Introduction
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulators may approve drugs and biologic agents for marketing when the results of randomized clinical trials indicate that their potential benefits outweigh their potential harms, which are often called “adverse events” (AEs). In clinical trials, AEs can be collected non-systematically when participants report them spontaneously to investigators or in response to open-ended questions such as “have you noticed any symptoms since your last examination?” (Table
1) [
1‐
4]. Specific AEs can also be collected systematically by assessing their presence or absence using the same method for all participants in a trial (e.g., clinical examination, questionnaires, and medical instruments [
1,
2]). Previous studies have described non-systematic AEs as “passively collected” and systematic AEs as “proactively collected” [
1,
2]. AEs are categorized as “serious” when they lead to or prolong hospitalization, cause death, or disrupt normal life functions [
4,
5].
Table 1
Terms related to adverse events (AEs)
Adverse event (AE) | The International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) defines an “adverse event” as “any untoward medical occurrence in a patient or clinical investigation subject administered a pharmaceutical product and which does not necessarily have to have a causal relationship with this treatment” [ 33]. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other regulators use this definition [ 4, 5]. |
Non-systematic adverse events | According to The Final Rule [ 1, 2], “‘non-systematic assessment’ relies on the spontaneous reporting of adverse events, such as unprompted self-reporting by participants”. Non-systematic adverse events may be collected by asking questions such as “Have you noticed any symptoms since your last examination?”. |
Result | In the Multiple Data Sources (MUDS) study, a “result” is a numerical contrast between a treatment and comparison arm (e.g., relative risk, mean difference). |
Serious adverse events | The ICH defines a “serious adverse event” as that which “results in death, is life-threatening, requires inpatient hospitalisation or prolongation of existing hospitalisation, results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity, or is a congenital anomaly/birth defect” [ 33]. The FDA and other regulators use this definition [ 4, 5]. |
Systematic adverse events | According to The Final Rule [ 1, 2], “systematic assessment’ involves the use of a specific method of ascertaining the presence of an adverse event (e.g., the use of checklists, questionnaires, specific laboratory tests at regular intervals)”. Like a potential benefit of treatment, a systematic AE can be defined using five elements: (1) domain, (2) specific measurement, (3) specific metric, (4) method of aggregation, and (5) time-point [ 34]. For example, “proportion of participants with 50% change from baseline to 8 weeks on the Young Mania Rating Scale total score.” |
Terms related to sources |
Clinical study report (CSR) | A comprehensive document, often created by a pharmaceutical manufacturer for submission to a regulator, detailing the design, methods, analyses, and results of a study. Appendices sometimes contain tables of individual patient data, also called “patient data listings”, and study protocols [ 35]. |
Clinical study report synopsis (CSR-synopsis) | A document that summarizes the information contained in a clinical study report. Clinical study report-synopses are much shorter than clinical study reports; the two clinical study report-synopses we examined were each 13 pages in length. |
Individual patient data (IPD) | A table or database in which each record contains data for a single participant [ 35]. |
Non-public sources | In the MUDS study, non-public sources include individual patient data, clinical study reports, and clinical study report-synopses. |
Public sources | In the MUDS study, public sources include journal articles, conference abstracts, commentaries, posters, trial registrations and associated results, and medical reviews and statistical reviews written by the FDA. |
Physicians, patients, and policy makers rely on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines to make medical decisions. Syntheses of clinical trial findings should include all available evidence; however, they are often based on AE information reported in public sources, such as journal articles (Table
1) [
6]. Many systematic reviews that plan to synthesize AEs ultimately do not address AEs [
7]. By contrast, regulators have access to non-public sources of trial information. Although previously non-public sources are becoming available for some trials [
8‐
10], including through data sharing services such as Vivli [
11], Yale Open Data Access (YODA) [
12,
13], and
clinicalstudydatarequest.com, clinical study reports (CSRs) and individual patient datasets (IPD) remain unavailable for many trials. Consequently, the results of many trials are available only in public sources [
14,
15], which are often incomplete [
15‐
24]. Reporting bias, which is the selective reporting of research results, occurs when reporting is influenced by the nature of the results (e.g., the direction, magnitude, or statistical significance of the results). Reporting bias may lead to overestimating potential benefits of an intervention [
15‐
20] and underestimating potential AEs [
22,
25‐
32].
There is little evidence about the methods trialists use to select AEs for reporting, and there is little evidence about whether those methods contribute to reporting bias. Previous guidance for reporting adverse events has discouraged vague statements about AEs [
36,
37], and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) Extension for Harms discourages authors from reporting AEs above frequency thresholds (e.g., > 10%) [
38]. Nonetheless, there is little evidence about how different trials and different sources for a single trial report AEs. The objectives of this study were to (1) compare selection criteria for reporting non-systematic AEs (i.e., the methods authors use to decide which AEs to include in a particular source as illustrated in Table
2, (2) examine how different selection criteria could affect AE reporting, and (3) assess how different selection criteria could impact meta-analyses of AEs.
