新冠肺炎药物临床试验不良事件报告质量:系统评价。

BMJ medicine Pub Date : 2023-09-21 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000352
Karima Madi, Clara Flumian, Pascale Olivier, Agnès Sommet, François Montastruc
{"title":"新冠肺炎药物临床试验不良事件报告质量:系统评价。","authors":"Karima Madi, Clara Flumian, Pascale Olivier, Agnès Sommet, François Montastruc","doi":"10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000352","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective To assess the quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) harms extension and according to clinical trial design, and to examine reporting of serious adverse events in drug trials published on PubMed versus clinical trial summaries on ClinicalTrials.gov. Design Systematic review. Data sources PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov registries were searched from 1 December 2019 to 17 February 2022. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19 disease in participants of all ages with suspected, probable, or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Clinical trials were screened on title, abstract, and text by two authors independently. Only articles published in French and English were selected. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to assess risk of bias. Results The search strategy identified 1962 randomised clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19, published in the PubMed database; 1906 articles were excluded after screening and 56 clinical trials were included in the review. Among the 56 clinical trials, no study had a high score for quality of reporting of adverse events, 60.7% had a moderate score, 33.9% had a low score, and 5.4% had a very low score. All clinical trials with a very low score for quality of reporting of adverse events were randomised open label trials. For reporting of serious adverse events, journal articles published on PubMed under-reported 51% of serious adverse events compared with clinical trial summaries published on ClinicalTrials.gov. Conclusions In one in three published clinical trials on covid-19 drugs, the quality of reporting of adverse events was low or very low. Differences were found in the number of serious adverse events reported in journal articles versus clinical trial summaries. During the covid-19 pandemic, risk assessment of drugs in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs did not comply with good practice recommendations for publication of results. Systematic review registration European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) EUPAS45959.","PeriodicalId":72433,"journal":{"name":"BMJ medicine","volume":"2 1","pages":"e000352"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/48/02/bmjmed-2022-000352.PMC10537984.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs: systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Karima Madi, Clara Flumian, Pascale Olivier, Agnès Sommet, François Montastruc\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000352\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective To assess the quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) harms extension and according to clinical trial design, and to examine reporting of serious adverse events in drug trials published on PubMed versus clinical trial summaries on ClinicalTrials.gov. Design Systematic review. Data sources PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov registries were searched from 1 December 2019 to 17 February 2022. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19 disease in participants of all ages with suspected, probable, or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Clinical trials were screened on title, abstract, and text by two authors independently. Only articles published in French and English were selected. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to assess risk of bias. Results The search strategy identified 1962 randomised clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19, published in the PubMed database; 1906 articles were excluded after screening and 56 clinical trials were included in the review. Among the 56 clinical trials, no study had a high score for quality of reporting of adverse events, 60.7% had a moderate score, 33.9% had a low score, and 5.4% had a very low score. All clinical trials with a very low score for quality of reporting of adverse events were randomised open label trials. For reporting of serious adverse events, journal articles published on PubMed under-reported 51% of serious adverse events compared with clinical trial summaries published on ClinicalTrials.gov. Conclusions In one in three published clinical trials on covid-19 drugs, the quality of reporting of adverse events was low or very low. Differences were found in the number of serious adverse events reported in journal articles versus clinical trial summaries. During the covid-19 pandemic, risk assessment of drugs in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs did not comply with good practice recommendations for publication of results. Systematic review registration European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) EUPAS45959.\",\"PeriodicalId\":72433,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMJ medicine\",\"volume\":\"2 1\",\"pages\":\"e000352\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/48/02/bmjmed-2022-000352.PMC10537984.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMJ medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000352\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMJ medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjmed-2022-000352","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:根据CONSORT(报告试验综合标准)危害扩展和临床试验设计,评估新冠肺炎药物临床试验中不良事件报告的质量,并检查PubMed上发表的药物试验中严重不良事件报告与ClinicalTrials.gov上的临床试验摘要。设计:系统回顾。数据来源:从2019年12月1日至2022年2月17日,检索了PubMed和ClinicalTrials.gov注册中心。选择研究的资格标准:包括在所有年龄段疑似、可能或确诊感染SARS-CoV-2的参与者中评估用于治疗新冠肺炎疾病的药物疗效和安全性的随机临床试验。两位作者分别对临床试验的标题、摘要和正文进行了筛选。只选择了以法语和英语发表的文章。随机试验的Cochrane偏倚风险工具(RoB2)用于评估偏倚风险。结果:检索策略确定了1962项随机临床试验,这些试验评估了用于治疗新冠肺炎的药物的疗效和安全性,发表在PubMed数据库中;1906篇文章在筛选后被排除在外,56项临床试验被纳入综述。在56项临床试验中,没有一项研究的不良事件报告质量得分较高,60.7%的研究得分中等,33.9%的研究得分较低,5.4%的研究得分极低。所有不良事件报告质量得分非常低的临床试验均为随机开放标签试验。在严重不良事件的报告方面,PubMed上发表的期刊文章与ClinicalTrials.gov上发布的临床试验摘要相比,报告不足51%的严重不良事件。结论:在三分之一已发表的新冠肺炎药物临床试验中,不良事件报告质量较低或非常低。期刊文章与临床试验总结中报告的严重不良事件数量存在差异。在新冠肺炎大流行期间,新冠肺炎药物临床试验中的药物风险评估不符合公布结果的良好做法建议。系统审查注册:欧洲药物流行病学和药物警戒中心网络(ENCePP)EUPAS45959。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

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
Quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs: systematic review.
Objective To assess the quality of reporting of adverse events in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs based on the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) harms extension and according to clinical trial design, and to examine reporting of serious adverse events in drug trials published on PubMed versus clinical trial summaries on ClinicalTrials.gov. Design Systematic review. Data sources PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov registries were searched from 1 December 2019 to 17 February 2022. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised clinical trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19 disease in participants of all ages with suspected, probable, or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection were included. Clinical trials were screened on title, abstract, and text by two authors independently. Only articles published in French and English were selected. The Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2) was used to assess risk of bias. Results The search strategy identified 1962 randomised clinical trials assessing the efficacy and safety of drugs used to treat covid-19, published in the PubMed database; 1906 articles were excluded after screening and 56 clinical trials were included in the review. Among the 56 clinical trials, no study had a high score for quality of reporting of adverse events, 60.7% had a moderate score, 33.9% had a low score, and 5.4% had a very low score. All clinical trials with a very low score for quality of reporting of adverse events were randomised open label trials. For reporting of serious adverse events, journal articles published on PubMed under-reported 51% of serious adverse events compared with clinical trial summaries published on ClinicalTrials.gov. Conclusions In one in three published clinical trials on covid-19 drugs, the quality of reporting of adverse events was low or very low. Differences were found in the number of serious adverse events reported in journal articles versus clinical trial summaries. During the covid-19 pandemic, risk assessment of drugs in clinical trials of covid-19 drugs did not comply with good practice recommendations for publication of results. Systematic review registration European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance (ENCePP) EUPAS45959.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Long covid as a long term condition. Blood level of neurofilament light chain as a biomarker for neurological disorders. Vaccine effectiveness against mild and severe covid-19 in pregnant individuals and their infants in England: test negative case-control study. Caesarean section and risk of infection in offspring: systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies. Comparative effectiveness of monovalent XBB.1.5 containing covid-19 mRNA vaccines in Denmark, Finland, and Sweden: target trial emulation based on registry data.
×
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