The ClinicalTrials.gov results database--update and key issues

An analysis of deficiencies in the ethics committee data of certain interventional trials registered with the Clinical Trials Registry-India

There is widespread agreement that clinical trials should be registered in a public registry, preferably before the trial commences. It is also important that details of each trial in the public record are complete and accurate. In this study, we examined the trial sites and ethics committee (EC) data for 1359 recent Phase 2 or Phase 3 interventional trials registered with Clinical Trials Registry-India (CTRI), to identify categories of problems that prevent the clear identification of which EC approved a given site. We created an SQLite database that hosted the relevant CTRI records, and queried this database, as needed. We identified two broad categories of problems: those pertaining to the understanding of an individual trial and those to adopting a data analytics approach for a large number of trials. Overall, about 30 problems were identified, such as an EC not being listed; an uninformative name of the EC that precluded its clear identification; ambiguity in which EC supervised a particular site; repetition of a site or an EC; the use of a given acronym for different organizations; site name not clearly listed, etc. The large number of problems with the data in the EC or site field creates a challenge to link particular sites with particular ECs, especially if a programme is used to find the matches. We make a few suggestions on how the situation could be improved. Most importantly, list the EC registration number for each EC, merge the site and EC tables so that it is clear which EC is linked to which site; and implement logic rules that would prevent a trial from being registered unless certain conditions were met. This will raise user confidence in CTRI EC data, and enable data based public policy and inferences. This will also contribute to increased transparency, and trust, in clinical trials, and their oversight, in India.

Rare disease patients in India are rarely involved in international orphan drug trials

We wished to determine whether rare diseases patients from India had been enrolled in international trials to develop novel orphan drugs. There are two reasons to be interested in this. (a) Different ethnic or racial groups may respond differently to a particular drug. India has huge ethnic diversity, and to exclude such participants is to severely limit the diversity of any trial; (b) Even if a suitable drug for a rare disease is available in India, it may be astronomically priced, in a country where most healthcare expenditure is out-of-pocket. We identified 63 orphan drugs, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) after 2008, for which there were 202 trials in the US government's clinical trial registry, ClinicalTrials.gov. Only nine of these trials had run in India. These trials pertained to six drugs. The drugs were for the conditions B-cell Lymphoma, Chronic Myeloid Leukemia, Gaucher disease Type 1, Malaria, Myeloma and Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. Further research is required as to why patients from India are not part of foreign drug development programmes for rare diseases. We then asked how many of the remaining 193 trials had recruited people of Indian origin, residing in other countries, and found that not more than 1% of these trials had done so. Also, only 11 of the 193 trials had recruited from other lower income countries. Participation from low-income countries in trials for orphan drugs is poor.

Results Reporting and Early Termination of Childhood Obesity Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov

OBJECTIVE

Childhood obesity is one of the most severe challenges of public health in the twenty-first century and may increase the risk of various physical and psychological diseases in adulthood. The prevalence and predictors of unreported results and premature termination in pediatric obesity research are not clear. We aimed to characterize childhood obesity trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and identify features associated with early termination and lack of results reporting.

METHODS

Records were downloaded and screened for all childhood obesity trials from the inception of ClinicalTrials.gov to July 29, 2021. We performed descriptive analyses of characteristics, Cox regression for early termination, and logistic regression for lack of results reporting.

RESULTS

We identified 1,312 trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov. Among clinicalTrials.gov registered childhood obesity-related intervention trials, trial unreported results were 88.5 and 4.3% of trials were prematurely terminated. Additionally, the factors that reduced the risk of unreported outcomes were US-registered clinical studies and drug intervention trials. Factors associated with a reduced risk of early termination are National Institutes of Health (NIH) or other federal agency funding and large trials.

CONCLUSION

The problem of unreported results in clinical trials of childhood obesity is serious. Therefore, timely bulletin of the results and reasons for termination remain urgent aims for childhood obesity trials.

