Bias in the reporting of harms in clinical trials of second-generation antidepressants for depression and anxiety: A meta-analysis

Ymkje Anna de Vries, Annelieke M. Roest, Lian Beijers, Erick Turner, Peter de Jonge

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

9 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Previous research has shown that reporting bias has inflated the apparent efficacy of antidepressants. We investigated whether apparent safety was also affected. We included 133 trials, involving 31,296 patients, of second-generation antidepressants for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) or anxiety disorders, obtained from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews. We extracted data on overall discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse events, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Meta-analysis was used to compare discontinuation rates between FDA reviews and matching journal articles, while SAEs were compared qualitatively. The odds ratio for overall discontinuation, comparing drug to placebo, was 1.0 for both sources, while that for discontinuation due to adverse events was 2.4 for both sources. Seventy-seven of 97 (79%) journal articles provided incomplete information on SAEs; sixty-one (63%) articles made no mention of SAEs at all. Of 21 articles which could be compared to the FDA, only 6 (29%) had full reporting without discrepancies. Nine (43%) articles reported a discrepant number of SAEs. Descriptions were absent or discrepant in 6 (29%) additional articles, even for important SAEs such as suicide attempts. In conclusion, reporting bias has not affected average discontinuation rates over trials. However, SAE reporting is not only very poor, with over half of articles failing to discuss SAEs altogether, but discrepancies between the FDA and articles were common and often led to a more favorable drug-placebo comparison. These findings suggest that journal articles are an unreliable source of data on SAEs in antidepressant trials.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1752-1759
Number of pages8
JournalEuropean Neuropsychopharmacology
Volume26
Issue number11
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 1 2016

Fingerprint

United States Food and Drug Administration
Antidepressive Agents
Meta-Analysis
Anxiety
Clinical Trials
Depression
Placebos
Information Storage and Retrieval
Major Depressive Disorder
Anxiety Disorders
Pharmaceutical Preparations
Suicide
Odds Ratio
Safety
Research
Therapeutics

Keywords

  • Antidepressants
  • Anxiety
  • Bias
  • Depression
  • Harms

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology
  • Neurology
  • Clinical Neurology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Biological Psychiatry
  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

Bias in the reporting of harms in clinical trials of second-generation antidepressants for depression and anxiety : A meta-analysis. / de Vries, Ymkje Anna; Roest, Annelieke M.; Beijers, Lian; Turner, Erick; de Jonge, Peter.

In: European Neuropsychopharmacology, Vol. 26, No. 11, 01.11.2016, p. 1752-1759.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

de Vries, Ymkje Anna ; Roest, Annelieke M. ; Beijers, Lian ; Turner, Erick ; de Jonge, Peter. / Bias in the reporting of harms in clinical trials of second-generation antidepressants for depression and anxiety : A meta-analysis. In: European Neuropsychopharmacology. 2016 ; Vol. 26, No. 11. pp. 1752-1759.
@article{f696a2aa14574f0b90a57c94ee8023ed,
title = "Bias in the reporting of harms in clinical trials of second-generation antidepressants for depression and anxiety: A meta-analysis",
abstract = "Previous research has shown that reporting bias has inflated the apparent efficacy of antidepressants. We investigated whether apparent safety was also affected. We included 133 trials, involving 31,296 patients, of second-generation antidepressants for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) or anxiety disorders, obtained from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews. We extracted data on overall discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse events, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Meta-analysis was used to compare discontinuation rates between FDA reviews and matching journal articles, while SAEs were compared qualitatively. The odds ratio for overall discontinuation, comparing drug to placebo, was 1.0 for both sources, while that for discontinuation due to adverse events was 2.4 for both sources. Seventy-seven of 97 (79{\%}) journal articles provided incomplete information on SAEs; sixty-one (63{\%}) articles made no mention of SAEs at all. Of 21 articles which could be compared to the FDA, only 6 (29{\%}) had full reporting without discrepancies. Nine (43{\%}) articles reported a discrepant number of SAEs. Descriptions were absent or discrepant in 6 (29{\%}) additional articles, even for important SAEs such as suicide attempts. In conclusion, reporting bias has not affected average discontinuation rates over trials. However, SAE reporting is not only very poor, with over half of articles failing to discuss SAEs altogether, but discrepancies between the FDA and articles were common and often led to a more favorable drug-placebo comparison. These findings suggest that journal articles are an unreliable source of data on SAEs in antidepressant trials.",
keywords = "Antidepressants, Anxiety, Bias, Depression, Harms",
author = "{de Vries}, {Ymkje Anna} and Roest, {Annelieke M.} and Lian Beijers and Erick Turner and {de Jonge}, Peter",
year = "2016",
month = "11",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.euroneuro.2016.09.370",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "26",
pages = "1752--1759",
journal = "European Neuropsychopharmacology",
issn = "0924-977X",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bias in the reporting of harms in clinical trials of second-generation antidepressants for depression and anxiety

