Abstract
Objective Approval and prescription of drugs should be informed by the strength of evidence for efficacy. While there is no formal policy towards different standards for drug approval, the typical strength of evidence might differ for different psychotropic drug groups. Using a Bayesian framework, we examine (1) whether psychotropic drugs are supported by substantial evidence (at the time of Food and Drug Administration [FDA] approval), and (2) whether there are systematic differences across drug groups.
Methods Data from short-term, placebo-controlled phase II/III clinical trials for 15 antipsychotics, 16 antidepressants for depression, nine antidepressants for anxiety, and 20 drugs for ADHD were extracted from FDA reviews evaluating efficacy prior to marketing approval. Bayesian model-averaged meta-analysis was performed and strength of evidence was quantified with the Bayes factor (BFBMA).
Results We observed substantial variation in strength of evidence and trialling between approved psychotropic drugs: Median evidential strength was extremely strong for ADHD medication (BFBMA = 1820.4), but considerably lower and more frequently classified as weak or moderate for antidepressants for both depression (BFBMA = 94.2) and anxiety (BFBMA = 49.8). Differences might be accounted for by varying median effect sizes (schizophrenia: ESBMA = 0.45, depression: ESBMA = 0.30, anxiety: ESBMA = 0.37, ADHD: ESBMA = 0.72), sample sizes (schizophrenia: N = 324, depression: N = 218, anxiety: N = 254, ADHD: N = 189.5), and numbers of trials (schizophrenia: Nr = 3, depression: Nr = 5.5, anxiety: Nr = 3, ADHD: Nr = 2).
Limitations The analysis only included pre-marketing studies.
Conclusion Evidential strength varied across drug groups: Although most psychotropic drugs were supported by strong evidence at the time of approval, some drugs only had moderate or even ambiguous evidence. These results show the need for more systematic quantification and classification of statistical evidence for psychotropic drugs, and for transparent and clear communication of evidential strength toward clinical decision makers.
Registration https://osf.io/5jn2d
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This project is funded by the NWO Vidi grant to D. van Ravenzwaaij (016.Vidi.188.001)
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study involved publicly available trial-level data. No ethical approval was needed.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The datasets generated and analysed during the current study are available at OSF, https://osf.io/364t5/