Table 2
Examples of selection criteria, with each component identified in bold
Two selection criteria (i.e., numerical threshold and participant group):
|
Adverse events are reported if they occurred in ≥ 5% of participants in any intervention group. |
Adverse events are reported if they occurred in ≥ 2% of participants receiving gabapentin. |
Three selection criteria:
|
Adverse events are reported if they occurred in ≥ 2% of participants receiving gabapentin and if they occurred at least twice as frequently in participants receiving gabapentin, compared with participants receiving placebo. |
Methods
This analysis is a sub-study of the Multiple Data Sources (MUDS) study. MUDS was a methodologic study, the overall objective of which was to examine multiple data sources about trials and to determine whether the information source could affect the conclusions of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The published protocol and amendments [
24,
39] describe the study methods. Briefly, we searched for public and non-public sources (see definitions in Table
1) and requested additional non-public sources (e.g., CSRs that they had not been disclosed previously) from the companies that manufacture gabapentin and quetiapine as described elsewhere [
22,
39,
40]. Electronic searches included the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, LILACS, and CINAHL through 2 March 2015 for gabapentin trials and through 26 January 2015 for quetiapine trials. For trial registrations, we searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform Search Portal and ClinicalTrials.gov through 10 October 2014.
Eligible trials and sources
Eligible studies were parallel randomized clinical trials that compared either gabapentin for neuropathic pain or quetiapine for bipolar depression, with placebo in adults. We excluded open-label and crossover trials. We selected these case studies because we had access to both public and non-public sources for some of the eligible trials.
The MUDS study included 21 gabapentin trials (80 sources, including 6 IPD) and 7 quetiapine trials (52 sources, including 2 IPD). We excluded IPD from this sub-study because IPD did describe methods for analyzing data and because the CSRs included aggregate results that were consistent with the IPD. Thus, we included 68 public sources and 6 non-public sources (all CSRs) for gabapentin trials and we included 46 public sources and 4 non-public sources (2 CSRs, 2 CSR-synopses) for quetiapine trials. All studies were reported in one or more public sources, except one gabapentin trial that was not reported in any public source.
From each source of each eligible trial, two investigators independently extracted data using the open access Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR;
http://srdr.ahrq.gov/) and resolved differences by discussion. We extracted results (i.e., the number or proportion of participants who experienced AEs) that were reported for each trial; we did not extract results of analyses that pooled multiple trials.
We classified each AE as “systematic” if its presence or absence was recorded for every participant and assessed using specific measurement tools (e.g., questionnaires, checklists, laboratory tests, or clinical examinations); we classified all other AEs as “non-systematic” (Table
1). For each non-systematic AE, we extracted the name of the event (e.g., “dizziness”, “headache”) and the numerical results closest to 8 and 18 weeks (e.g., proportion of participants in each group who experienced the AE at 6 weeks). We selected 8 weeks (time window 4–13 weeks) a priori as the minimum clinically important time period, and we selected 18 weeks (time window 14–22) because we expected to find some available follow-up data in this time window. We also looked for data at 27 weeks (time window 23–31 weeks) and for longer times, but we did not find trials that reported AEs after the 8 and 18 week time windows.
We extracted the names of non-systematic AEs even when numerical results were not reported; for example, if a source reported that “the most common AEs were dizziness and headache,” we extracted that dizziness and headache were reported and we entered the numerical results as missing data [
22].
We extracted the methods from each source that authors said they used to select AEs for inclusion in the source, which we refer to as “selection criteria” or we recorded that the selection criteria were not reported (Table
2). Although we found evidence that potential benefits and systematic AEs are reported selectively [
23], we did not find that systematic AEs were reported based on selection criteria as described in this sub-study. Thus, we describe selection criteria for non-systematic AEs only.
Comparing non-systematic AE selection criteria sources and trials
We compared the selection criteria for non-systematic AEs reported across sources for each trial (see examples in Table
2). We recorded three pre-specified components of non-systematic AE selection criteria:
-
Numerical threshold: a cutoff for reporting the number or proportion of participants who experienced a non-systematic AE (e.g., ≥ 5% of participants).
-
Participant group: the group(s) in a trial that must have experienced an AE (e.g., participants in the test intervention group, all participants in the trial).
-
Difference-between-groups: a cutoff for reporting a difference in the number or proportion of participants who experienced an AE, comparing one participant group with another (e.g., more frequent in the test intervention group compared with the placebo group).