Discrepancies between FDA documents and ClinicalTrials.gov for Orphan Drug-related clinical trial data

Clinical trial registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG) hold large amounts of data regarding trials. Drugs for rare diseases are known as orphan drugs (ODs), and it is particularly important that trials for ODs are registered, and the data in the trial record are accurate. However, there may be discrepancies between trial-related data that were the basis for the approval of a drug, as available from Food and Drug Administration (FDA) documents such as the Medical Review, and the data in CTG. We performed an audit of FDA-approved ODs, comparing trial-related data on phase, enrollment, and enrollment attribute (anticipated or actual) in such FDA documents and in CTG. The Medical Reviews of 63 ODs listed 422 trials. We used study identifiers in the Medical Reviews to find matches with the trial ID number, 'Other ID' or 'Acronyms' in CTG, and identified 202 trials that were registered with CTG. In comparing the phase data from the 'Table of Clinical Studies' of the Medical Review, with the data in CTG, there were exact matches in only 75% of the cases. The enrollment matched only in 70% of the cases, and the enrollment attribute in 91% of the cases. A similar trend was found for the sub-set of pivotal trials. Going forward, for all trials listed in a registry, it is important to provide the trial ID in the Medical Review. This will ensure that all trials that are the basis of a drug approval can be swiftly and unambiguously identified in CTG. Also, there continue to be discrepancies in trial data between FDA documents and CTG. Data in the trial records in CTG need to be updated when relevant.

Development and validation pathways of artificial intelligence tools evaluated in randomised clinical trials

Objective

Given the complexities of testing the translational capability of new artificial intelligence (AI) tools, we aimed to map the pathways of training/validation/testing in development process and external validation of AI tools evaluated in dedicated randomised controlled trials (AI-RCTs).

Methods

We searched for peer-reviewed protocols and completed AI-RCTs evaluating the clinical effectiveness of AI tools and identified development and validation studies of AI tools. We collected detailed information, and evaluated patterns of development and external validation of AI tools.

Results

We found 23 AI-RCTs evaluating the clinical impact of 18 unique AI tools (2009–2021). Standard-of-care interventions were used in the control arms in all but one AI-RCT. Investigators did not provide access to the software code of the AI tool in any of the studies. Considering the primary outcome, the results were in favour of the AI intervention in 82% of the completed AI-RCTs (14 out of 17). We identified significant variation in the patterns of development, external validation and clinical evaluation approaches among different AI tools. A published development study was found only for 10 of the 18 AI tools. Median time from the publication of a development study to the respective AI-RCT was 1.4 years (IQR 0.2–2.2).

Conclusions

We found significant variation in the patterns of development and validation for AI tools before their evaluation in dedicated AI-RCTs. Published peer-reviewed protocols and completed AI-RCTs were also heterogeneous in design and reporting. Upcoming guidelines providing guidance for the development and clinical translation process aim to improve these aspects.

Network analytics for drug repurposing in COVID-19

To better understand the potential of drug repurposing in COVID-19, we analyzed control strategies over essential host factors for SARS-CoV-2 infection. We constructed comprehensive directed protein–protein interaction (PPI) networks integrating the top-ranked host factors, the drug target proteins and directed PPI data. We analyzed the networks to identify drug targets and combinations thereof that offer efficient control over the host factors. We validated our findings against clinical studies data and bioinformatics studies. Our method offers a new insight into the molecular details of the disease and into potentially new therapy targets for it. Our approach for drug repurposing is significant beyond COVID-19 and may be applied also to other diseases.

Supervised learning with word embeddings derived from PubMed captures latent knowledge about protein kinases and cancer

Inhibiting protein kinases (PKs) that cause cancers has been an important topic in cancer therapy for years. So far, almost 8% of >530 PKs have been targeted by FDA-approved medications, and around 150 protein kinase inhibitors (PKIs) have been tested in clinical trials. We present an approach based on natural language processing and machine learning to investigate the relations between PKs and cancers, predicting PKs whose inhibition would be efficacious to treat a certain cancer. Our approach represents PKs and cancers as semantically meaningful 100-dimensional vectors based on word and concept neighborhoods in PubMed abstracts. We use information about phase I-IV trials in ClinicalTrials.gov to construct a training set for random forest classification. Our results with historical data show that associations between PKs and specific cancers can be predicted years in advance with good accuracy. Our tool can be used to predict the relevance of inhibiting PKs for specific cancers and to support the design of well-focused clinical trials to discover novel PKIs for cancer therapy.

