鼓励标示外使用喹硫平的研究:系统性荟萃流行病学分析。

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Clinical Trials Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-01-29 DOI:10.1177/17407745231225470
Peter Grabitz, Lana Saksone, Susanne Gabriele Schorr, Johannes Schwietering, Merlin Bittlinger, Jonathan Kimmelman
{"title":"鼓励标示外使用喹硫平的研究:系统性荟萃流行病学分析。","authors":"Peter Grabitz, Lana Saksone, Susanne Gabriele Schorr, Johannes Schwietering, Merlin Bittlinger, Jonathan Kimmelman","doi":"10.1177/17407745231225470","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Researchers often conduct small studies on testing a drug's efficacy in off-label indications. If positive results from these exploratory studies are not followed up by larger, randomized, double-blinded trials, physicians cannot be sure of a drug's clinical value. This may lead to off-label prescriptions of ineffective treatments. We aim to describe the way clinical studies fostered off-label prescription of the antipsychotic drug quetiapine (Seroquel).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this systematic meta-epidemiological analysis, we searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO databases and included clinical studies testing quetiapine for unapproved indications between May 1995 and May 2022. We then assessed the frequency with which publications providing low-level evidence suggesting efficacy of quetiapine for off-label indications was not followed up by large, randomized and double-blinded trials within 5 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 176 published studies were identified that reported potential efficacy of quetiapine in at least 26 indications. Between 2000 and 2007, publication of exploratory studies suggesting promise for off-label indications rapidly outpaced publication of confirmatory trials. In the 24 indications with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up from the first positive exploratory study, 19 (79%) were not followed up with large confirmatory trials within 5 years. At least nine clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of quetiapine for seven off-label indications in which published confirmatory evidence is lacking.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Many small, post-approval studies suggested the promise of quetiapine for numerous off-label indications. These findings generally went unconfirmed in large, blinded, randomized trials years after first being published. The imbalance of exploratory and confirmatory studies likely encourages ineffective off-label treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":10685,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Trials","volume":" ","pages":"418-429"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Research encouraging off-label use of quetiapine: A systematic meta-epidemiological analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Peter Grabitz, Lana Saksone, Susanne Gabriele Schorr, Johannes Schwietering, Merlin Bittlinger, Jonathan Kimmelman\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/17407745231225470\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Researchers often conduct small studies on testing a drug's efficacy in off-label indications. If positive results from these exploratory studies are not followed up by larger, randomized, double-blinded trials, physicians cannot be sure of a drug's clinical value. This may lead to off-label prescriptions of ineffective treatments. We aim to describe the way clinical studies fostered off-label prescription of the antipsychotic drug quetiapine (Seroquel).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In this systematic meta-epidemiological analysis, we searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO databases and included clinical studies testing quetiapine for unapproved indications between May 1995 and May 2022. We then assessed the frequency with which publications providing low-level evidence suggesting efficacy of quetiapine for off-label indications was not followed up by large, randomized and double-blinded trials within 5 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 176 published studies were identified that reported potential efficacy of quetiapine in at least 26 indications. Between 2000 and 2007, publication of exploratory studies suggesting promise for off-label indications rapidly outpaced publication of confirmatory trials. In the 24 indications with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up from the first positive exploratory study, 19 (79%) were not followed up with large confirmatory trials within 5 years. At least nine clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of quetiapine for seven off-label indications in which published confirmatory evidence is lacking.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Many small, post-approval studies suggested the promise of quetiapine for numerous off-label indications. These findings generally went unconfirmed in large, blinded, randomized trials years after first being published. The imbalance of exploratory and confirmatory studies likely encourages ineffective off-label treatment.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10685,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Trials\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"418-429\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Trials\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745231225470\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/1/29 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745231225470","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:研究人员经常进行一些小规模研究,以测试药物在标签外适应症中的疗效。如果不对这些探索性研究的积极结果进行更大规模的随机双盲试验,医生就无法确定药物的临床价值。这可能会导致标示外处方无效治疗。我们旨在描述临床研究是如何促进抗精神病药物喹硫平(思瑞康)的标签外处方的:在这项系统性荟萃流行病学分析中,我们检索了 EMBASE、MEDLINE、Cochrane CENTRAL 和 PsycINFO 数据库,并纳入了 1995 年 5 月至 2022 年 5 月期间测试喹硫平用于未经批准适应症的临床研究。然后,我们评估了提供低水平证据表明喹硫平用于标示外适应症具有疗效的出版物在5年内未进行大型随机双盲实验的频率:结果:共发现176项已发表的研究报告了喹硫平在至少26个适应症中的潜在疗效。2000 年至 2007 年间,在标签外适应症方面有希望的探索性研究的发表速度迅速超过了确证试验的发表速度。在从第一项阳性探索性研究开始随访至少 5 年的 24 个适应症中,有 19 个(79%)在 5 年内没有进行大型确证试验。至少有9份临床实践指南建议在缺乏已发表确证证据的7个标示外适应症中使用喹硫平:结论:许多小型的批准后研究表明,喹硫平有望用于许多标示外适应症。这些研究结果在首次发表多年后,一般都没有在大型、盲法、随机试验中得到证实。探索性研究和确证性研究的不平衡很可能会助长无效的标示外治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Research encouraging off-label use of quetiapine: A systematic meta-epidemiological analysis.

Background: Researchers often conduct small studies on testing a drug's efficacy in off-label indications. If positive results from these exploratory studies are not followed up by larger, randomized, double-blinded trials, physicians cannot be sure of a drug's clinical value. This may lead to off-label prescriptions of ineffective treatments. We aim to describe the way clinical studies fostered off-label prescription of the antipsychotic drug quetiapine (Seroquel).

Methods: In this systematic meta-epidemiological analysis, we searched EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO databases and included clinical studies testing quetiapine for unapproved indications between May 1995 and May 2022. We then assessed the frequency with which publications providing low-level evidence suggesting efficacy of quetiapine for off-label indications was not followed up by large, randomized and double-blinded trials within 5 years.

Results: In total, 176 published studies were identified that reported potential efficacy of quetiapine in at least 26 indications. Between 2000 and 2007, publication of exploratory studies suggesting promise for off-label indications rapidly outpaced publication of confirmatory trials. In the 24 indications with a minimum of 5 years of follow-up from the first positive exploratory study, 19 (79%) were not followed up with large confirmatory trials within 5 years. At least nine clinical practice guidelines recommend the use of quetiapine for seven off-label indications in which published confirmatory evidence is lacking.

Conclusion: Many small, post-approval studies suggested the promise of quetiapine for numerous off-label indications. These findings generally went unconfirmed in large, blinded, randomized trials years after first being published. The imbalance of exploratory and confirmatory studies likely encourages ineffective off-label treatment.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Trials
Clinical Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Trials is dedicated to advancing knowledge on the design and conduct of clinical trials related research methodologies. Covering the design, conduct, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of key methodologies, the journal remains on the cusp of the latest topics, including ethics, regulation and policy impact.
期刊最新文献
Challenges in conducting efficacy trials for new COVID-19 vaccines in developed countries. Society for Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committee initiative website: Closing the gap. A comparison of computational algorithms for the Bayesian analysis of clinical trials. Comparison of Bayesian and frequentist monitoring boundaries motivated by the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial. Efficient designs for three-sequence stepped wedge trials with continuous recruitment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1