Subgroup analyses in randomised controlled trials: cohort study on trial protocols and journal publications

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the planning of subgroup analyses in protocols of randomised controlled trials and the agreement with corresponding full journal publications. DESIGN: Cohort of protocols of randomised controlled trial and subsequent full journal publications. SETTING: Six research ethics committees in Switzerland, Germany, and Canada. DATA SOURCES: 894 protocols of randomised controlled trial involving patients approved by participating research ethics committees between 2000 and 2003 and 515 subsequent full journal publications. RESULTS: Of 894 protocols of randomised controlled trials, 252 (28.2%) included one or more planned subgroup analyses. Of those, 17 (6.7%) provided a clear hypothesis for at least one subgroup analysis, 10 (4.0%) anticipated the direction of a subgroup effect, and 87 (34.5%) planned a statistical test for interaction. Industry sponsored trials more often planned subgroup analyses compared with investigator sponsored trials (195/551 (35.4%) v 57/343 (16.6%), P<0.001). Of 515 identified journal publications, 246 (47.8%) reported at least one subgroup analysis. In 81 (32.9%) of the 246 publications reporting subgroup analyses, authors stated that subgroup analyses were prespecified, but this was not supported by 28 (34.6%) corresponding protocols. In 86 publications, authors claimed a subgroup effect, but only 36 (41.9%) corresponding protocols reported a planned subgroup analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Subgroup analyses are insufficiently described in the protocols of randomised controlled trials submitted to research ethics committees, and investigators rarely specify the anticipated direction of subgroup effects. More than one third of statements in publications of randomised controlled trials about subgroup prespecification had no documentation in the corresponding protocols. Definitive judgments regarding credibility of claimed subgroup effects are not possible without access to protocols and analysis plans of randomised controlled trials.

Aspirin and statin use and the subsequent development of depression in men and women: Results from a longitudinal population-based study.

OBJECTIVE: Low-grade chronic inflammation is one potential mechanism underlying the well-established association between major depressive disorder (MDD) and increased cardiovascular morbidity. Both aspirin and statins have anti-inflammatory properties, which may contribute to their preventive effect on cardiovascular diseases. Previous studies on the potentially preventive effect of these drugs on depression have provided inconsistent results. The aim of the present paper was to assess the prospective association between regular aspirin or statin use and the incidence of MDD. METHOD: This prospective cohort study included 1631 subjects (43.6% women, mean age 51.7 years), randomly selected from the general population of an urban area. Subjects underwent a thorough physical evaluation as well as semi-structured interviews investigating DSM-IV mental disorders at baseline and follow-up (mean duration 5.2 years). Analyses were adjusted for a wide array of potential confounders. RESULTS: Our main finding was that regular aspirin or statin use at baseline did not reduce the incidence of MDD during follow-up, regardless of sex or age (hazard ratios, aspirin: 1.19; 95%CI, 0.68-2.08; and statins: 1.25; 95%CI, 0.73-2.14; respectively). LIMITATIONS: Our study is not a randomized clinical trial and could not adjust for all potential confounding factors, information on aspirin or statin use was collected only for the 6 months prior to the evaluations, and the sample was restricted to subjects between 35 and 66 years of age. CONCLUSION: Our data do not support a large scale preventive treatment of depression using aspirin or statins in subjects aged from 35 to 66 years from the community.