Forks in the road: Definitions of response, remission, recovery, and other dichotomized outcomes in randomized controlled trials for adolescent depression. A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Definitions of dichotomous outcome terms, such as "response," "remission," and "recovery" are central to the design, interpretation, and clinical application of randomized controlled trials of adolescent depression interventions. Accordingly, this scoping review was conducted to document how these terms have been defined and justified in clinical trials.

METHOD

Bibliographic databases MEDLINE, Embase, APA PsycInfo, and CINAHL were searched from inception to February 2020 for randomized controlled trials evaluating treatments for adolescent depression. Ninety-eight trials were included for data extraction and analysis.

RESULTS

Assessment of outcome measurement instruments, metric strategies, methods of aggregation, and measurement timing, yielded 53 unique outcome definitions of "response" across 45 trials that assessed response, 47 unique definitions of "remission" in 29 trials that assessed remission, and 19 unique definitions of "recovery" across 11 trials that assessed recovery. A minority of trials (N = 35) provided a rationale for dichotomous outcomes definitions, often by citing other studies that used a similar definition (N = 11). No rationale included input from youth or families with lived experience.

CONCLUSION

Our review revealed that definitions of "response," "remission," "recovery," and related terms are highly variable, lack clear rationales, and are not informed by key stakeholder input. These limitations impair pooling of trial results and the incorporation of trial findings into pragmatic treatment decisions in clinical practice. Systematic approaches to establishing outcome definitions are needed to enhance the impact of trials examining adolescent depression treatment.

Long-term improvement of psoriasis patients' adherence to topical drugs: testing a patient-supporting intervention delivered by healthcare professionals

BACKGROUND

Psoriasis affects 2-4% of the Western adult population and is a socio-economic burden for patients and society. Topical drugs are recommended as first-line treatment for mild-to-moderate psoriasis, but low adherence is a barrier to treatment success. Psoriasis patients require support, in order to improve their long-term use of topical drugs. The project aims to test whether a patient-supporting intervention delivered by dermatology nurses can reduce the severity of psoriasis, improve the use of topical drugs, and is cost-effective compared to standard procedure.

METHODS

The intervention consists of improved support delivered to patients by three experienced dermatology nurses, who will support patients on a regular basis by consultations with a focus on providing reminder systems, accountability, reinforcement, and building trust in the treatment. Each patient will be supported by the same dermatology nurse throughout the entire study period. The effect will be compared with standard procedure. The intervention will be tested in a randomized controlled trial during a 48-week period. A group of patients with moderate-to-severe psoriasis (psoriasis affecting ≥ 4% of the total body surface area) and 18-85 years of age who are prescribed topical treatment will be randomized to a non-intervention (n ≈ 57) or intervention group (n ≈ 57). Participants in both arms will be prescribed topical preparations containing corticosteroid and/or calcipotriol. The primary outcome will be a change in the severity of psoriasis, measured as reduction in the Lattice-System Physician's Global Assessment. Secondary outcomes will include changes in health-related quality of life (measured by disease specific and generic questionnaires), primary adherence (i.e., proportion of filled prescriptions), and secondary adherence by objective measure (rate of topical drug consumption (obtained by weighing medication packages) compared to estimated recommended consumption). A health economic evaluation is planned to run alongside the trial. Participants' total health costs will be estimated on the basis of health costs reported to the national health registries and costs spent on the intervention, after which a cost-utility and cost-effectiveness analysis will be carried out.

DISCUSSION

If the intervention can reduce the severity of psoriasis in a significant manner and is economically favorable compared to standard treatment, there is potential for implementing the intervention in dermatology clinics.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04220554 . Registered on January 7, 2020. Study results, either positive, negative, or inconclusive, will be published on www.clinicaltrials.gov . Trial registration no. with the Danish Regional Committee on Health Research Ethics, registration no. 72613.

