Bias in the reporting of harms in clinical trials of second-generation antidepressants for depression and anxiety: A meta-analysis
Introduction
A significant fraction of all studies are never published in peer-reviewed journals (Dwan et al., 2013). Even within the subset of studies that are published, the (primary) analyses and outcomes reported in journal articles frequently deviate from the protocol (Chan et al., 2004, Dwan et al., 2014). As a consequence, statistically significant (positive) studies or outcomes are more likely to be published than non-significant (negative) studies (Dwan et al., 2013) or outcomes (Chan et al., 2004). While it is often difficult to assess the presence of reporting bias, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) maintains an independent results database for drug trials, which can be used to examine the presence of reporting bias within a set of trials (Turner, 2004). This database has previously been used to assess reporting bias in trials of antipsychotics for schizophrenia (Turner et al., 2012) and antidepressants for major depressive disorder (MDD) (Turner et al., 2008) and anxiety disorders (Roest et al., 2015).
Second-generation antidepressants have been found to be effective for MDD (Turner et al., 2008) and anxiety disorders (Hidalgo et al., 2007, Blanco et al., 2013, Soomro et al., 2008, Andrisano 2013, Stein et al., 2006, Bandelow et al., 2015). They are considered to have a favorable risk-benefit profile and hence are widely prescribed (Olfson and Marcus, 2009). While both studies examining the FDA database of antidepressant trials confirmed their efficacy for MDD and anxiety disorders, they also revealed substantial reporting bias (Turner et al., 2008, Roest et al., 2015). Although nearly all published trials (94–96%) reported positive results, only 51% of all submitted trials for MDD, and 72% of those for anxiety disorders, were judged to be positive by the FDA. As a consequence of reporting bias, the effect size of antidepressant treatment was overestimated by 32% and 15% for MDD and anxiety disorders, respectively.
An accurate assessment of the risk-benefit ratio of antidepressants requires an unbiased understanding of safety as well as efficacy, but this other side of the coin has not, thus far, been examined as comprehensively. Previous research has indicated that reporting of harms in journal articles is incomplete and inadequate in various medical fields (Ioannidis and Lau, 2001, Wieseler et al., 2013, Loke and Derry, 2001), including psychiatry (Papanikolaou et al., 2004). The case of reboxetine demonstrates the impact that reporting bias can have on apparent safety as well as efficacy: inclusion of unpublished data not only shifted the difference in efficacy between reboxetine and placebo from significant to non-significant, but it also showed that reboxetine was significantly inferior to placebo in terms of selected harm outcomes, while the published trials suggested they were equivalent (Eyding and Lelgemann, 2010). Poor reporting of harms has also been found in trials of two other antidepressants (sertraline and duloxetine) and several antipsychotics with serious adverse events (SAEs) not always reported fully or accurately in journal articles (Maund et al., 2014, Hughes et al., 2014).
The work on antidepressant trials was limited to relatively recent trials of three antidepressants, and only the reboxetine study quantified the possible impact of bias on an important harm outcome, discontinuation from the trial. In the present study, we assessed the presence of reporting bias, and its impact on several harm outcomes, within a comprehensive set of trials of second-generation antidepressants for both MDD and anxiety disorders.
Section snippets
Data from FDA reviews and journal articles
We previously obtained FDA reviews of second-generation antidepressants approved for MDD (Turner et al., 2008) and/or anxiety disorders (Roest et al., 2015) (specifically generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), social anxiety disorder (SAD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and panic disorder (PD)). We defined second-generation antidepressants as including selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRIs),
Discontinuation rates
As seen in Table 1, the average discontinuation rate (weighted by sample size) in the placebo group was 30.5% according to the FDA versus 30.1% according to the journal articles. For the antidepressant groups, the average discontinuation rate was 31.9% according to the FDA and 30.4% according to the journal articles. As shown in Table 2, random-effects meta-analysis of the FDA data yielded an odds ratio (OR) of discontinuation for the drug group compared with placebo of 1.02 (95% CI 0.96–1.08),
Principal findings
We found no evidence for bias in the reporting of overall discontinuation rates or discontinuation rates due to adverse events. However, discontinuation rates were high, averaging approximately 30% in both placebo and drug groups, especially given the short (6–12 weeks) duration of most of the included trials. Furthermore, participants receiving an antidepressant were 2.4 times more likely to discontinue the trial due to adverse events than participants receiving placebo.