T2 - A meta-analysis

AU - de Vries, Ymkje Anna

AU - Roest, Annelieke M.

AU - Beijers, Lian

AU - Turner, Erick

AU - de Jonge, Peter

PY - 2016/11/1

Y1 - 2016/11/1

N2 - Previous research has shown that reporting bias has inflated the apparent efficacy of antidepressants. We investigated whether apparent safety was also affected. We included 133 trials, involving 31,296 patients, of second-generation antidepressants for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) or anxiety disorders, obtained from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews. We extracted data on overall discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse events, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Meta-analysis was used to compare discontinuation rates between FDA reviews and matching journal articles, while SAEs were compared qualitatively. The odds ratio for overall discontinuation, comparing drug to placebo, was 1.0 for both sources, while that for discontinuation due to adverse events was 2.4 for both sources. Seventy-seven of 97 (79%) journal articles provided incomplete information on SAEs; sixty-one (63%) articles made no mention of SAEs at all. Of 21 articles which could be compared to the FDA, only 6 (29%) had full reporting without discrepancies. Nine (43%) articles reported a discrepant number of SAEs. Descriptions were absent or discrepant in 6 (29%) additional articles, even for important SAEs such as suicide attempts. In conclusion, reporting bias has not affected average discontinuation rates over trials. However, SAE reporting is not only very poor, with over half of articles failing to discuss SAEs altogether, but discrepancies between the FDA and articles were common and often led to a more favorable drug-placebo comparison. These findings suggest that journal articles are an unreliable source of data on SAEs in antidepressant trials.

AB - Previous research has shown that reporting bias has inflated the apparent efficacy of antidepressants. We investigated whether apparent safety was also affected. We included 133 trials, involving 31,296 patients, of second-generation antidepressants for the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) or anxiety disorders, obtained from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews. We extracted data on overall discontinuation, discontinuation due to adverse events, and serious adverse events (SAEs). Meta-analysis was used to compare discontinuation rates between FDA reviews and matching journal articles, while SAEs were compared qualitatively. The odds ratio for overall discontinuation, comparing drug to placebo, was 1.0 for both sources, while that for discontinuation due to adverse events was 2.4 for both sources. Seventy-seven of 97 (79%) journal articles provided incomplete information on SAEs; sixty-one (63%) articles made no mention of SAEs at all. Of 21 articles which could be compared to the FDA, only 6 (29%) had full reporting without discrepancies. Nine (43%) articles reported a discrepant number of SAEs. Descriptions were absent or discrepant in 6 (29%) additional articles, even for important SAEs such as suicide attempts. In conclusion, reporting bias has not affected average discontinuation rates over trials. However, SAE reporting is not only very poor, with over half of articles failing to discuss SAEs altogether, but discrepancies between the FDA and articles were common and often led to a more favorable drug-placebo comparison. These findings suggest that journal articles are an unreliable source of data on SAEs in antidepressant trials.

KW - Antidepressants

KW - Anxiety

KW - Bias

KW - Depression

KW - Harms

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84994056981&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84994056981&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2016.09.370

DO - 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2016.09.370

M3 - Article

C2 - 27659240

AN - SCOPUS:84994056981

VL - 26

SP - 1752

EP - 1759

JO - European Neuropsychopharmacology

JF - European Neuropsychopharmacology

SN - 0924-977X

IS - 11

ER -