Toward more rigorous and informative nutritional epidemiology: The rational space between dismissal and defense of the status quo

To date, nutritional epidemiology has relied heavily on relatively weak methods including simple observational designs and substandard measurements. Despite low internal validity and other sources of bias, claims of causality are made commonly in this literature. Nutritional epidemiology investigations can be improved through greater scientific rigor and adherence to scientific reporting commensurate with research methods used. Some commentators advocate jettisoning nutritional epidemiology entirely, perhaps believing improvements are impossible. Still others support only normative refinements. But neither abolition nor minor tweaks are appropriate. Nutritional epidemiology, in its present state, offers utility, yet also needs marked, reformational renovation. Changing the status quo will require ongoing, unflinching scrutiny of research questions, practices, and reporting-and a willingness to admit that "good enough" is no longer good enough. As such, a workshop entitled "Toward more rigorous and informative nutritional epidemiology: the rational space between dismissal and defense of the status quo" was held from July 15 to August 14, 2020. This virtual symposium focused on: (1) Stronger Designs, (2) Stronger Measurement, (3) Stronger Analyses, and (4) Stronger Execution and Reporting. Participants from several leading academic institutions explored existing, evolving, and new better practices, tools, and techniques to collaboratively advance specific recommendations for strengthening nutritional epidemiology.

Individualized therapy trials: navigating patient care, research goals and ethics

'Individualized therapy' trials (sometimes called n-of-1 trials) use patients as their own controls to evaluate treatments. Here we divide such trials into three categories: multi-crossover trials aimed at individual patient management, multi-crossover trial series and pre-post trials. These trials all customize interventions for patients; however, the latter two categories also aim to inform medical practice and thus embody tensions between the goals of care and research that are typical of other types of clinical trials. In this Perspective, we discuss four domains where such tensions play out-clinical equipoise, informed consent, reporting and funding, and we provide recommendations for addressing each.

A dashboard for exploring clinical trials sponsorship and potential virtual monopolies

OBJECTIVE

To create a data visualization dashboard to advance research related to clinical trials sponsorship and monopolistic practices in the pharmaceuticals industry.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This R Shiny application aggregates data from ClinicialTrials.gov resulting from user's queries by terms. Returned data are visualized through an interactive dashboard.

RESULTS

The Clinical Trials Sponsorship Network Dashboard (CTSND) uses force-directed network mapping algorithms to visualize clinical trials sponsorship data. Interpretation of network visualization is further supported with data on sponsor classes, sponsorship timelines, evaluated products, and target conditions. The source code for the CTSND is available at https://github.com/sscottgraham/ConflictMetrics.

DISCUSSION

Monopolistic practices have been identified as a likely contributor to high drug prices in the United States. CTSND data and visualizations support the analysis of clinical trials sponsorship networks and may aid in identifying current and emerging monopolistic practices.

CONCLUSIONS

CTSND data can support more robust deliberation about an understudied area of drug pricing.

Clinical interventions for adults with comorbid alcohol use and depressive disorders: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Uncertainty remains regarding the effectiveness of treatments for patients diagnosed with both an alcohol use disorder (AUD) and depressive disorder. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of clinical interventions for improving symptoms of adults with co-occurring AUDs and depressive disorders.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We searched CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Excerpta Medica Database, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science from inception to December 2020. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating clinical interventions for adults with co-occurring AUDs and depressive disorders. Two independent reviewers extracted study-level information and outcome data. We assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, used frequentist random effects models for network meta-analyses, and rated our confidence in effect estimates using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Primary outcomes were remission from depression and alcohol use. Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms, alcohol use, heavy drinking, health-related quality of life, functional status, and adverse events. We used standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes to estimate intervention effects. Overall, 36 RCTs with 2,729 participants evaluated 14 pharmacological and 4 psychological interventions adjunctive to treatment as usual (TAU). Studies were published from 1971 to 2019, conducted in 13 countries, and had a median sample size of 50 participants (range: 14 to 350 participants). We have very low confidence in all estimates of intervention effects on our primary outcomes (i.e., remission from depression and remission from alcohol use). We have moderate confidence that cognitive behavioral therapies (CBTs) demonstrated greater benefit than no additional treatment (SMD = -0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.05 to -0.63; p < 0.001) for depressive symptoms and low confidence (SMD = -0.25; 95% CI, -0.47 to -0.04; p = 0.021) for alcohol use. We have low confidence that tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs) demonstrated greater benefit than placebo (SMD = -0.37; 95% CI, -0.72 to -0.02, p = 0.038) for depressive symptoms. Compared with placebo, we have moderate confidence that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) demonstrated greater benefit for functional status (SMD = -0.92; 95% CI, -1.36 to -0.47, p < 0.001) and low confidence for alcohol use (SMD = -0.30; 95% CI, -0.59 to -0.02, p = 0.039). However, we have moderate confidence that patients receiving SSRIs also were more likely to experience an adverse event (OR = 2.20; 95% CI, 0.94 to 5.16, p = 0.07). We have very low confidence in all other effect estimates, and we did not have high confidence in any effect estimates. Limitations include the sparsity of evidence on intervention effects over the long term, risks of attrition bias, and heterogeneous definitions of adverse events in the evidence base.

