Improving safety reporting from randomised trials

被引:63
作者
Ioannidis, JPA
Lau, J
机构
[1] Tufts Univ New England Med Ctr, Div Clin Care Res, Boston, MA 02111 USA
[2] Univ Ioannina, Sch Med, Dept Hyg & Epidemiol, Clin Trians & Evidence Based Med Unit, GR-45110 Ioannina, Greece
[3] Tufts Univ, Sch Med, Dept Med, Boston, MA 02111 USA
关键词
D O I
10.2165/00002018-200225020-00002
中图分类号
R1 [预防医学、卫生学];
学科分类号
1004 ; 120402 ;
摘要
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.
引用
收藏
页码:77 / 84
页数:8
相关论文
共 40 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 1998, DETECTION NEW ADVERS
[2]   Improving the quality of reporting of randomized controlled trials - The CONSORT statement [J].
Begg, C ;
Cho, M ;
Eastwood, S ;
Horton, R ;
Moher, D ;
Olkin, I ;
Pitkin, R ;
Rennie, D ;
Schulz, KF ;
Simel, D ;
Stroup, DF .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1996, 276 (08) :637-639
[3]   THE COCHRANE COLLABORATION - PREPARING, MAINTAINING, AND DISSEMINATING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS OF THE EFFECTS OF HEALTH-CARE [J].
BERO, L ;
RENNIE, D .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 1995, 274 (24) :1935-1938
[4]  
CHALMERS TC, 1988, ALIMENT PHARM THERAP, V2, P9
[5]   Laboratory data in clinical trials: A statistician's perspective [J].
Chuang-Stein, C .
CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS, 1998, 19 (02) :167-177
[6]   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 [J].
Cohen, JS .
ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2001, 161 (07) :957-964
[7]   DEVELOPMENT OF A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DETECTING POTENTIAL ADVERSE DRUG-REACTIONS [J].
CORSO, DM ;
PUCINO, F ;
DELEO, JM ;
CALIS, KA ;
GALLELLI, JF .
ANNALS OF PHARMACOTHERAPY, 1992, 26 (7-8) :890-896
[8]   PUBLICATION BIAS IN CLINICAL RESEARCH [J].
EASTERBROOK, PJ ;
BERLIN, JA ;
GOPALAN, R ;
MATTHEWS, DR .
LANCET, 1991, 337 (8746) :867-872
[9]   Reporting of adverse effects in clinical trials should be improved: Lessons from acute postoperative pain [J].
Edwards, JE ;
McQuay, HJ ;
Moore, RA ;
Collins, SL .
JOURNAL OF PAIN AND SYMPTOM MANAGEMENT, 1999, 18 (06) :427-437
[10]   Safety outcomes in meta-analyses of phase 2 vs phase 3 randomized trials - Intracranial hemorrhage in trials of bolus thrombolytic therapy [J].
Eikelboom, JW ;
Mehta, SR ;
Pogue, J ;
Yusuf, S .
JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2001, 285 (04) :444-450