Skip to main content
Erschienen in: Drug Safety 2/2002

01.02.2002 | Current Opinion

Improving Safety Reporting from Randomised Trials

verfasst von: John P.A. Ioannidis, Dr Joseph Lau

Erschienen in: Drug Safety | Ausgabe 2/2002

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Randomised clinical trials offer a unique opportunity for capturing safety information under a controlled setting that minimises biases in the comparison of different therapeutic options. Nevertheless, empirical evidence across diverse medical fields suggests that the reporting of safety information in clinical trials is largely neglected and receives less attention compared with efficacy outcomes. An analysis of 192 randomised trials has shown that reasons for withdrawals due to toxicity were specified per study arm in only 46% of the trial reports. Adequate reporting of clinical adverse effects and laboratory-determined toxicity occurred in only 39 and 29% of the trials, respectively, even with lenient definitions of what constitutes adequate reporting. The use of standardised scales for adverse effects is a prerequisite for improved reporting on safety in randomised trials. Safety data need to be collected and analysed in a systematic fashion and active surveillance for toxicity during the conduct of a randomised trial is preferable to passive surveillance. Standardised reporting of safety data does not necessarily require extensive space to accomplish. It is essential to provide numerical data per study arm on each type of adverse effect along with a categorisation of the severity of the adverse effects with an emphasis on severe and life-threatening reactions. The severity grading must be referred to well-known standardised scales and new scales need to be carefully defined. Information on withdrawals due to toxicity is also important to report, along with the specific reasons leading to discontinuation. Tabulation of information may be helpful and rare or not previously reported adverse effects should be described in detail. The availability of newer options such as electronic publication, publication of raw databases, large database research, meta-analytic approaches, and prospective registration of clinical trials and of their databases may further improve the safety insights we can gain from randomised clinical trials.
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Glasziou P, Irwig LM. An evidence-based approach to individualizing treatment. BMJ 1995; 311: 1356–9PubMedCrossRef Glasziou P, Irwig LM. An evidence-based approach to individualizing treatment. BMJ 1995; 311: 1356–9PubMedCrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Ziegler DK, Mosier MC, Buenaver M, et al. How much information about adverse effects of medications do patients want from physicians? Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 706–13PubMedCrossRef Ziegler DK, Mosier MC, Buenaver M, et al. How much information about adverse effects of medications do patients want from physicians? Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 706–13PubMedCrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Ioannidis JPA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG. Reporting of safety data from randomised trials. Lancet 1998; 352: 1752–3PubMedCrossRef Ioannidis JPA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG. Reporting of safety data from randomised trials. Lancet 1998; 352: 1752–3PubMedCrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Ioannidis JPA, Lau J. Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: an evaluation of 7 medical areas. JAMA 2001; 285: 437–43PubMedCrossRef Ioannidis JPA, Lau J. Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: an evaluation of 7 medical areas. JAMA 2001; 285: 437–43PubMedCrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Edwards JE, McQuay HJ, Moore AR, et al. Reporting of adverse effects in clinical trials should be improved: lessons from postoperative pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 1999; 18: 427–37PubMedCrossRef Edwards JE, McQuay HJ, Moore AR, et al. Reporting of adverse effects in clinical trials should be improved: lessons from postoperative pain. J Pain Symptom Manage 1999; 18: 427–37PubMedCrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet 1998; 351: 123–7PubMedCrossRef Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Summing up evidence: one answer is not always enough. Lancet 1998; 351: 123–7PubMedCrossRef
7.
Zurück zum Zitat Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 820–6PubMed Lau J, Ioannidis JP, Schmid CH. Quantitative synthesis in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med 1997; 127: 820–6PubMed
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Chalmers TC, Berrier J, Hewitt P, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials as a method of estimating rare complications of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1988; 2Suppl. 1: 9–26PubMed Chalmers TC, Berrier J, Hewitt P, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials as a method of estimating rare complications of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug therapy. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1988; 2Suppl. 1: 9–26PubMed