Applying AE selection criteria to data in individual trials
To assess how different selection criteria might affect which and how many non-systematic AEs would be reported, we combined each of the numerical thresholds we observed (N = 5) with each of the participant-group criteria (N = 3) and difference-between-groups criteria we observed (N = 3) to create 45 combined selection criteria.
We observed some selection criteria in both gabapentin and quetiapine trials, and we observed other selection criteria in gabapentin trials only or in quetiapine trials only. Although we analyzed only numerical thresholds, participant groups, and differences between groups that we observed in eligible trials, we never observed some of these combined selection criteria in any trial.
Using all non-systematic AEs reported in each CSR, we then applied each of 45 combined selection criteria to the data found in CSRs for six gabapentin trials and two quetiapine trials. We estimated the number of AEs (i.e., the different types of AEs rather than the number of events) that would have been reported according to each combined criterion.
Statistical methods
We calculated descriptive statistics (i.e., counts) using Stata 14 [
41].
Discussion
In this study, we examined how reports of clinical trials use selection criteria for reporting non-systematic AEs. We found that public sources and CSR-synopses applied selection criteria while CSRs reported all AEs; consequently, most AEs and serious AEs were not reported in public sources. In public sources, every combined selection criterion we found included a numerical threshold; however, numerical thresholds were not consistent across trials or across sources for individual trials. Some selection criteria also included requirements related to the participant group and the difference between groups.
We found no evidence in public sources (e.g., journal articles) or non-public sources (e.g., CSRs) that any trial used pre-specified selection criteria. We assume that public sources reporting a small number of AEs used selection criteria; however, many public sources did not describe the selection criteria they used. Among public sources that did not describe selection criteria, we could not determine why the authors reported some non-systematic AEs but did not report other non-systematic AEs. Even when selection criteria were described, public sources did not explain why the authors applied those selection criteria (e.g., following a pre-specified statistical analysis plan). Even if investigators could identify which AEs or groups of AEs were most important in a given trial, different selection criteria across trials would make it impossible to ensure unbiased reporting and to conduct unbiased syntheses.
When we applied various selection criteria to eligible trials, we observed meaningful differences in the number of AEs that would be reported. Trialists might have used selection criteria to identify what they consider the most important AEs; however, we are unaware of any consensus about which AEs are most important for these drugs and conditions. We found no evidence that patients or clinicians were involved in deciding which AEs would be reported in public sources. Instead, it appears that public sources included the most common AEs. Trialists could have performed analyses similar to ours in which they applied different selection criteria and then decided
post hoc which selection criteria would allow them to report, or not report, particular AEs. In a previous study, we found that trialists did not “group” AEs for reporting [
22], which would be another method to consolidate AEs for reporting that has been advocated elsewhere [
37]; however, grouping AEs can also disguise important AEs by combining them with less important AEs [
43].
Evidence syntheses (e.g., systematic reviews, clinical practice guidelines) could help identify rare AEs if all observed AEs were available for all trials [
44]; however, rare AEs cannot be identified when clinical trials report only those AEs occurring above numerical thresholds. Just as selectively reporting potential benefits based on quantitative results leads to biased meta-analyses [
45‐
48], reporting AEs based on trial results will necessarily lead to biased overall estimates because only “positive” signals will be available. Selection criteria make it impossible for systematic reviewers and meta-analysts to accurately assess the AEs caused by medical interventions.
We found that no public source reported all AEs for any trial. Only serious AEs and AEs occurring in more than 5% of participants are required to be reported in
www.ClinicalTrials.gov according to the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA) [
1,
49]. Doctors and patients often rely on post-marketing surveillance studies to identify rare AEs, including serious AEs, yet these studies lack comparison groups that are present in clinical trials. It might be possible to detect rare AEs in clinical trials and to calculate between-group differences, if investigators would not use numerical thresholds to determine which AEs to report. Investigators must ensure that for common AEs, such as headache, data are collected consistently across intervention groups so that proportions in each group can be compared. This is difficult when AEs are collected non-systematically. Although systematically collecting AEs would result in more trustworthy and usable information about effects between groups [
22,
23], it is not always possible, or even desirable, to anticipate which AEs patients will experience.
Authors have previously discouraged the use of selection criteria [
36‐
38]; however, trials would have to report hundreds or thousands of AEs if selection criteria were not used. Making CSRs and equivalent reports for non-industry trials public, and grouping AEs for analysis and reporting, would partially address the problem of reporting many AEs in journal articles and other public sources. A complete solution to the problems we have identified is not obvious.
