Call for better reporting of harms in clinical trials

Clinical trials are critical to understanding the benefits of new treatments and medical therapies, but Australian researchers say people who design and run clinical trials need to lift their game when it comes to recording and reporting harms.

That’s according to a new article published in the Medical Journal of Australia, in which the researchers examined how inadequate reporting may over or underestimate harms of treatments. Inconsistent reporting of harms in clinical trials creates an incomplete picture of a treatment’s risks, which has a downstream effect for researchers, clinicians and the public when reviewing the available evidence on potential treatments.

“Improvements in the reporting of harms are important to give participants more confidence in their involvement,” said lead author Dr Christina Abdel Shaheed, from The University of Sydney. “It also creates more transparent evidence to guide safe and effective use of treatments for both the scientific community and for the public.”

A key problem is that information on harms is absent or reported inconsistently in many clinical trials, warranting efforts to strengthen reporting of harms globally; this includes no universal definition of ‘harms’ that applies to all treatments. Another under-recognised problem is the lack of harms reporting in clinical trials that do not involve medicines, such as in physical, psychological and behavioural trials.

The current reporting guideline in place for randomised controlled trials is the CONSORT checklist. While this encourages the reporting of harms in clinical trials, reporting practices are inconsistent globally. Details of the type of harms, and the cause of serious harms, are absent or inconsistent in published trial reports.

For example, in 2021, a review of 249 trials evaluating exercise for chronic low back pain found that only 12 trials measured any adverse events in a consistent way. Meanwhile, in a 2022 review of psychological interventions for chronic back pain, only about 20% of the 97 trials included reported adverse events, and most reported that no adverse events occurred. Some researchers cite the ‘low risk’ nature of the treatment as the reason for not collecting information on harms.

“This needs to change as it can help perpetuate a belief that non-drug treatments are generally ‘safe’,” Abdel Shaheed said. “We don’t actually know what the risks are if information on harms is not being collected and reported.”

The researchers say a possible contributor to the problem is that policy documents, for example from Australia’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), define adverse events with regard to administering a medicine or medical device. There is therefore a need for a broader definition of harms that applies to all treatments, not just medicines and medical devices.

“There is a need to improve transparency in clinical trial reporting, beginning from the trial design, registration and protocol development stages through to providing the summary of results and other trial materials,” said co-author Professor Andrew McLachlan from The University of Sydney.

“Clearer guidelines will support researchers to report the benefits and harms of new treatments in a balanced and authentic manner.”

The researchers have provided a list of recommendations on the reporting of harms in clinical trials to standardise reporting across all types of treatments being tested. These are as follows:

• Standard reporting strategy for all trials evaluating medicines or medical devices (including complementary, alternative medicines), psychological or behavioural interventions (including digital — therapeutics), surgical procedures and physical therapies.
• Proportion of people experiencing, and frequency of, serious and non-serious adverse events that occur during and after the therapy or medication has been administered.
• Attribute the cause of severe adverse events.
• Where feasible, identify cause of non-serious adverse events.
• Correctly labelling adverse events or serious adverse events caused by the treatment as an adverse reaction or serious adverse reaction.
   

Image credit: iStock.com/Bojan89

Please follow us and share on Twitter and Facebook. You can also subscribe for FREE to our weekly newsletters and bimonthly magazine.