Publication bias in antipsychotic trials: an analysis of efficacy comparing the published literature to the US Food and Drug Administration database

PLoS Med. 2012;9(3):e1001189. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001189. Epub 2012 Mar 20.

Abstract

Background: Publication bias compromises the validity of evidence-based medicine, yet a growing body of research shows that this problem is widespread. Efficacy data from drug regulatory agencies, e.g., the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), can serve as a benchmark or control against which data in journal articles can be checked. Thus one may determine whether publication bias is present and quantify the extent to which it inflates apparent drug efficacy.

Methods and findings: FDA Drug Approval Packages for eight second-generation antipsychotics-aripiprazole, iloperidone, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, risperidone long-acting injection (risperidone LAI), and ziprasidone--were used to identify a cohort of 24 FDA-registered premarketing trials. The results of these trials according to the FDA were compared with the results conveyed in corresponding journal articles. The relationship between study outcome and publication status was examined, and effect sizes derived from the two data sources were compared. Among the 24 FDA-registered trials, four (17%) were unpublished. Of these, three failed to show that the study drug had a statistical advantage over placebo, and one showed the study drug was statistically inferior to the active comparator. Among the 20 published trials, the five that were not positive, according to the FDA, showed some evidence of outcome reporting bias. However, the association between trial outcome and publication status did not reach statistical significance. Further, the apparent increase in the effect size point estimate due to publication bias was modest (8%) and not statistically significant. On the other hand, the effect size for unpublished trials (0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.39) was less than half that for the published trials (0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.54), a difference that was significant.

Conclusions: The magnitude of publication bias found for antipsychotics was less than that found previously for antidepressants, possibly because antipsychotics demonstrate superiority to placebo more consistently. Without increased access to regulatory agency data, publication bias will continue to blur distinctions between effective and ineffective drugs.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Antipsychotic Agents / adverse effects
  • Antipsychotic Agents / therapeutic use*
  • Aripiprazole
  • Benzodiazepines / adverse effects
  • Benzodiazepines / therapeutic use
  • Databases, Factual
  • Dibenzothiazepines / adverse effects
  • Dibenzothiazepines / therapeutic use
  • Humans
  • Isoxazoles / adverse effects
  • Isoxazoles / therapeutic use
  • Olanzapine
  • Paliperidone Palmitate
  • Piperazines / adverse effects
  • Piperazines / therapeutic use
  • Piperidines / adverse effects
  • Piperidines / therapeutic use
  • Publication Bias / statistics & numerical data*
  • Pyrimidines / adverse effects
  • Pyrimidines / therapeutic use
  • Quetiapine Fumarate
  • Quinolones / adverse effects
  • Quinolones / therapeutic use
  • Risperidone / adverse effects
  • Risperidone / therapeutic use
  • United States
  • United States Food and Drug Administration

Substances

  • Antipsychotic Agents
  • Dibenzothiazepines
  • Isoxazoles
  • Piperazines
  • Piperidines
  • Pyrimidines
  • Quinolones
  • Benzodiazepines
  • Quetiapine Fumarate
  • Aripiprazole
  • Risperidone
  • Olanzapine
  • Paliperidone Palmitate
  • iloperidone