Janus kinases (JAK)/Signal Transducer and Activator of Transcription (STAT) pathway is involved in pathophysiologic cascade of a notable number of rheumatic diseases. The development of JAK inhibitors has expanded treatment choices in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with a sustained class-effect efficacy. Filgotinib is a novel selective inhibitor of JAK1 isoform licensed for use in RA and ulcerative colitis. In this review we aim to present an analysis of filgotinib\'s efficacy and drug-specific safety warnings. Patients with RA with or without concomitant conventional synthetic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs (csDMARDs) (naïve or experienced) and those who have failed biologic Disease-Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs (bDMARDs) were examined in randomised clinical trials. Filgotinib was also tested against placebo, methotrexate, or adalimumab. Long-term extension trials provide insights for up to four years of continuous filgotinib administration. Beneficial effects are depicted in both disease activity parameters and quality of life indexes in moderate or severe RA with a longitudinal efficacy. In head-to-head comparison with adalimumab, filgotinib 200 mg was non-inferior. Adverse effects alerts are marked by the elevated risk of infectious adverse effects with the exception of herpes zoster infection, which has a low incidence.

Preventing dropout (attrition) from clinical trials is vital for improving study validity. Dropout is particularly important in justice-involved populations as they can be very challenging to engage and recruit in the first instance. This study identifies factors associated with dropout in a double-blind, placebo-controlled randomised control trial of a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) aimed at reducing reoffending in highly impulsive men with histories of violent offending. Age, education, social support, psychiatric history, and length of previous incarceration were identified as factors that predict attrition. These findings are consistent with previous research examining variables associated with attrition in clinical trials for community and offender populations. We also explored referral source and treatment allocation as attrition predictors. Although neither significantly predicted attrition, we identified that there are discernible differences in the median time to attrition among the referral source subgroups. Understanding factors that predict treatment completion and attrition will allow researchers to identify participants for whom additional provisions may optimise retention and inform development of targeted interventions.

BACKGROUND: The advertisement and adoption of untested orthodontic products is common. This study aimed to provide an update regarding the prevalence of clinical trials in orthodontics evaluating commercially marketed products. Associations between marketed/non-marketed products and study characteristics such as direction of effect, declaration of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship were evaluated. In addition, within the marketed products associations between direction of effect and study characteristics were explored.
METHODS: Electronic searching of a single database (Medline via PubMed) was undertaken to identify Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published over a 5-year period (1st January 2017 to 31st December 2021). Descriptive statistics and associations between trial characteristics were explored.
RESULTS: 196 RCTs were analysed. RCTs were frequently published in Angle Orthodontist (18.4%), American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (14.8%) and European Journal of Orthodontics (13.3%). 65.3% (128/196) of trials assessed marketed products after their introduction. The majority of trials assessed interventions to improve treatment efficiency (33.7%). Growth modification appliances were typically analysed in non-marketed compared to marketed products. An association between the type of product (marketed vs non-marketed) and both the declaration of conflict of interest and industry sponsorship was detected. For individual RCTs assessing marketed products either a positive effect (45.3%) or equivalence between interventions or between intervention and untreated control (47.7%) was evident. In 27% of these trials either no conflict of interest or industry funding was not clearly declared. Within the marketed products, no association between the direction of the effect and conflict of interest or funding was detected.
CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of marketed orthodontic products after their introduction is still common practice. To reduce research waste, collaboration prior to the licensing and marketing of orthodontic products between researchers, industry and manufacturers is recommended.

UNASSIGNED: Sex and gender differences in chronic kidney disease (CKD), including epidemiology and response to treatment, remain poorly understood. This study aimed to investigate how women are represented in CKD clinical trials and whether sex- and gender-disaggregated outcomes were reported.
UNASSIGNED: Clinical trials on CKD were identified from ClinicalTrials.gov. Randomised, phase 3/4 trials with ≥100 participants were selected to quantify women\'s representation among participants by computing the participation:prevalence ratio (PPR) and investigating whether sex-disaggregated analyses had been performed.
UNASSIGNED: In total, 192 CKD trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and published between 1995 and 2022 were included. Overall, women accounted for 66 875 (45%) of the 147 136 participants. Women\'s participation in clinical trials was lower than their representation in the underlying CKD population globally (55%). The PPR was 0.75 (95% confidence interval 0.72-0.78), with no significant variation irrespective of mean age, CKD stage, dialysis, location, type of intervention or funding agency. A total of 39 (20%) trials reported sex-disaggregated efficacy outcomes and none reported sex-disaggregated safety outcomes.
UNASSIGNED: Women\'s participation in CKD clinical trials was lower than their representation in the underlying CKD population. Sex-disaggregated efficacy and safety outcomes were rarely reported. Improving women\'s enrolment into clinical trials is crucial to enable sex- and gender-disaggregated analysis and thus identify potential differences in treatment response between women and men.

