Unit of Innovation and Organization, Navarre Health Service, Pamplona, Spain.
IdiSNA, Navarra Institute for Health Research, Pamplona, Spain.
Trials. 2023 Jan 18;24(1):37. doi: 10.1186/s13063-022-07049-3.
A randomized clinical trial assessing plasma rich in growth factors (PRGF) versus hyaluronic acid for knee osteoarthritis was published in 2012 (sponsor trial ID BTI-01-EC/07/ART). Evidence of misreporting was discovered following access to unpublished materials. In accordance with the principles of the Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials (RIAT) initiative, we sought to re-analyse Study PRGF based on the unpublished trial materials.
Reanalysis was made possible primarily based on two unpublished study documents (original trial protocol and final report) obtained from the authors of the original publication. A call to action, calling on the authors to correct the original publication, was publicly issued. The involved ethics committee was repeatedly approached and extensive discussion with the authors ensued. After no agreement to correct the paper was reached, we embarked on this restoration. Reanalysis was focused on providing updated analyses for efficacy and safety.
The efficacy of PRGF was not statistically different from hyaluronic acid for any prespecified primary or secondary efficacy outcomes. For the primary endpoint, the percent of patients on PRGF compared to hyaluronic acid with a decrease >40% in WOMAC pain subscale score was 5.4% higher; 95% confidence interval (CI) -10.4% to 21.3%; p = 0.505. This differs from the original publication that reported a non-prespecified primary endpoint (decrease >50% in WOMAC pain subscale score) which was 14.1% higher; 95% CI 0.5 to 27.6%; p=0.044. Furthermore, in contrast to the article statement that all the adverse events disappeared in 48 h, at least two patients in the hyaluronic arm and five patients in the PRGF arm reported persistent adverse events. Inadequate disclosure of conflicts of interest in the original publication was also noted.
This reanalysis of Study PRGF found no clinically or statistically significant benefit from PRGF compared to hyaluronic acid. The restoration of Study PRGF shows the urgency of important changes to trial reporting and oversight practices. In the future, timely access to all clinical trial documents is needed to minimize the risk of reporting bias. Similarly, ethics committees should be ready to intervene whenever a case of potential misconduct arises.
This is a RIAT project, whose original trial was approved and registered on 19 December 2007 by the Ethics Committee of the Basque Country, Spain, as BTI-01-EC/07/ART.
2012 年发表了一项评估富含生长因子的血浆(PRGF)与透明质酸治疗膝关节骨关节炎的随机临床试验(赞助商试验 ID BTI-01-EC/07/ART)。在获得未发表材料后,发现存在报告不当的证据。根据恢复看不见和废弃试验(RIAT)倡议的原则,我们试图根据未发表的试验材料重新分析 PRGF 研究。
重新分析主要基于从原始出版物的作者处获得的两份未发表的研究文件(原始试验方案和最终报告)。公开呼吁作者纠正原始出版物,并且进行了多次联系,并与作者进行了广泛的讨论。在未能就纠正论文达成一致后,我们开始进行这项恢复。重新分析主要集中在提供疗效和安全性的更新分析。
PRGF 在任何预先指定的主要或次要疗效终点方面均不比透明质酸更有效。对于主要终点,与接受透明质酸治疗的患者相比,PRGF 组中 WOMAC 疼痛子量表评分下降>40%的患者比例高 5.4%;95%置信区间(CI)-10.4%至 21.3%;p=0.505。这与原始出版物报告的非预定主要终点(WOMAC 疼痛子量表评分下降>50%)不同,该终点高 14.1%;95%CI 0.5 至 27.6%;p=0.044。此外,与文章中声称所有不良事件在 48 小时内消失的说法相反,透明质酸组至少有两名患者和 PRGF 组有五名患者报告持续存在不良事件。原始出版物中还注意到利益冲突披露不充分。
这项对 PRGF 研究的重新分析发现,与透明质酸相比,PRGF 没有临床或统计学上的显著益处。PRGF 研究的恢复表明,迫切需要对试验报告和监督实践进行重要更改。在未来,需要及时获得所有临床试验文件,以最大程度地降低报告偏倚的风险。同样,伦理委员会应该随时准备在出现潜在不当行为的情况下进行干预。
这是一个 RIAT 项目,其原始试验于 2007 年 12 月 19 日由西班牙巴斯克地区伦理委员会批准并注册,编号为 BTI-01-EC/07/ART。