9.
Zurück zum Zitat Mehta SR, Eikelboom JW, Yusuf S. Risk of intracranial haemorrhage with bolus versus infusion thrombolytic therapy: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2000; 356: 449–54PubMedCrossRef Mehta SR, Eikelboom JW, Yusuf S. Risk of intracranial haemorrhage with bolus versus infusion thrombolytic therapy: a meta-analysis. Lancet 2000; 356: 449–54PubMedCrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Schoenfeld P. Gastrointestinal safety profile of meloxicam: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Am J Med 1999; 107: 48S–54SPubMedCrossRef Schoenfeld P. Gastrointestinal safety profile of meloxicam: a meta-analysis and systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Am J Med 1999; 107: 48S–54SPubMedCrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Shah MB, Martin JE, Schroeder TJ, et al. The evaluation of the safety and tolerability of two formulations of cyclosporine: neural and sandimmune. A meta-analysis. Transplantation. 1999; 67: 1411–7PubMedCrossRef Shah MB, Martin JE, Schroeder TJ, et al. The evaluation of the safety and tolerability of two formulations of cyclosporine: neural and sandimmune. A meta-analysis. Transplantation. 1999; 67: 1411–7PubMedCrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Stason WB, Schmid CH, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Safety of nifedipine in angina pectoris: a meta-analysis. Hypertension 1999; 33: 24–31PubMedCrossRef Stason WB, Schmid CH, Niedzwiecki D, et al. Safety of nifedipine in angina pectoris: a meta-analysis. Hypertension 1999; 33: 24–31PubMedCrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Eikelboom JW, Mehta SR, Pogue J, et al. Safety outcomes in meta-analyses of phase 2 vs phase 3 randomized trials: intracranial hemorrhage in trials of bolus thrombolytic therapy. JAMA 2001; 285: 444–50PubMedCrossRef Eikelboom JW, Mehta SR, Pogue J, et al. Safety outcomes in meta-analyses of phase 2 vs phase 3 randomized trials: intracranial hemorrhage in trials of bolus thrombolytic therapy. JAMA 2001; 285: 444–50PubMedCrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Ernst E, Pittler MH. Systematic reviews neglect safety issues. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 125–6PubMedCrossRef Ernst E, Pittler MH. Systematic reviews neglect safety issues. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 125–6PubMedCrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Li wan Po A, Herxheimer A, Poolsup N, et al. How do Cochrane reviewers address adverse effects of drug therapy? In: Abstracts of the 8th International Cochrane Colloquium: 2000 Oct 25-29: Capetown. Capetown: International Cochrane Collaboration, 2000 Li wan Po A, Herxheimer A, Poolsup N, et al. How do Cochrane reviewers address adverse effects of drug therapy? In: Abstracts of the 8th International Cochrane Colloquium: 2000 Oct 25-29: Capetown. Capetown: International Cochrane Collaboration, 2000
17.
Zurück zum Zitat World Health Organization (WHO). Cancer treatment: WHO recommendations for grading of acute and subacute toxicity. Cancer 1981; 47: 207–14 World Health Organization (WHO). Cancer treatment: WHO recommendations for grading of acute and subacute toxicity. Cancer 1981; 47: 207–14
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Sanders C, Egger M, Donovan J, et al. Reporting on quality of life in randomized controlled trials. BMJ 1998; 317: 1191–4PubMedCrossRef Sanders C, Egger M, Donovan J, et al. Reporting on quality of life in randomized controlled trials. BMJ 1998; 317: 1191–4PubMedCrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Peloso PM, Wright JG, Bombardier C. A critical appraisal of toxicity indexes in rheumatology. J Rheumatol 1995; 22: 989–94PubMed Peloso PM, Wright JG, Bombardier C. A critical appraisal of toxicity indexes in rheumatology. J Rheumatol 1995; 22: 989–94PubMed
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Thornley B, Adams C. Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years. BMJ 1998; 317: 1181–4PubMedCrossRef Thornley B, Adams C. Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years. BMJ 1998; 317: 1181–4PubMedCrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Stephens MD, Routledge PA, Talbot JCC, editors. Detection of new adverse drug reactions. 4th ed. London: Grove’s Dictionaries Inc., 1998 Stephens MD, Routledge PA, Talbot JCC, editors. Detection of new adverse drug reactions. 4th ed. London: Grove’s Dictionaries Inc., 1998
22.
Zurück zum Zitat Stephens MD. The diagnosis of adverse medical events associated with drug treatment. Adverse Drug React Acute Poisoning Rev 1987; 6: 1–35PubMed Stephens MD. The diagnosis of adverse medical events associated with drug treatment. Adverse Drug React Acute Poisoning Rev 1987; 6: 1–35PubMed
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Corso DM, Pucino F, DeLeo JM, et al. Development of a questionnaire for detecting potential adverse drug reactions. Ann Pharmacother 1992; 26: 890–6PubMed Corso DM, Pucino F, DeLeo JM, et al. Development of a questionnaire for detecting potential adverse drug reactions. Ann Pharmacother 1992; 26: 890–6PubMed
