Selective reporting of antidepressant trials exaggerates drug effectiveness

Jan 17, 2008

Selective publication in reporting results of antidepressant trials exaggerates the effectiveness of the drugs, according to a report in the January 17 issue of the New England Journal of Medicine. The report’s primary author is Erick Turner, M.D., assistant professor of psychiatry, physiology and phamacology at Oregon Health & Science University (OHSU) and Medical Director of the Portland Veterans Affairs Medical Center’s Mood Disorders Program.

Turner and his colleagues examined reviews from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for trials of 12 widely prescribed antidepressant drugs approved between 1981 and 2004, involving 12,564 patients. They also conducted a systematic literature search to identify whether results of these studies had been published in medical journals. For trials that had been published, they compared the published version of the results with the FDA version of the results.

Whether and how the studies were published depended on how they turned out, Turner’s team found. According to the published literature, nearly all studies conducted (94 percent) had positive treatment results, but FDA data showed that in fact only about half (51 percent) of the studies were positive. Positive studies, with one exception, were all published. Most studies (33 out of 36) that were not positive either were not published or were published as if they were positive, in conflict with the FDA conclusions. These 33 studies involved 5,212 patients.

“Selective publication can lead doctors and patients to believe drugs are more effective than they really are, which can influence prescribing decisions, said Turner. He also cautioned that the surprisingly large number of negative studies does not mean that antidepressants are ineffective. His team found that each drug, when all its studies were combined using a statistical technique called meta-analysis, was superior to treatment with a placebo (sugar pill). On the other hand, this analysis also showed that each drug, based on the FDA data, was less effective than it would appear from the published literature.

Turner said that he and his colleagues don’t know whether the bias resulted from a failure of authors and sponsors to submit manuscripts, from decisions by journal editors and reviewers not to publish, or both. “Regardless, doctors and patients must have access to evidence that is complete and unbiased when they are weighing the risks and benefits of treatment,” he emphasized.

Source: Oregon Health & Science University

Explore further: Novartis Japan hit with suspension over side-effect reporting

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Refined method to convert lignin to nylon precursor

1 hour ago

A new study from the Energy Department's National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) demonstrates the conversion of lignin-derived compounds to adipic acid, an important industrial dicarboxylic acid produced for its use as ...

Putting net neutrality in context

52 minutes ago

After much litigation, public demonstration and deliberation, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted 3 to 2 to adopt open internet rules. While the substantive details of the decision are not yet known, the rules ...

Broken windows thesis springs a leak

1 hour ago

The broken windows theory posits that minor misdemeanors, like littering or graffiti spraying, stimulate more serious anti-social behavior. LMU sociologists now argue that the idea is flawed and does not ...

The super-resolution revolution

32 minutes ago

Cambridge scientists are part of a resolution revolution. Building powerful instruments that shatter the physical limits of optical microscopy, they are beginning to watch molecular processes as they happen, ...

Recommended for you

Use new meningitis vaccines only for outbreaks

17 hours ago

(AP)—A U.S. panel on Thursday recommended that two new meningitis vaccines only be used for rare outbreaks, resisting tearful pleas to give it routinely to teens and college students.

New antibiotic avycaz approved

21 hours ago

(HealthDay)—The combination antibiotic Avycaz (ceftazidime-avibactam) has been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to treat adults with complicated infections of the intra-abdominal area or urinary tract, ...

Tagging drugs to fight counterfeit medicines

Feb 25, 2015

The U.S. and other countries are enacting rules to clamp down on the sales of fake pharmaceuticals, which pose a public health threat. But figuring out a system to track and authenticate legitimate drugs still faces significant ...

Watchdog group seeks FDA ban of antifungal tablets

Feb 24, 2015

(AP)—A consumer safety group is calling on the Food and Drug Administration to pull certain antifungal tablets off the market, saying there are safer medicines that do not carry risks of liver damage.

User comments : 0

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.