The Imperative to Share Clinical Study Reports: Recommendations from the Tamiflu Experience

Peter Doshi and colleagues describe their experience trying and failing to access clinical study reports from the manufacturer of Tamiflu and challenge industry to defend their current position of RCT data secrecy

Retrospective harm benefit analysis of pre-clinical animal research for six treatment interventions

The harm benefit analysis (HBA) is the cornerstone of animal research regulation and is considered to be a key ethical safeguard for animals. The HBA involves weighing the anticipated benefits of animal research against its predicted harms to animals but there are doubts about how objective and accountable this process is.i. To explore the harms to animals involved in pre-clinical animal studies and to assess these against the benefits for humans accruing from these studies; ii. To test the feasibility of conducting this type of retrospective HBA.Data on harms were systematically extracted from a sample of pre-clinical animal studies whose clinical relevance had already been investigated by comparing systematic reviews of the animal studies with systematic reviews of human studies for the same interventions (antifibrinolytics for haemorrhage, bisphosphonates for osteoporosis, corticosteroids for brain injury, Tirilazad for stroke, antenatal corticosteroids for neonatal respiratory distress and thrombolytics for stroke). Clinical relevance was also explored in terms of current clinical practice. Harms were categorised for severity using an expert panel. The quality of the research and its impact were considered. Bateson's Cube was used to conduct the HBA.The most common assessment of animal harms by the expert panel was 'severe'. Reported use of analgesia was rare and some animals (including most neonates) endured significant procedures with no, or only light, anaesthesia reported. Some animals suffered iatrogenic harms. Many were kept alive for long periods post-experimentally but only 1% of studies reported post-operative care. A third of studies reported that some animals died prior to endpoints. All the studies were of poor quality. Having weighed the actual harms to animals against the actual clinical benefits accruing from these studies, and taking into account the quality of the research and its impact, less than 7% of the studies were permissible according to Bateson's Cube: only the moderate bisphosphonate studies appeared to minimise harms to animals whilst being associated with benefit for humans.This is the first time the accountability of the HBA has been systematically explored across a range of pre-clinical animal studies. The regulatory systems in place when these studies were conducted failed to safeguard animals from severe suffering or to ensure that only beneficial, scientifically rigorous research was conducted. Our findings indicate a pressing need to: i. review regulations, particularly those that permit animals to suffer severe harms; ii. reform the processes of prospectively assessing pre-clinical animal studies to make them fit for purpose; and iii. systematically evaluate the benefits of pre-clinical animal research to permit a more realistic assessment of its likely future benefits

A User's Guide to the NINDS rt-PA Stroke Trial Database

Robert Dachs and colleagues describe the process for researchers to acquire and decipher the dataset from the original NINDS rt-PA trial

Back to thiazide-diuretics for hypertension: reflections after a decade of irrational prescribing

BACKGROUND: Whether newer antihypertensive drugs, such as calcium channel blockers, angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors and α blockers are more effective than thiazides and β blockers in preventing coronary disease, has been debated for years. DISCUSSION: Recently several trials addressing this issue have been finalised, and they provide a convincing answer: the newer drugs are no better than the older ones. In the largest trial to date (ALLHAT), thiazide-type diuretic was found to offer advantages over newer drugs. The medical community should now be capable of reaching consensus, and recommend thiazides as the first line therapy for the treatment of hypertension. Prescribing physicians, cardiologists, drug companies and health authorities are all partly responsible for the years of irrational prescribing that we have witnessed. SUMMARY: All stakeholders should now contribute in order to achieve what is clearly in the public's interest: implementing the use of thiazides in clinical practice

A New Drug–Drug Interaction Between Hydroxychloroquine and Metformin? A Signal Detection Study

Introduction Hydroxychloroquine was recently promoted in patients infected with COVID-19 infection. A recent experimental study has suggested an increased toxicity of hydroxychloroquine in association with metformin in mice. Objective The present study was undertaken to investigate the reality of this putative drug–drug interaction between hydroxychloroquine and metformin using pharmacovigilance data. Methods Using VigiBase®, the WHO pharmacovigilance database, we performed a disproportionality analysis (case/non-case study). Cases were reports of fatal outcomes with the drugs of interest and non-cases were all other reports for these drugs registered between 1 January 2000 and 31 December 2019. Data with hydroxychloroquine (or metformin) alone were compared with the association hydroxychloroquine + metformin. Results are reported as ROR (reporting odds ratio) with their 95% confidence interval. Results Of the 10,771 Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSR) involving hydroxychloroquine, 52 were recorded as ‘fatal outcomes’. In comparison with hydroxychloroquine alone, hydroxychloroquine + metformin was associated with an ROR value of 57.7 (23.9–139.3). In comparison with metformin alone, hydroxychloroquine + metformin was associated with an ROR value of 6.0 (2.6–13.8). Conclusion Our study identified a signal for the association hydroxychloroquine + metformin that appears to be more at risk of fatal outcomes (particularly by completed suicides) than one of the two drugs when given alone

Ethics, economics and the regulation and adoption of new medical devices: case studies in pelvic floor surgery

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Concern has been growing in the academic literature and popular media about the licensing, introduction and adoption of surgical devices before full effectiveness and safety evidence is available to inform clinical practice. Our research will seek empirical survey evidence about the roles, responsibilities, and information and policy needs of the key stakeholders in the introduction into clinical practice of new surgical devices for pelvic floor surgery, in terms of the underlying ethical principals involved in the economic decision-making process, using the example of pelvic floor procedures.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>Our study involves three linked case studies using, as examples, selected pelvic floor surgery devices representing Health Canada device safety risk classes: low, medium and high risk. Data collection will focus on stakeholder roles and responsibilities, information and policy needs, and perceptions of those of other key stakeholders, in seeking and using evidence about new surgical devices when licensing and adopting them into practice. For each class of device, interviews will be used to seek the opinions of stakeholders. The following stakeholders and ethical and economic principles provide the theoretical framework for the study:</p> <p indent="1"><b>Stakeholders </b>- federal regulatory body, device manufacturers, clinicians, patients, health care institutions, provincial health departments, and professional societies. Clinical settings in two centres (in different provinces) will be included.</p> <p indent="1"><b>Ethics </b>- beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, justice.</p> <p indent="1"><b>Economics </b>- scarcity of resources, choices, opportunity costs.</p> <p>For each class of device, responses will be analysed to compare and contrast between stakeholders. Applied ethics and economic theory, analysis and critical interpretation will be used to further illuminate the case study material.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The significance of our research in this new area of ethics will lie in providing recommendations for regulatory bodies, device manufacturers, clinicians, health care institutions, policy makers and professional societies, to ensure surgical patients receive sufficient information before providing consent for pelvic floor surgery. In addition, we shall provide a wealth of information for future study in other areas of surgery and clinical management, and provide suggestions for changes to health policy.</p