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Chuang-Stein C. Laboratory data in clinical trials: a statistician’s perspective. Control Clin Trials 1998; 19: 167–77PubMedCrossRef Chuang-Stein C. Laboratory data in clinical trials: a statistician’s perspective. Control Clin Trials 1998; 19: 167–77PubMedCrossRef
25.
Zurück zum Zitat Rochon PA, Binns MA, Litner JA, et al. Are randomized control trial outcomes influenced by the inclusion of a placebo group? A systematic review of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug trials for arthritis treatment. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 113–22PubMedCrossRef Rochon PA, Binns MA, Litner JA, et al. Are randomized control trial outcomes influenced by the inclusion of a placebo group? A systematic review of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug trials for arthritis treatment. J Clin Epidemiol 1999; 52: 113–22PubMedCrossRef
26.
Zurück zum Zitat Hayashi K, Walker AM. Japanese and American reports of randomized trials: differences in the reporting of adverse effects. Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 99–110PubMedCrossRef Hayashi K, Walker AM. Japanese and American reports of randomized trials: differences in the reporting of adverse effects. Control Clin Trials 1996; 17: 99–110PubMedCrossRef
27.
Zurück zum Zitat Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996; 276: 637–9PubMedCrossRef Begg C, Cho M, Eastwood S, et al. Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials. The CONSORT statement. JAMA 1996; 276: 637–9PubMedCrossRef
28.
Zurück zum Zitat Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2001; 1(1): 2PubMedCrossRef Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel group randomized trials. BMC Med Res Methodol 2001; 1(1): 2PubMedCrossRef
29.
Zurück zum Zitat Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, et al. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001; 357: 1191–4PubMedCrossRef Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman DG, et al. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet 2001; 357: 1191–4PubMedCrossRef
30.
Zurück zum Zitat Shapiro SH, Weijer C, Freedman B. Reporting the study populations of clinical trials. Clear transmission or static on the line? J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 973–9PubMedCrossRef Shapiro SH, Weijer C, Freedman B. Reporting the study populations of clinical trials. Clear transmission or static on the line? J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53: 973–9PubMedCrossRef
32.
Zurück zum Zitat Hutchon DJ. Publishing raw data and real time statistical analyses on e-journals. BMJ 2001; 322: 530PubMedCrossRef Hutchon DJ. Publishing raw data and real time statistical analyses on e-journals. BMJ 2001; 322: 530PubMedCrossRef
33.
Zurück zum Zitat Easterbrook P, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337: 867–72PubMedCrossRef Easterbrook P, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, Matthews DR. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet 1991; 337: 867–72PubMedCrossRef
34.
Zurück zum Zitat Ioannidis JPA. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA 1998, 279: 281–6PubMedCrossRef Ioannidis JPA. Effect of the statistical significance of results on the time to completion and publication of randomized efficacy trials. JAMA 1998, 279: 281–6PubMedCrossRef
36.
Zurück zum Zitat Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1986; 4: 1529–41PubMed Simes RJ. Publication bias: the case for an international registry of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 1986; 4: 1529–41PubMed
37.
Zurück zum Zitat McCray AT, Ide NC. Design and implementation of a national clinical trials registry. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2000; 7: 313–23PubMedCrossRef McCray AT, Ide NC. Design and implementation of a national clinical trials registry. J Am Med Inform Assoc 2000; 7: 313–23PubMedCrossRef
38.
Zurück zum Zitat Irl C, Hasford J. Assessing the safety of drugs in pregnancy: the role of prospective cohort studies. Drug Saf 2000; 22: 169–77PubMedCrossRef Irl C, Hasford J. Assessing the safety of drugs in pregnancy: the role of prospective cohort studies. Drug Saf 2000; 22: 169–77PubMedCrossRef
39.
Zurück zum Zitat Cohen JS. Dose discrepancies between the Physicians’ Desk Reference and the medical literature, and their possible role in the high incidence of dose-related adverse drug events. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 957–64PubMedCrossRef Cohen JS. Dose discrepancies between the Physicians’ Desk Reference and the medical literature, and their possible role in the high incidence of dose-related adverse drug events. Arch Intern Med 2001; 161: 957–64PubMedCrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Improving Safety Reporting from Randomised Trials
verfasst von
John P.A. Ioannidis
Dr Joseph Lau
Publikationsdatum
01.02.2002
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
Drug Safety / Ausgabe 2/2002
Print ISSN: 0114-5916
Elektronische ISSN: 1179-1942
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00002018-200225020-00002

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2002

Drug Safety 2/2002 Zur Ausgabe