Multiple sources of public AE information from trials (e.g., journal articles, FDA reviews), which may be written by different authors for different purposes, lead to inconsistent information for patients and physicians [
50]. For example, FDA reviewers have access to CSRs that report all AEs that occurred in each trial. FDA reviewers consider pre-clinical data (e.g., pharmacokinetics, animal trials) and apply clinical and statistical judgment when deciding what to report in medical and statistical reviews about new drugs and biologic agents. The FDA and manufacturers also decide what to include in prescribing information (drug “labels”) written for patients and doctors. By comparison, other stakeholders obtain their information about interventions from a variety of sources, and those sources may use different selection criteria for reporting. For example, individual authors and journal editors can decide what to report in journal articles, which vary tremendously. Different selection criteria across reports of clinical trials, including multiple reports of the same trial, lead to inconsistent and confusing information for stakeholders; consistent standards for reporting AEs, and open access to trial information (e.g., CSRs) could help.
Because current methods for selecting AEs lead to biased reporting that will necessarily produce incorrect effect estimates in systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines, regulators, lawmakers (e.g., the U.S. Congress) and journals could require that trialists report all AEs on
www.ClinicalTrials.gov or other registries. When it is not feasible to report all AEs in a given source (e.g., a conference abstract), the source could direct readers to additional information in a registry such as
www.ClinicalTrials.gov. FDA and other regulators could make all AEs publicly available. If all AEs are not made available by regulators or by trialists, systematic reviewers and meta-analysts should interpret results with extreme caution and explain the limitations of using only publicly available data.
There is a pressing need to make clinical trial data available to the public, especially CSRs and IPD; however, sharing CSRs and IPD will not solve all problems identified in our research. First, reports describing hundreds of AEs might overwhelm physicians and patients by including “too much” information [
51]. Many AEs reported in CSRs and IPD are not intervention-related; selection criteria might have been used to help decision-makers identify AEs that are caused by medical products. Sharing lengthy and confusing reports and datasets could increase the appearance of transparency while actually disguising important information. Second, reanalyzing clinical trial data is time consuming and therefore expensive, and reanalysis should not be necessary to identify AEs. Most decision-makers want trustworthy
summaries of clinical trials.
To avoid reporting bias, and to avoid overwhelming patients and physicians with information, trials could pre-specify which AEs will be collected and reported in summaries such as journal articles [
36]. Core outcome sets are the minimum sets of outcomes to include in trials [
52,
53], and they normally focus on the assessment of potential benefits for people seeing treatment for a particular health problem. Because different types of interventions for the same health problem might be associated with different AEs, and because a single intervention might be used to treat several health problems (e.g., quetiapine is used to treat bipolar depression and schizophrenia), core outcome sets focused on the AEs associated with a particular intervention or group of interventions could also improve the comparability of clinical trials. Notably, core outcome sets for AEs would help trialists identify and report those AEs that are most important to patients, not just the AEs that occurred most often [
22,
23,
51]. As described elsewhere, systematic assessment of important AEs would produce much more useful information compared with non-systematic assessment [
22,
23].
It is a limitation that we included only two drug-indications, and that we had non-public information for a minority of trials in each case study. The use of selection criteria and the extent to which they are pre-specified and consistent might differ across companies and investigators. Nonetheless, the results of this methodological investigation highlight fundamental problems with methods currently used to report AEs that occur in clinical trials.
Acknowledgements
We used the open access database, Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR) and are grateful to Jens Jap, Bryant Smith, and Joseph Lau for making this possible without charge and for the support they provided. The MUDS Investigators include: Lorenzo Bertizzolo, Joseph K. Canner, Terrie Cowley, Kay Dickersin, Peter Doshi, Jeffrey Ehmsen, Nicole Fusco, Gillian Gresham, Nan Guo, Jennifer A. Haythornthwaite, James Heyward, Hwanhee Hong, Tianjing Li, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Jennifer Payne, Diana Pham, Lori Rosman, Elizabeth Stuart, Catalina Suarez-Cuervo, Elizabeth Tolbert, Claire Twose, and S. Swaroop Vedula. Swaroop Vedula and Peter Doshi contributed to the design of the MUDS study and to writing the grant application. Terrie Cowley, Gillian Gresham, James Heyward, Diana Pham, and Elizabeth Tolbert contributed to drafting and finalizing the data extraction forms. Lori Rosman and Claire Taylor designed and ran the electronic searches. Gillian Gresham, James Heyward, Susan Hutfless, and Swaroop Vedula screened studies for inclusion. Lorenzo Bertizzolo, Jeffrey Ehmsen, Gillian Gresham, James Heyward, Diana Pham, and Catalina Suarez-Cuervo extracted data.
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.