BACKGROUND: Clinical equipoise, also defined as the uncertainty principle, is considered essential when recruiting subjects to a clinical trial. However, equipoise is threatened when clinicians are influenced by their own preferences. Little research has investigated equipoise in the context of trial recruitment.
METHODS: This cross-sectional survey sought clinicians\' views (operationalised as 11 statements relating to treatments offered in a trial of a psychological intervention for young people) about equipoise and individual treatment preferences in the context of moral justification for recruiting young people at risk of self-harm or suicide to a randomised controlled trial (RCT) to evaluate the Youth Culturally Adapted Manual Assisted Psychological Intervention (Y-CMAP) in Pakistan. We compared the views of clinicians involved in Y-CMAP RCT recruitment to those of a sample of clinicians not involved in trial recruitment but treating similar patients, comparing their sociodemographic characteristics and the proportions of those in each group agreeing with each statement.
RESULTS: There was a response rate of 96% (75/78). Findings showed that, during trial recruitment and before the RCT results were known, the majority of all responding clinicians (73.3%) considered Y-CMAP to be an effective treatment for young people at risk of self-harm or suicide. Although there was an acknowledgement of individual preferences for the intervention, there was near consensus (90%) on the need to conduct an RCT for reaching an evidence-based decision. However, there were no significant differences in the proportion of recruiting clinicians reporting a treatment preference for Y-CMAP than non-recruiting clinicians (31 (88.6%) versus 36 (90%), p = 0.566). A significantly higher proportion of non-recruiting clinicians (87.5%) as compared to (48.5%) in the trial (p = 0.000) stated that there may be other treatments that may be equally good for the patients, seemingly undermining a preference for the intervention. Those reporting a treatment preference also acknowledged that there was nothing on which this preference was based, however confident they felt about them, thus accepting clinical equipoise as ethical justification for conducting the RCT. There was a significant group difference in views that treatment overall is better as a result of young patients\' participation in the Y-CMAP trial (p = 0.015) (i.e. more clinicians not involved in the trial agreed with this statement). Similarly, more clinicians not involved in the trial agreed on the perceived availability of other treatment options that were good for young people at risk of self-harm (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSIONS: The paper highlights that clinicians in Pakistan accept the notion of clinical equipoise as an ethical justification for patient participation in RCTs. The need for conducting RCTs to generate evidence base and to reduce bias was considered important by the clinical community.

When conducting randomised clinical trials, the choice of methodology and statistical analyses will influence the results. If the planned methodology is not of optimal quality and predefined in detail, there is a risk of biased trial results and interpretation. Even though clinical trial methodology is already at a very high standard, there are many trials that deliver biased results due to the implementation of inadequate methodology, poor data quality and erroneous or biased analyses. To increase the internal and external validity of randomised clinical trial results, several international institutions within clinical intervention research have formed The Centre for Statistical and Methodological Excellence (CESAME). Based on international consensus, the CESAME initiative will develop recommendations for the proper methodological planning, conduct and analysis of clinical intervention research. CESAME aims to increase the validity of randomised clinical trial results which will ultimately benefit patients worldwide across medical specialities. The work of CESAME will be performed within 3 closely interconnected pillars: (1) planning randomised clinical trials; (2) conducting randomised clinical trials; and (3) analysing randomised clinical trials.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are published to guide the management of acute coronary syndrome (ACS). We aimed to critically appraise the representativeness and standard of care of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) supporting CPGs for ACS.
RESULTS: American and European CPGs for ST- and non-ST-elevation ACS were screened to extract all references (n = 2128) and recommendations (n = 600). Among the 407 primary publications of RCTs (19.1%), there were 52.6 and 73.2% recruiting patients in North America and Europe, respectively, whereas other regions were largely under-represented (e.g. 25.3% RCTs recruited in Asia). There was 68.6% RCTs enrolling patient with ACS, whereas the remaining 31.4% did not enrol any patient with ACS. There was under-representation of some important subgroups, including elderly, female (29.9%), and non-white patients (<20%). The incidence and type of reperfusion reported in these RCTs were not reflective of current clinical practice (the percentage of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) among all RCTs was 42.7%; whereas for ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction patients, the number of participants who underwent fibrinolysis was 3.3-fold higher than those who underwent primary PCI). All-cause mortality in these RCTs was 11.9% in RCTs with a follow-up ≤ 1 year.
CONCLUSIONS: Randomised clinical trials supporting CPGs for ACS are not fully representative of the diversity of the ACS population and their current standard of care. While some of these issues with representativeness may be explained by how evidence has been accrued over time, efforts should be made by trialists to ensure that the evidence supporting CPGs is representative of the wider ACS population.

UNASSIGNED: To assess the extent and trends in registration of Orthopaedic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) between 2015 and 2020.
UNASSIGNED: Epidemiological study. Primary publications of RCTs published in top Orthopaedic journals (ISI Journal Citation Reports 2019 rankings) between 2015 and 2020 were included in this meta-epidemiological study with no restrictions on patient population, intervention/control groups or outcome type. Independent reviewers in pairs were involved in RCT selection and data extraction. The proportion of RCTs published that were registered (prospectively or retrospectively) or not registered were reported using counts and percentages stratified by years for each journal.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 474 primary RCTs were considered eligible. We identified 157 out of 474 RCTs (33% of RCTs across journals) that were reported to have been registered prospectively.The proportion of prospective RCT registrations had increased by 40% (10%-50%) between 2015 and 2020. On the other hand, the proportion of RCTs with no registrations were reduced by 29% (50%-21%) between 2015 and 2020.
UNASSIGNED: Prospective RCT registration in the past 5 years in the field of orthopaedic has increased, but 2/3 of published RCTs still failed to report prospective registration.