CONCLUSIONS

We are very uncertain about the existence (or not) of any non-null effects for our primary outcomes of remission from depression and remission from alcohol use. The available evidence does suggest that CBTs likely reduced, and TCAs may have resulted in a slight reduction of depressive symptoms. SSRIs likely increased functional status, and SSRIs and CBTs may have resulted in a slight reduction of alcohol use. However, patients receiving SSRIs also likely had an increased risk of experiencing an adverse event. In addition, these conclusions only apply to postintervention and are not against active comparators, limiting the understanding of the efficacy of interventions in the long term as well as the comparative effectiveness of active treatments. As we did not have high confidence in any outcomes, additional studies are warranted to provide more conclusive evidence.

Randomized clinical trials in periodontology: focus on outcomes selection

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are human studies carried out to compare different treatments or interventions, and their results are used to support clinical decision-making and improve patient care. Herein, the aim of this study was to review the selection process of study outcomes in periodontology. Primary outcomes should draw the main conclusions of the study, whereas secondary outcomes should only be used to help explain the main findings and generate future research hypothesis. Outcomes are classified as clinically relevant (CROs) or surrogate outcomes. CROs - the first option for primary outcome variables - should convey not only substantial health benefits, but also be deemed important by patients. In periodontology, tooth loss/retention and oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) are examples of CROs. While tooth loss has main limitations as a primary outcome, emerging evidence suggest that patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can accurately detect OHRQoL following periodontal therapy. When CROs cannot be assessed, validated surrogate outcomes can be used as proxies. Primary outcome variables should reflect a treatment endpoint at the patient level that can be easily used to inform decision-making in daily practice. These outcomes should allow the implementation of a treat-to-target concept in which the intervention can be clearly judged against a prespecified treatment target. Recently, the presence of at most 4 sites with periodontal probing depth ≥5 mm post-treatment was suggested as an effective endpoint for periodontal trials. In perspective, a combination of validated clinical parameters and PROMs will provide a more comprehensive assessment of periodontal treatments.

Time-to-enrollment in clinical trials investigating neurological recovery in chronic spinal cord injury: observations from a systematic review and ClinicalTrials.gov database

Currently, large numbers of clinical trials are performed to investigate different forms of experimental therapy for patients suffering from chronic spinal cord injury (SCI). However, for the enrollment process, there are different views on how the time period between injury and interventions should be determined. Herein, we sought to evaluate the impact of time-to-enrollment in chronic SCI clinical trials. A data set comprising 957 clinical studies from clinicalTrials.gov was downloaded and analyzed focusing on the eligibility criteria for post-injury time-to-enrollment. We also aggregated individual patient data from nine clinical trials of regenerative interventions for chronic SCI selected by a systematic literature search from 1990 to 2018. Characteristics of the studies were assessed and compared by dividing into three groups based on time-to-enrollment (group 1 ≤ 12 months, group 2 = 12–23 months and group 3 ≥ 24 months). In ClinicalTrials.gov registry, 445 trials were identified for chronic SCI where 87% (385) were unrestricted in the maximum post-injury time for trial eligibility. From systematic literature search, nine studies and 156 patients (group 1 = 30, group 2 = 55 and group 3 = 71) were included. The range of time-to-enrollment was 0.5 to 321 months in those studies. We also observed various degrees of motor and sensory improvement in between three time-to-enrollment groups. Our results indicate that enrolling wide ranges of time-to-enrollment in a group may present imprecise outcomes. Clinical trial designs should consider appropriate post-injury time frames to evaluate therapeutic benefit.

