Efficacy and Safety of Flibanserin for the Treatment of Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: In August 2015, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved flibanserin as a treatment for hypoactive sexual desire disorder (HSDD) in premenopausal women, despite concern about suboptimal risk-benefit trade-offs. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials assessing efficacy and safety of flibanserin for the treatment of HSDD in women. DATA SOURCES: Medical databases (among others, Embase, Medline, Psycinfo) and trial registries were searched from inception to June 17, 2015. Reference lists of retrieved studies were searched for additional publications. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials assessing treatment effects of flibanserin in premenopausal and postmenopausal women were eligible. No age, language, or date restrictions were applied. Abstract and full-text selection was done by 2 independent reviewers. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted by one reviewer and checked by a second reviewer. Results were pooled using 2 approaches depending on the blinding risk of bias. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Primary efficacy outcomes included number of satisfying sexual events (SSEs), eDiary sexual desire, and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) desire. Safety outcomes included, among others, 4 common adverse events (AEs): dizziness, somnolence, nausea, and fatigue. RESULTS: Five published and 3 unpublished studies including 5914 women were included. Pooled mean differences for SSE change from baseline were 0.49 (95% CI, 0.32-0.67) between 100-mg flibanserin and placebo, 1.63 (95% CI, 0.45-2.82) for eDiary desire, and 0.27 (95% CI, 0.17-0.38) for FSFI desire. The risk ratio for study discontinuation due to AEs was 2.19 (95% CI, 1.50-3.20). The risk ratio for dizziness was 4.00 (95% CI, 2.56-6.27) in flibanserin vs placebo, 3.97 (95% CI, 3.01-5.24) for somnolence, 2.35 (95% CI, 1.85-2.98) for nausea, and 1.64 (95% CI, 1.27-2.13) for fatigue. Women's mean global impression of improvement scores indicated minimal improvement to no change. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Treatment with flibanserin, on average, resulted in one-half additional SSE per month while statistically and clinically significantly increasing the risk of dizziness, somnolence, nausea, and fatigue. Overall, the quality of the evidence was graded as very low. Before flibanserin can be recommended in guidelines and clinical practice, future studies should include women from diverse populations, particularly women with comorbidities, medication use, and surgical menopause.

Do randomized clinical trials with inadequate blinding report enhanced placebo effects for intervention groups and nocebo effects for placebo groups?