UNASSIGNED: Anxiety disorders are highly prevalent and cause significant distress, disability, and cost. Medication adverse effects and interactions increase in mid-life and late-life, highlighting the need for effective non-pharmacological interventions.
UNASSIGNED: We aimed to evaluate the extent of evidence supporting exercise interventions for anxiety and subthreshold anxiety disorders in mid-life and late-life.
UNASSIGNED: Systematic review.
UNASSIGNED: We searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, Embase, Emcare, Ovid Nursing, CINAHL Plus, Cochrane Library, Health Collection, Humanities & Social Sciences Collection, and https://clinicaltrials.gov databases for trials published January 1994-May 2019. Randomised controlled trials of exercise interventions involving aerobic exercise or resistance training for adults aged 40 years and above with anxiety or subthreshold anxiety disorders in residential or health settings were identified. The primary outcome was change in anxiety. We excluded trials including participants aged below 40 years, participants with diagnosis of separation anxiety, selective mutism, obsessive-compulsive disorder, acute stress disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder, and head-to-head comparisons of interventions. Trial quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and evidence synthesised in narrative form.
UNASSIGNED: Four trials totalling 132 participants met inclusion criteria, although some had methodological limitations. Interventions included a home-based resistance training intervention, supervised group-based aerobic intervention, Tai Chi intervention, and supervised group-based aerobic and strength intervention. Three trials included late-life participants and the fourth mid-life. Three trials demonstrated greater reductions in anxiety in the intervention group compared with control. The fourth trial showed pre-post reductions in anxiety in both groups, with between-group difference not reaching statistical significance.
UNASSIGNED: There is limited supportive evidence suggesting that exercise interventions have potential to be effective, feasible and safe non-pharmacological interventions for anxiety and subthreshold anxiety disorders in mid-life and late-life. The heterogeneity, limited number and high risk of bias of some trials meant that we were not able to conduct a meta-analysis. Tailoring of interventions may improve uptake and reduce dropout. The paucity of research in this area with only four included trials demonstrates the urgent need for future and larger trials to provide proof of concept, data about effective types and doses of exercise interventions, and guidance to community, clinical, and public health services.

OBJECTIVE: The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) produce guidelines for the design of pivotal psychiatric drug trials used in new drug applications. It is unknown who are involved in the guideline development and what specific trial design recommendations they give.
METHODS: Cross-sectional study of EMA Clinical Efficacy and Safety Guidelines and FDA Guidance Documents. Study outcomes: (1) guideline committee members and declared conflicts of interest; (2) guideline development and organisation of commenting phases; (3) categorisation of stakeholders who comment on draft and final guidelines according to conflicts of interest (\'industry\', \'not-industry but with industry-related conflicts\', \'independent\', \'unclear\'); and (4) trial design recommendations (trial duration, psychiatric comorbidity, \'enriched design\', efficacy outcomes, comparator choice). Protocol registration https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.22.20018499 (27 January 2020).
RESULTS: We included 13 EMA and five FDA guidelines covering 15 psychiatric indications. Eleven months after submission, the EMA had not processed our request regarding committee member disclosures. FDA offices draft the Guidance Documents, but the Agency is not in possession of employee conflicts of interest declarations because FDA employees generally may not hold financial interests (although some employees may hold interests up to $15,000). The EMA and FDA guideline development phases are similar; drafts and final versions are publicly announced and everybody can submit comments. Seventy stakeholders commented on ten guidelines: 38 (54%) \'industry\', 18 (26%) \'not-industry but with industry-related conflicts\', six (9%) \'independent\' and eight (11%) \'unclear\'. They submitted 1014 comments: 640 (68%) \'industry\', 243 (26%) \'not-industry but with industry-related conflicts\', 44 (5%) \'independent\' and 20 (2%) \'unclear\' (67 could not be assigned to a specific stakeholder). The recommended designs were generally for trials of short duration; with restricted trial populations; allowing previous exposure to the drug; and often recommending rating scale efficacy outcomes. EMA mainly recommended three arm designs (both placebo and active comparators), whereas FDA mainly recommended placebo-controlled designs. There were also other important differences and FDA\'s recommendations regarding the exclusion of psychiatric comorbidity seemed less restrictive.
CONCLUSIONS: The EMA and FDA clinical research guidelines for psychiatric pivotal trials recommend designs that tend to have limited generalisability. Independent and non-conflicted stakeholders are underrepresented in the guideline development. It seems warranted with more active involvement of scientists and independent organisations without conflicts of interest in the guideline development process.