Search

Background: Little is known about how adverse events are summarised and reported in trials, as detailed information is usually considered confidential. We have acquired clinical study reports (CSRs) from the European Medicines Agency through the Freedom of Information Act. The CSRs describe the results of studies conducted as part of the application for marketing authorisation for the slimming pill orlistat. The purpose of this study was to study how adverse events were summarised and reported in study protocols, CSRs, and published papers of orlistat trials.Methods and Findings: We received the CSRs from seven randomised placebo controlled orlistat trials (4,225 participants) submitted by Roche. The CSRs consisted of 8,716 pages and included protocols. Two researchers independently extracted data on adverse events from protocols and CSRs. Corresponding published papers were identified on PubMed and adverse event data were extracted from this source as well. All three sources were compared. Individual adverse events from one trial were summed and compared to the totals in the summary report. None of the protocols or CSRs contained instructions for investigators on how to question participants about adverse events. In CSRs, gastrointestinal adverse events were only coded if the participant reported that they were "bothersome," a condition that was not specified in the protocol for two of the trials. Serious adverse events were assessed for relationship to the drug by the sponsor, and all adverse events were coded by the sponsor using a glossary that could be updated by the sponsor. The criteria for withdrawal due to adverse events were in one case related to efficacy (high fasting glucose led to withdrawal), which meant that one trial had more withdrawals due to adverse events in the placebo group. Finally, only between 3% and 33% of the total number of investigator-reported adverse events from the trials were reported in the publications because of post hoc filters, though six of seven papers stated that "all adverse events were recorded." For one trial, we identified an additional 1,318 adverse events that were not listed or mentioned in the CSR itself but could be identified through manually counting individual adverse events reported in an appendix. We discovered that the majority of patients had multiple episodes of the same adverse event that were only counted once, though this was not described in the CSRs. We also discovered that participants treated with orlistat experienced twice as many days with adverse events as participants treated with placebo (22.7 d versus 14.9 d, p-value < 0.0001, Student's t test). Furthermore, compared with the placebo group, adverse events in the orlistat group were more severe. None of this was stated in the CSR or in the published paper. Our analysis was restricted to one drug tested in the mid-1990s; our results might therefore not be applicable for newer drugs.Conclusions: In the orlistat trials, we identified important disparities in the reporting of adverse events between protocols, clinical study reports, and published papers. Reports of these trials seemed to have systematically understated adverse events. Based on these findings, systematic reviews of drugs might be improved by including protocols and CSRs in addition to published articles. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Globally, nearly 250 million children (43% of all children under 5 years of age) are at risk of compromised neurodevelopment due to poverty, stunting, and lack of stimulation. We tested the independent and combined effects of improved water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) and improved infant and young child feeding (IYCF) on early child development (ECD) among children enrolled in the Sanitation Hygiene Infant Nutrition Efficacy (SHINE) trial in rural Zimbabwe.Methods and Findings: SHINE was a cluster-randomized community-based 2×2 factorial trial. A total of 5,280 pregnant women were enrolled from 211 clusters (defined as the catchment area of 1-4 village health workers [VHWs] employed by the Zimbabwean Ministry of Health and Child Care). Clusters were randomly allocated to standard of care, IYCF (20 g of small-quantity lipid-based nutrient supplement per day from age 6 to 18 months plus complementary feeding counseling), WASH (ventilated improved pit latrine, handwashing stations, chlorine, liquid soap, and play yard), and WASH + IYCF. Primary outcomes were child length-for-age Z-score and hemoglobin concentration at 18 months of age. Children who completed the 18-month visit and turned 2 years (102-112 weeks) between March 1, 2016, and April 30, 2017, were eligible for the ECD substudy. We prespecified that primary inferences would be drawn from findings of children born to HIV-negative mothers; these results are presented in this paper. A total of 1,655 HIV-unexposed children (64% of those eligible) were recruited into the ECD substudy from 206 clusters and evaluated for ECD at 2 years of age using the Malawi Developmental Assessment Tool (MDAT) to assess gross motor, fine motor, language, and social skills; the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (CDI) to assess vocabulary and grammar; the A-not-B test to assess object permanence; and a self-control task. Outcomes were analyzed in the intention-to-treat population. For all ECD outcomes, there was not a statistical interaction between the IYCF and WASH interventions, so we estimated the effects of the interventions by comparing the 2 IYCF groups with the 2 non-IYCF groups and the 2 WASH groups with the 2 non-WASH groups. The mean (95% CI) total MDAT score was modestly higher in the IYCF groups compared to the non-IYCF groups in unadjusted analysis: 1.35 (0.24, 2.46; p = 0.017); this difference did not persist in adjusted analysis: 0.79 (-0.22, 1.68; p = 0.057). There was no evidence of impact of the IYCF intervention on the CDI, A-not-B, or self-control tests. Among children in the WASH groups compared to those in the non-WASH groups, mean scores were not different for the MDAT, A-not-B, or self-control tests; mean CDI score was not different in unadjusted analysis (0.99 [95% CI -1.18, 3.17]) but was higher in children in the WASH groups in adjusted analysis (1.81 [0.01, 3.61]). The main limitation of the study was the specific time window for substudy recruitment, meaning not all children from the main trial were enrolled.Conclusions: We found little evidence that the IYCF and WASH interventions implemented in SHINE caused clinically important improvements in child development at 2 years of age. Interventions that directly target neurodevelopment (e.g., early stimulation) or that more comprehensively address the multifactorial nature of neurodevelopment may be required to support healthy development of vulnerable children.Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01824940. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Reductions in smoking in Arizona and California have been shown to be associated with reduced per capita healthcare expenditures in these states compared to control populations in the rest of the US. This paper extends that analysis to all states and estimates changes in healthcare expenditure attributable to changes in aggregate measures of smoking behavior in all states.Methods and Findings: State per capita healthcare expenditure is modeled as a function of current smoking prevalence, mean cigarette consumption per smoker, other demographic and economic factors, and cross-sectional time trends using a fixed effects panel data regression on annual time series data for each the 50 states and the District of Columbia for the years 1992 through 2009. We found that 1% relative reductions in current smoking prevalence and mean packs smoked per current smoker are associated with 0.118% (standard error [SE] 0.0259%, p < 0.001) and 0.108% (SE 0.0253%, p < 0.001) reductions in per capita healthcare expenditure (elasticities). The results of this study are subject to the limitations of analysis of aggregate observational data, particularly that a study of this nature that uses aggregate data and a relatively small sample size cannot, by itself, establish a causal connection between smoking behavior and healthcare costs. Historical regional variations in smoking behavior (including those due to the effects of state tobacco control programs, smoking restrictions, and differences in taxation) are associated with substantial differences in per capita healthcare expenditures across the United States. Those regions (and the states in them) that have lower smoking have substantially lower medical costs. Likewise, those that have higher smoking have higher medical costs. Sensitivity analysis confirmed that these results are robust.Conclusions: Changes in healthcare expenditure appear quickly after changes in smoking behavior. A 10% relative drop in smoking in every state is predicted to be followed by an expected $63 billion reduction (in 2012 US dollars) in healthcare expenditure the next year. State and national policies that reduce smoking should be part of short term healthcare cost containment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]