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that expectations powerfully shape clinical outcomes. For subjective outcomes in adequately blinded trials, health improvements are substantial and largely explained by non-specific factors.The objective of this study was to investigate if unblinding in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is associated with enhanced placebo effects for intervention groups and nocebo effects for placebo groups. For these effects, a secondary objective was to explore potential moderating factors. METHODS: We included RCTs that investigated the efficacy of phosphodiesterase-5 (PDE-5) inhibitors for male erectile dysfunction by comparing one PDE-5 inhibitor to placebo. In addition, to be included studies must have reported scores for change from baseline, or baseline and final International Index of Erectile Functioning-Erectile Functioning domain score (IIEF-EF), and be published in either English, French, Dutch, or German.We searched for both published and unpublished relevant trials using PUBMED, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, a clinical trials register (clinicaltrials.gov) and the Food and Drug Administration clinical reviews through March 2012.We evaluated the blinding status of trials with the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, using the domains of allocation sequence concealment, blinding of participants, healthcare providers and outcome assessors. Across these four domains, studies that scored low risk of bias were judged to be adequately blinded and studies that scored unclear or high risk of bias were judged to be inadequately blinded. RESULTS: We included 110 studies (205 journal publications and 2 unpublished sources) that involved 23,877 participants; 93 (85%), 51 (46%), 93 (85%) and 93 (85%) studies were assessed with an unclear risk of bias for allocation concealment, blinding of participant, blinding of caregiver and blinding of outcome assessor, respectively. None of the studies reported testing of blinding.None of the 205 journal publications provided sufficient details to assess allocation concealment, blinding of participants, caregivers and outcome assessors. After contacting authors for additional information, we judged five studies to be adequately (n = 1,202) and 16 to be inadequately (n = 3,006) blinded. The IIEF-EF score for placebo groups in adequately blinded trials versus inadequately blinded trials was 1.92 points (95% CI, 0.64 to 3.20) versus 1.56 (95% CI, 0.93 to 2.20), respectively. The IIEF-EF score for intervention groups in adequately blinded trials versus inadequately blinded trials was 9.40 (95% CI, 6.96 to 11.83) versus 8.33 (95% CI, 7.29 to 9.37), respectively. In a secondary analysis, prior experience with the drug affected the scores; in placebo groups with participants naïve to the intervention the score was 2.89 (95% CI, 2.33 to 3.45) versus -0.11 (95% CI, -2.06 to 1.84) with participants having prior experience. In the intervention groups, these scores were 7.99 (95% CI, 6.85 to 9.14) versus 8.33 (95% CI, 7.51 to 9.16), respectively.Unblinding lowered placebo scores (creating a nocebo effect) by 19% (0.33 points; 95% CI, -0.96 to 1.62). Unblinding lowered intervention scores by 11% (1.0; 95% CI, -1.35 to 3.47). The results provided no conclusive evidence for nocebo or enhanced placebo effects. Patients taking a PDE-5 inhibitor for the first time experience a larger placebo effect that accounts for 35% of the total effect. CONCLUSIONS: Given the overall poor reporting of blinding in clinical trial reports and the small number of trials that could be rated as adequately or inadequately blinded, we could not draw any robust conclusions about the existence or absence of nocebo and enhanced placebo effects. A large placebo effect was found for patients taking PDE-5 inhibitors for the first time. It was not clear if previous exposure to the drug impacted trial blinding.We found clear evidence that studies assessing a subjective continuous outcome fail to report on measures taken to secure double blinding. Although we observed a trend for the presence of a nocebo effect, there was insufficient evidence to quantify its impact on expectations. RCTs with patients with no prior experience with PDE-5 inhibitors reported larger placebo effects and possibly these studies were better blinded. Future research should further investigate the factors that contribute to blinding and their impact on health outcomes in randomized trials of subjectively assessed conditions. This research is part of a PhD project and has no external funding. The authors have no competing interests to declare.

Do randomized clinical trials with inadequate blinding report enhanced placebo effects for intervention groups and nocebo effects for placebo groups? A protocol for a meta-epidemiological study of PDE-5 inhibitors.

BACKGROUND: Patients' expectations of treatment effects may contribute to positive (placebo) and negative (nocebo) outcomes. The effect of patient expectations may be pronounced in subjectively assessed conditions, such as male erectile dysfunction. The aim of this project is to examine the magnitude of expectancy in trials of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors. We hypothesize that randomized controlled trials with inadequate blinding will report enhanced placebo effects for intervention groups and nocebo effects for placebo groups, compared with adequately blinded studies. METHODS/DESIGN: We will quantify the magnitude of expectancy by comparing the effect estimates of trials with inadequate and adequate blinding. Blinding will be assessed using four domains from the Cochrane 'risk-of-bias' tool: allocation concealment; blinding of patient; caregiver; and outcome assessor. Our secondary aim is to identify factors that can modify expectations, such as prior experience with the intervention and drug side effects.We will perform an electronic search using a combination of controlled vocabulary and free text words in the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, and a clinical trials register. We will include randomized controlled trials, with either parallel or crossover design, that compare one phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitor with a placebo. The study's primary aim should be to investigate the efficacy of phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors for treating male erectile dysfunction. Screening will take place at two levels: abstracts and titles, followed by full text reports. Two reviewers will independently extract data on the primary outcome and assess risk of bias.We will meta-analyze treatment effects, if appropriate, to assess the magnitude of enhanced placebo effects and nocebo effects in intervention and placebo groups, respectively. We will explore possible mediators of placebo and nocebo effects with subgroup and meta-regression analyses. DISCUSSION: Treatments may confer significant costs and risk of adverse effects; it is important, therefore, to determine whether the effects of treatments are larger than expectancy alone. If treatment expectations can be used in a non-deceptive way to produce clinically advantageous outcomes, then it may be possible to incorporate such mechanisms into evidence-based healthcare decision-making.