The Paroxetine 352 Bipolar Study Revisited: Deconstruction of Corporate and Academic Misconduct

Medical ghostwriting is the practice in which pharmaceutical companies engage an outside writer to draft a manuscript submitted for publication in the names of “honorary authors,” typically academic key opinion leaders. Using newly-posted documents from paroxetine litigation, we show how the use of ghostwriters and key opinion leaders contributed to the publication of a medical journal article containing manipulated outcome data to favor the proprietary medication. The article was ghostwritten and managed by SmithKline Beecham, now GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Scientific Therapeutics Information, Inc. without acknowledging their contribution in the published article. The named authors with financial ties to GSK, had little or no direct involvement in the paroxetine 352 bipolar trial results and most had not reviewed any of the manuscript drafts. The manuscript was originally rejected by peer review; however, its ultimate acceptance to the American Journal of Psychiatry was facilitated by the journal editor who also had financial ties to GSK. Thus, GSK was able to take an under-powered and non-informative trial with negative results and present it as a positive marketing vehicle for off-label promotion of paroxetine for bipolar depression. In addition to the commercial spin of paroxetine efficacy, important protocol-designated safety data were unreported that may have shown paroxetine to produce potentially harmful adverse events

The Ethics of Placebo-controlled Trials: Methodological Justifications

The use of placebo controls in clinical trials remains controversial. Ethical analysis and international ethical guidance permit the use of placebo controls in randomized trials when scientifically indicated in four cases: (1) when there is no proven effective treatment for the condition under study; (2) when withholding treatment poses negligible risks to participants; (3) when there are compelling methodological reasons for using placebo, and withholding treatment does not pose a risk of serious harm to participants; and, more controversially, (4) when there are compelling methodological reasons for using placebo, and the research is intended to develop interventions that can be implemented in the population from which trial participants are drawn, and the trial does not require participants to forgo treatment they would otherwise receive. The concept of methodological reasons is essential to assessing the ethics of placebo controls in these controversial last two cases. This article sets out key considerations relevant to considering whether methodological reasons for a placebo control are compelling

Non-adherence to ivabradine and placebo and outcomes in chronic heart failure: an analysis from SHIFT

Aims In heart failure, non-adherence increases events; in turn, the effect of hospitalization on adherence is incompletely understood. We explored the relationship of non-adherence to outcomes, hospitalizations with non-adherence, and the influence of non-adherence on treatment effects of heart rate lowering with ivabradine. Methods and results In the randomized, controlled Systolic Heart failure treatment with the If-inhibitor ivabradine Trial (SHIFT), we studied the effect of non-adherence (n = 1287) compared with adherence (n = 5204) on cardiovascular outcomes. After adjustment, non-adherence was associated with the primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization (hazard ratio 3.47, 95% confidence interval 2.91–4.13, P < 0.0001). No interaction with the treatment groups of placebo or ivabradine (P for interaction 0.54) occurred. Similar results for cardiovascular death and heart failure hospitalization, as well as for cardiovascular hospitalization, heart failure death, and total death were observed. The effect of ivabradine was maintained in patients being adherent or becoming non-adherent during the trial (P for interaction = 0.54). Patients with a previous hospitalization were more likely to become non-adherent thereafter. Conclusions Non-adherence identifies a group at particularly high cardiovascular event risk independent of treatment allocation. Non-adherent patients in the ivabradine group maintain a treatment benefit. Patients with previous hospitalizations are more likely to become non-adherent and represent a group of particularly high-risk patients in whom special attention to stimulate adherence may be valuable

Comprehensive systematic review summary: Treatment of tics in people with Tourette syndrome and chronic tic disorders

Objective To systematically evaluate the efficacy of treatments for tics and the risks associated with their use. Methods This project followed the methodologies outlined in the 2011 edition of the American Academy of Neurology\u27s guideline development process manual. We included systematic reviews and randomized controlled trials on the treatment of tics that included at least 20 participants (10 participants if a crossover trial), except for neurostimulation trials, for which no minimum sample size was required. To obtain additional information on drug safety, we included cohort studies or case series that specifically evaluated adverse drug effects in individuals with tics. Results There was high confidence that the Comprehensive Behavioral Intervention for Tics was more likely than psychoeducation and supportive therapy to reduce tics. There was moderate confidence that haloperidol, risperidone, aripiprazole, tiapride, clonidine, onabotulinumtoxinA injections, 5-ling granule, Ningdong granule, and deep brain stimulation of the globus pallidus were probably more likely than placebo to reduce tics. There was low confidence that pimozide, ziprasidone, metoclopramide, guanfacine, topiramate, and tetrahydrocannabinol were possibly more likely than placebo to reduce tics. Evidence of harm associated with various treatments was also demonstrated, including weight gain, drug-induced movement disorders, elevated prolactin levels, sedation, and effects on heart rate, blood pressure, and ECGs. Conclusions There is evidence to support the efficacy of various medical, behavioral, and neurostimulation interventions for the treatment of tics. Both the efficacy and harms associated with interventions must be considered in making treatment recommendations

Controlled trial of lovastatin combined with an open-label treatment of a parent-implemented language intervention in youth with fragile X syndrome.