Prospective adverse event risk evaluation in clinical trials

Proactive and objective regulatory risk management of ongoing clinical trials is limited, especially when it involves the safety of the trial. We seek to prospectively evaluate the risk of facing adverse outcomes from standardized and routinely collected protocol data. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of 2860 Phase 2 and Phase 3 trials that were started and completed between 1993 and 2017 and documented in ClinicalTrials.gov. Adverse outcomes considered in our work include Serious or Non-Serious as per the ClinicalTrials.gov definition. Random-forest-based prediction models were created to determine a trial's risk of adverse outcomes based on protocol data that is available before the start of a trial enrollment. A trial's risk is defined by dichotomic (classification) and continuous (log-odds) risk scores. The classification-based prediction models had an area under the curve (AUC) ranging from 0.865 to 0.971 and the continuous-score based models indicate a rank correlation of 0.6-0.66 (with p-values < 0.001), thereby demonstrating improved identification of risk of adverse outcomes. Whereas related frameworks highlight the prediction benefits of incorporating data that is highly context-specific, our results indicate that Adverse Event (AE) risks can be reliably predicted through a framework of mild data requirements. We propose three potential applications in leading regulatory remits, highlighting opportunities to support regulatory oversight and informed consent decisions.

Employing a mobile health decision aid to improve decision-making for patients with advanced prostate cancer and their decision partners/proxies: the CHAMPION randomized controlled trial study design

BACKGROUND

Metastatic prostate cancer remains a lethal malignancy that warrants novel supportive interventions for patients and their decision partners and proxies. Decision aids have been applied primarily to patients with localized disease, with minimal inclusion of patients with advanced prostate cancer and their decision partners. The use of a community patient navigator (CPN) has been shown to have a positive supportive role in health care, particularly with individuals from minority populations. Research is needed to evaluate decision support interventions tailored to the needs of advanced prostate cancer patients and their decision partners in diverse populations.

METHODS

Guided by Janis and Mann's Conflict Model of Decision Making, the Cancer Health Aid to Manage Preferences and Improve Outcomes through Navigation (CHAMPION) is a randomized controlled trial to assess the feasibility and acceptability of a mobile health (mHealth), CPN-administered decision support intervention designed to facilitate communication between patients, their decision partners, and the healthcare team. Adult prostate cancer patients and their decision partners at three mid-Atlantic hospitals in the USA were randomized to receive enhanced usual care or the decision intervention. The CHAMPION intervention includes a theory-based decision-making process tutorial, immediate and health-related quality of life graphical summaries over time (using mHealth), values clarification via a balance sheet procedure with the CPN support during difficult decisions, and facilitated discussions with providers to enhance informed, shared decision-making.

DISCUSSION

The CHAMPION intervention is designed to leverage dynamic resources, such as CPN teams, mHealth technology, and theory-based information, to support decision-making for advanced prostate cancer patients and their decision partners. This intervention is intended to engage decision partners in addition to patients and represents a novel, sustainable, and scalable way to build on individual and community strengths. Patients from minority populations, in particular, may face unique challenges during clinical communication. CHAMPION emphasizes the inclusion of decision partners and CPNs as facilitators to help address these barriers to care. Thus, the CHAMPION intervention has the potential to positively impact patient and decision partner well-being by reducing decisional conflict and decision regret related to complex, treatment-based decisions, and to reduce cancer health disparities. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03327103 . Registered on 31 October 2017-retrospectively registered. World Health Organization Trial Registration Data Set included in Supplementary Materials.

Recent advances and new discoveries in the pipeline of the treatment of primary spinal tumors and spinal metastases: A scoping review

The field of spinal oncology has substantially evolved over the past decades. This review synthesizes and appraises what was learned and what will potentially be discovered from the recently completed and ongoing clinical studies related to the treatment of primary and secondary spinal neoplasms. This scoping review included all clinical studies on the treatment of spinal neoplasms registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov website from February/2000 to December/2020. The terms "spinal cord tumor", "spinal metastasis", and "metastatic spinal cord compression" were used. Of the 174 registered clinical studies on primary spinal tumors and spinal metastasis, most of the clinical studies registered in this American registry were interventional studies led by single institutions in North America (n=101), Europe (n=43), Asia (n=24) or other continents (n=6). The registered clinical studies mainly focused on treatment strategies for spinal neoplasms (90.2%) that included investigating stereotactic radiosurgery (n=33), radiotherapy (n=21), chemotherapy (n=20), and surgical technique (n=11). Of the 69 completed studies, the results from 44 studies were published in the literature. In conclusion, this review highlights the key features of the 174 clinical studies on spinal neoplasms that were registered from 2000 to 2020. Clinical trials were heavily skewed towards the metastatic population as opposed to the primary tumours which likely reflects the rarity of the latter condition and associated challenges in undertaking prospective clinical studies in this population. This review serves to emphasize the need for a focused approach to enhancing translational research in spinal neoplasms with a particular emphasis on primary tumors.

