Background Different methodological choices such as inclusion/exclusion criteria and analytical models can yield different results and inferences when meta-analyses are performed. We explored the range of such differences, using several methodological choices for indirect comparison meta-analyses to compare nalmefene and naltrexone in the reduction of alcohol consumption as a case study. Methods All double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nalmefene to naltrexone or one of these compounds to a placebo in the treatment of alcohol dependence or alcohol use disorders were considered. Two reviewers searched for published and unpublished studies in MEDLINE (August 2017), the Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov and contacted pharmaceutical companies, the European Medicines Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration. The indirect comparison meta-analyses were performed according to different inclusion/exclusion criteria (based on medical condition, abstinence of patients before inclusion, gender, somatic and psychiatric comorbidity, psychological support, treatment administered and dose, treatment duration, outcome reported, publication status, and risk of bias) and different analytical models (fixed and random effects). The primary outcome was the vibration of effects (VoE), i.e. the range of different results of the indirect comparison between nalmefene and naltrexone. The presence of a “Janus effect” was investigated, i.e. whether the 1st and 99th percentiles in the distribution of effect sizes were in opposite directions. Results Nine nalmefene and 51 naltrexone RCTs were included. No study provided a direct comparison between the drugs. We performed 9216 meta-analyses for the indirect comparison with a median of 16 RCTs (interquartile range = 12–21) included in each meta-analysis. The standardized effect size was negative at the 1st percentile (− 0.29, favouring nalmefene) and positive at the 99th percentile (0.29, favouring naltrexone). A total of 7.1% (425/5961) of the meta-analyses with a negative effect size and 18.9% (616/3255) of those with a positive effect size were statistically significant (p < 0.05). Conclusions The choice of inclusion/exclusion criteria and analytical models for meta-analysis can result in entirely opposite results. VoE evaluations could be performed when overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic yield contradictory result. Trial registration This study was registered on October 19, 2016, in the Open Science Framework (OSF, protocol available at https://osf.io/7bq4y/).

Background Pneumonia, skin and soft tissue infections are more frequent in obese patients and are most often treated by co-amoxiclav, using similar dosing regimens to those used for non-obese subjects. No data are available on amoxicillin pharmacokinetics among obese subjects receiving co-amoxiclav. Materials and methods Prospective, single-centre, open-label, non-randomized, crossover pharmacokinetic trial having enrolled obese otherwise healthy adult subjects. A first dose of co-amoxiclav (amoxicillin/clavulanate 1000/200 mg) was infused IV over 30 min, followed by a second dose (1000/125 mg) administered orally, separated by a washout period of ≥24 h. We assayed concentrations of amoxicillin by a validated ultra HPLC–tandem MS technique. We estimated population pharmacokinetic parameters of amoxicillin by non-linear mixed-effect modelling using the SAEM algorithm developed by Monolix. Results Twenty-seven subjects were included in the IV study, with 24 included in the oral part of the study. Median body weight and BMI were 109.3 kg and 40.6 kg/m2, respectively. Amoxicillin pharmacokinetics were best described by a two-compartment model with first-order elimination. Mean values for clearance, central volume, intercompartmental clearance and peripheral volume were, respectively, 14.6 L/h, 9.0 L, 4.2 L/h and 6.4 L for amoxicillin. Oral bioavailability of amoxicillin was 79.7%. Amoxicillin Cmax after oral administration significantly reduced with weight (P = 0.013). Dosing simulations for amoxicillin predicted that most of the population will achieve the pharmacodynamic target of fT&gt;MIC ≥40% with the regimen of co-amoxiclav 1000/200 mg (IV) or 1000/125 mg (oral) q8h for MICs titrated up to 0.5 mg/L (IV) and 1 mg/L (oral). Conclusions Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic goals for amoxicillin can be obtained in obese subjects.