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

Turner, Erick H; Cipriani, Andrea; Furukawa, Toshi A; Salanti, Georgia; de Vries, Ymkje Anna (2022). Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy: Updated comparisons and meta-analyses of newer versus older trials. PLoS medicine, 19(1), e1003886. Public Library of Science 10.1371/journal.pmed.1003886

Preview

Text Turner_PLoSMed_2022.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Public Domain Certification. Download (1MB) | Preview

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS AND FINDINGS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

Interest & Impact

Downloads

72 since deposited on 28 Jan 2022
27 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item