BackgroundThe purpose of this study was to conduct a 20-week controlled trial of lovastatin (10 to 40 mg/day) in youth with fragile X syndrome (FXS) ages 10 to 17 years, combined with an open-label treatment of a parent-implemented language intervention (PILI), delivered via distance video teleconferencing to both treatment groups, lovastatin and placebo.MethodA randomized, double-blind trial was conducted at one site in the Sacramento, California, metropolitan area. Fourteen participants were assigned to the lovastatin group; two participants terminated early from the study. Sixteen participants were assigned to the placebo group. Lovastatin or placebo was administered orally in a capsule form, starting at 10 mg and increasing weekly or as tolerated by 10 mg increments, up to a maximum dose of 40 mg daily. A PILI was delivered to both groups for 12 weeks, with 4 activities per week, through video teleconferencing by an American Speech-Language Association-certified Speech-Language Pathologist, in collaboration with a Board-Certified Behavior Analyst. Parents were taught to use a set of language facilitation strategies while interacting with their children during a shared storytelling activity. The main outcome measures included absolute change from baseline to final visit in the means for youth total number of story-related utterances, youth number of different word roots, and parent total number of story-related utterances.ResultsSignificant increases in all primary outcome measures were observed in both treatment groups. Significant improvements were also observed in parent reports of the severity of spoken language and social impairments in both treatment groups. In all cases, the amount of change observed did not differ across the two treatment groups. Although gains in parental use of the PILI-targeted intervention strategies were observed in both treatment groups, parental use of the PILI strategies was correlated with youth gains in the placebo group and not in the lovastatin group.ConclusionParticipants in both groups demonstrated significant changes in the primary outcome measures. The magnitude of change observed across the two groups was comparable, providing additional support for the efficacy of the use of PILI in youth with FXS.Trial registrationUS National Institutes of Health (ClinicalTrials.gov), NCT02642653. Registered 12/30/2015

Niacin therapy and the risk of new-onset diabetes: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective Previous studies have suggested that niacin treatment raises glucose levels in patients with diabetes and may increase the risk of developing diabetes. We undertook a meta-analysis of published and unpublished data from randomised trials to confirm whether an association exists between niacin and new-onset diabetes. Methods We searched Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from 1975 to 2014, for randomised controlled trials of niacin primarily designed to assess its effects on cardiovascular endpoints and cardiovascular surrogate markers. We included trials with ≥50 non-diabetic participants and average follow-up of ≥24 weeks. Published data were tabulated and unpublished data sought from investigators. We calculated risk ratios (RR) for new-onset diabetes with random-effects meta-analysis. Heterogeneity between trials was assessed using the I2 statistic. Results In 11 trials with 26 340 non-diabetic participants, 1371 (725/13 121 assigned niacin; 646/13 219 assigned control) were diagnosed with diabetes during a weighted mean follow-up of 3.6 years. Niacin therapy was associated with a RR of 1.34 (95% CIs 1.21 to 1.49) for new-onset diabetes, with limited heterogeneity between trials (I2=0.0%, p=0.87). This equates to one additional case of diabetes per 43 (95% CI 30 to 70) initially non-diabetic individuals who are treated with niacin for 5 years. Results were consistent regardless of whether participants received background statin therapy (p for interaction=0.88) or combined therapy with laropiprant (p for interaction=0.52). Conclusions Niacin therapy is associated with a moderately increased risk of developing diabetes regardless of background statin or combination laropiprant therapy

Identifying placebo responders and predictors of response in osteoarthritis: a protocol for individual patient data meta-analysis

Background: The management of osteoarthritis (OA) is unsatisfactory, as most treatments are not clinically effective over placebo and most drugs have considerable side effects. On average, 75 % of the analgesic effect from OA treatments in clinical trials can be attributed to a placebo response, and this response varies greatly from patient to patient. This individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis aims to identify placebo responders and the potential determinants of the placebo response in OA. Methods: This study is undertaken in conjunction with the OA Trial Bank, an ongoing international consortium aiming to collect IPD from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for all treatments of OA. RCTs for each treatment of OA have been systematically searched for, and authors of the relevant trials have been contacted to request the IPD. We will use the IPD of placebo-controlled RCTs held by the OA Trial Bank for this project. The IPD in placebo groups will be used to investigate the placebo response according to the minimum clinically important difference (MCID) threshold (e.g. 20 % pain reduction). Responders to placebo will be compared with non-responders to identify predictors of response. The quality of the trials will be assessed and potential determinants will be examined using multilevel logistic regression analyses. Discussion: This study explores the varying magnitude of the placebo response and the proportion of participants that experience a clinically important placebo effect in OA RCTs. Potential determinants of the placebo response will also be investigated. These determinants may be useful for future studies as it may allow participants to be stratified into groups based on their likely response to placebo. The results of this study may also be useful for pharmaceutical companies, who could improve the design of their studies in order to separate the specific treatment from the non-specific contextual (i.e. placebo) effects