesity treatment plans and the need for evidence balancing potential benefits vs harms of these plans.

A Retrospective Analysis of Serious Adverse Events and Deaths in US-Based Lifestyle Clinical Trials for Cognitive Health

This retrospective analysis assessed the serious adverse events and deaths reported in lifestyle clinical trials designed to enhance cognitive health in older adults living in the United States. Data was collected from studies conducted between January 1, 2000, and July 19, 2023, using the ClinicalTrials.gov application programming interface. Our query revealed that 76% of these studies did not report trial results. The remaining studies with reported results were categorized under one of four intervention types: Cognitive/Behavioral, Exercise/Movement, Diet/Supplement, and Multi-modal. When all trial types are considered together, the results indicate that lifestyle clinical trials are safe, with no significant increase in relative risk of experiencing an SAE in an intervention group over a control group. And although the increase in relative risk of death in an intervention group over a control group was significant at 28% (X2 (1, N = 36), p < 0.00688), the probability of death was not higher than the U.S. mortality rates by age. When assessing the data using intervention type, Diet/Supplement trials and Multi-modal trials both had an increase in relative risk of experiencing an SAE in the intervention over the control group, with Diet/Supplement trials at 16% (X2 (1, N = 2), p < 0.0263) and Multi-modal trials at 365% (X2 (1, N = 5), p < 0.000213). The Diet/Supplement trials also had an increased risk of death at 67% (X2 (1, N = 2), p < 0.000197). These results should be taken with careful consideration. Due to such a low reporting rate, the 36 studies included in this analysis do not accurately represent the majority of lifestyle clinical trials conducted in the U.S. This study is valuable in that it highlights the importance of reporting clinical trial results, which will improve transparency in trial results and allow for more accurate assessments of safety in the growing field of cognitive aging and lifestyle interventions for older adults.

Dietary behaviour change intervention for managing sarcopenic obesity among community-dwelling older people: a pilot randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The effects of dietary intervention in managing sarcopenic obesity are controversial, and behavior change techniques are lacking in previous studies which are important for the success of dietary intervention. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary effects of a dietary behaviour change (DBC) intervention on managing sarcopenic obesity among community-dwelling older people in the community.

METHODS

A two-armed, RCT was conducted. Sixty community-dwelling older adults (≥ 60 years old) with sarcopenic obesity were randomised into either the experimental group (n = 30), receiving a 15-week dietary intervention combined with behaviour change techniques guided by the Health Action Process Approach model, or the control group (n = 30), receiving regular health talks. Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 experimental group participants to determine the barriers and facilitators of dietary behaviour changes after the intervention.

RESULTS

The feasibility of the DBC intervention was confirmed by an acceptable recruitment rate (57.14%) and a good retention rate (83.33%). Compared with the control group, the experimental group significantly reduced their body weight (p = 0.027, d = 1.22) and improved their dietary quality (p < 0.001, d = 1.31). A positive improvement in handgrip strength (from 15.37 ± 1.08 kg to 18.21 ± 1.68 kg), waist circumference (from 99.28 ± 1.32 cm to 98.42 ± 1.39 cm), and gait speed (from 0.91 ± 0.02 m/s to 0.99 ± 0.03 m/s) was observed only in the experimental group. However, the skeletal muscle mass index in the experimental group decreased. The interview indicated that behaviour change techniques enhanced the partcipants' compliance with their dietary regimen, while cultural contextual factors (e.g., family dining style) led to some barriers.

CONCLUSION

The DBC intervention could reduce body weight, and has positive trends in managing handgrip strength, gait speed, and waist circumference. Interestingly, the subtle difference between the two groups in the change of muscle mass index warrants futures investigation. This study demonstrated the potential for employing dietary behaviour change interventions in community healthcare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registered retrospectively on ClinicalTrailas.gov (31/12/2020, NCT04690985).

Quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs: systematic review

Objective

To assess the quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) harms extension and according to clinical trial design, and to examine reporting of serious adverse events in drug trials published on PubMed versus clinical trial summaries on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov registries were searched from 1 December 2019 to 17 February 2022.

Eligibility criteria for selecting studies

Randomised clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19 disease in participants of all ages with suspected, probable, or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Clinical trials were screened on title, abstract, and text by two authors independently. Only articles published in French and English were selected. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to assess risk of bias.