Reporting of SAEs was
Role of the funding source
This study received no specific funding from any source.
Contributors
Ms. de Vries contributed to the study design, extracted and analyzed data, and drafted the manuscript. Dr. Roest contributed to the study design, extracted data, and critically revised the manuscript. Ms. Beijers extracted data and critically revised the manuscript. Dr. Turner and Dr. de Jonge contributed to the study design and critically revised the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final version of the manuscript.
Conflict of interest
All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
References (50)
- et al.
Double-blind study of mirtazapine and placebo in hospitalized patients with major depression
Eur. Neuropsychopharmacol.
(1994) - et al.
Newer antidepressants and panic disorder: a meta-analysis
Int. Clin. Psychopharmacol.
(2013) - et al.
Paroxetine in social phobia/social anxiety disorder: randomised, double- blind, placebo-controlled study
Br. J. Psychiatry
(1999) - et al.
Efficacy of treatments for anxiety disorders: a meta-analysis
Int. Clin. Psychopharmacol.
(2015) - et al.
The evidence-based pharmacotherapy of social anxiety disorder
Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol.
(2013) - et al.
Venlafaxine extended-release capsules in panic disorder: flexible-dose, double-blind, placebo-controlled study
Br. J. Psychiatry
(2005) - et al.
Efficacy and safety of sertraline treatment of posttraumatic stress disorder
J. Am. Med. Assoc.
(2000) - et al.
Empirical evidence for selective reporting of outcomes in randomized trials: comparison of protocols to published articles
J. Am. Med. Assoc.
(2004) - et al.
Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias – an updated review
PLoS One
(2013) - et al.
Evidence for the selective reporting of analyses and discrepancies in clinical trials: a systematic review of cohort studies of clinical trials
PLoS Med
(2014)
Reboxetine for acute treatment of major depression: systematic review and meta-analysis of published and unpublished placebo and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor controlled trials
BMJ
Efficacy and tolerability of controlled-release and immediate-release paroxetine in the treatment of depression
J. Clin. Psychiatry
Suicidality in pediatric patients treated with antidepressant drugs
Arch. Gen. Psychiatry
Reporting discrepancies between the ClinicalTrials.gov results database and peer-reviewed publications
Ann. Intern. Med.
Antidepressants and violence: problems at the interface of medicine and law
PLoS Med.
An effect-size analysis of pharmacologic treatments for generalized anxiety disorder
J. Psychopharmacol.
A double-blind, placebo-controlled study of the efficacy and safety of controlled-release fluvoxamine in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder
J. Clin. Psychiatry
Differences in reporting serious adverse events in industry sponsored clinical trial registries and journal articles on antidepressant and antipsychotic drugs: a cross-sectional study
BMJ Open
Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials
J. Am. Med. Assoc.
Better reporting of harms in randomized trials: an extension of the CONSORT statement
Ann. Intern. Med.
Restoring study 329: efficacy and harms of paroxetine and imipramine in treatment of major depression in adolescence
BMJ
A randomized controlled trial of venlafaxine extended release in generalized social anxiety disorder
J. Clin. Psychiatry
A randomized, double-blind, fixed-dose comparison of paroxetine and placebo in the treatment of generalized social anxiety disorder
J. Clin. Psychiatry
Reporting of adverse drug reactions in randomised controlled trials – a systematic survey
BMC Clin. Pharmacol.
Efficacy and safety of paroxetine treatment for chronic PTSD: a fixed-dose, placebo-controlled study
Am. J. Psychiatry
Cited by (23)
CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration: updated guideline for the reporting of harms in randomized trials
2023, Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyComparison of consistency and complementarity of reporting biosimilar quality attributes between regulatory and scientific communities: An adalimumab case study
2021, BiologicalsCitation Excerpt :As expected, reporting on QAs varied between the two sources among the included biosimilars. This variation was in part due to the different aims of the two sources and was consistent with previous findings of substantial differences in reporting safety and efficacy information in regulatory reports and scientific publications [8–14]. Therefore, both sources should be systematically consulted to obtain comprehensive information on QAs for an improved understanding of how biosimilarity was established at the molecular level.
The potential of individual patient data for research on antidepressant safety and efficacy
2017, European NeuropsychopharmacologyBias in the reporting of harms in clinical trials of second-generation antidepressants: The tip of the iceberg?
2017, European NeuropsychopharmacologyHow to improve the integrity of clinical trial articles
2018, Revista de Psiquiatria y Salud Mental