Results

The search strategy identified 1962 randomised clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19, published in the PubMed database; 1906 articles were excluded after screening and 56 clinical trials were included in the review. Among the 56 clinical trials, no study had a high score for quality of reporting of adverse events, 60.7% had a moderate score, 33.9% had a low score, and 5.4% had a very low score. All clinical trials with a very low score for quality of reporting of adverse events were randomised open label trials. For reporting of serious adverse events, journal articles published on PubMed under-reported 51% of serious adverse events compared with clinical trial summaries published on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Conclusions

In one in three published clinical trials on covid-19 drugs, the quality of reporting of adverse events was low or very low. Differences were found in the number of serious adverse events reported in journal articles versus clinical trial summaries. During the covid-19 pandemic, risk assessment of drugs in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs did not comply with good practice recommendations for publication of results.

Systematic review registration

European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) EUPAS45959.

Adverse events in cognitive behavioral therapy and relaxation training for children and adolescents with obsessive-compulsive disorder: A mixed methods study and analysis plan for the TECTO trial

Background

Knowledge on adverse events in psychotherapy for youth with OCD is sparse. No official guidelines exist for defining or monitoring adverse events in psychotherapy. Recent recommendations call for more qualitative and quantitative assessment of adverse events in psychotherapy trials. This mixed methods study aims to expand knowledge on adverse events in psychotherapy for youth with OCD.

Methods

This is an analysis plan for a convergent mixed methods study within a randomized clinical trial (the TECTO trial). We include at least 128 youth aged 8-17 years with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Participants are randomized to either family-based cognitive behavioral therapy (FCBT) or family-based psychoeducation and relaxation training (FPRT). Adverse events are monitored quantitatively with the Negative Effects Questionnaire. Furthermore, we assess psychiatric symptoms, global functioning, quality of life, and family factors to investigate predictors for adverse events. We conduct semi-structured qualitative interviews with all youths and their parents on their experience of adverse events in FCBT or FPRT. For the mixed methods analysis, we will merge 1) a qualitative content analysis with descriptive statistics comparing the types, frequencies, and severity of adverse events; 2) a qualitative content analysis of the perceived causes for adverse events with prediction models for adverse events; and 3) a thematic analysis of the participants' treatment evaluation with a correlational analysis of adverse events and OCD severity.

Discussion

The in-depth mixed methods analysis can inform 1) safer and more effective psychotherapy for OCD; 2) instruments and guidelines for monitoring adverse events; and 3) patient information on potential adverse events. The main limitation is risk of missing data.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03595098. Registered on July 23, 2018.

Review: Adverse event monitoring and reporting in studies of pediatric psychosocial interventions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Adverse event monitoring in studies of psychotherapy is crucial to clinical decision-making, particularly for weighing of benefits and harms of treatment approaches. In this systematic review, we identified how adverse events are defined, measured, and reported in studies of psychosocial interventions for children with mental disorders.

METHOD

Medline, PsycINFO, Embase, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses Global, and the Cochrane Library were searched from January 2011-January 2023, and Google Scholar from January 2011-February 2023. English language experimental and quasi-experimental studies that evaluated the efficacy or effectiveness of psychosocial interventions for childhood mental disorders were included. Information on the definition, assessment, and report of adverse events was extracted using a checklist based on Good Clinical Practice guidelines.

RESULTS

In this review, 117 studies were included. Studies most commonly involved treating anxiety disorders or obsessive-compulsive disorder (32/117; 27%); 44% of the experimental interventions tested (52/117) were cognitive behavioral therapies. Adverse events were monitored in 36 studies (36/117; 31%) with a protocol used in 19 of these studies to guide monitoring (19/36; 53%). Twenty-seven different events were monitored across the studies with hospitalization the most frequently monitored (3/36; 8%). Event severity was fully assessed in 6 studies (17%) and partially assessed in 12 studies (33%). Only 4/36 studies (11%) included assessing events for cause.

CONCLUSIONS

To date, adverse events have been inconsistently defined, measured and reported in psychosocial intervention studies of childhood mental health disorders. Information on adverse events is an essential knowledge component for understanding the potential impacts and risks of therapeutic interventions.