Clinical trials and tribulations: lessons from spinal cord injury studies registered on ClinicalTrials.gov

STUDY DESIGN

Article.

OBJECTIVE

ClinicalTrials.gov is an online trial registry that provides public access to information on past, present, and future clinical trials. While increasing transparency in research, the quality of the information provided in trial registrations is highly variable. The objective of this study is to assess key areas of information on ClinicalTrials.gov in interventional trials involving people with spinal cord injuries.

SETTING

Interventional trials on ClinicalTrials.gov involving people with spinal cord injuries.

METHODS

A subset of data on interventional spinal cord injury trials was downloaded from ClinicalTrials.gov. Reviewers extracted information pertaining to study type, injury etiology, spinal cord injury characteristics, timing, study status, and results.

RESULTS

Of the interventional trial registrations reviewed, 62.5%, 58.6%, and 24.3% reported injury level, severity, and etiology, respectively. The timing of intervention relative to injury was reported in 72.8% of registrations. Most trials identified a valid study status (89.2%), but only 23.5% of those completed studies had posted results.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review provides a snapshot of interventional clinical trials conducted in the field of spinal cord injury and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Areas for improvement were identified with regards to reporting injury characteristics, as well as posting results.

Neuromodulatory treatments for psychiatric disease: A comprehensive survey of the clinical trial landscape

BACKGROUND

Numerous neuromodulatory therapies are currently under investigation or in clinical use for the treatment of psychiatric conditions.

OBJECTIVE/HYPOTHESIS

We sought to catalogue past and present human research studies on psychiatric neuromodulation and identify relevant trends in this field.

METHODS

ClinicalTrials.gov (https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/) and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (https://www.who.int/ictrp/en/) were queried in March 2020 for trials assessing the outcome of neuromodulation for psychiatric disorders. Relevant trials were categorized by variables such as neuromodulation modality, country, brain target, publication status, design, and funding source.

RESULTS

From 72,086 initial search results, 1252 unique trials were identified. The number of trials registered annually has consistently increased. Half of all trials were active and a quarter have translated to publications. The largest proportion of trials involved depression (45%), schizophrenia (18%), and substance use disorders (14%). Trials spanned 37 countries; China, the second largest contributor (13%) after the United States (28%), has increased its output substantially in recent years. Over 75% of trials involved non-convulsive non-invasive modalities (e.g., transcranial magnetic stimulation), while convulsive (e.g., electroconvulsive therapy) and invasive modalities (e.g., deep brain stimulation) were less represented. 72% of trials featured approved or cleared interventions. Characteristic inter-modality differences were observed with respect to enrollment size, trial design/phase, and funding. Dorsolateral prefrontal cortex accounted for over half of focal neuromodulation trial targets. The proportion of trials examining biological correlates of neuromodulation has increased.

CONCLUSION(S)

These results provide a comprehensive overview of the state of psychiatric neuromodulation research, revealing the growing scope and internationalism of this field.

Implementation of 21st Century Cures Act Expanded Access Policies Requirements

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded access pathway allows patients with life-threatening or serious conditions to access investigational drugs outside of trials, under certain conditions. The 21st Century Cures Act ("Cures Act") requires certain drug companies to publicly disclose their expanded access policies. We characterized the proportion of applicable US biopharmaceutical companies, with an oncology related drug, implementing Cures Act requirements for expanded access policies and whether available policies contain the information described in the Act. We found about one-third of applicable biopharmaceutical companies (32%, 140/423) implemented the Cures Act requirement to have a public expanded access policy. Less than one-third of public policies contained all described information (31%, 44/140). Larger companies and those with at least one drug receiving an FDA expedited designation (59% vs. 21%; P < 0.001), or at least one FDA-approved drug (57% vs. 28%; P < 0.001) were more likely to have a public policy. Our results suggest the Cures Act may be having a limited impact on its goals of supporting timely medical decisions and closing informational gaps for patients and doctors around expanded access to investigational oncology therapies, especially for products sponsored by smaller and newer companies.

Factors associated with North-South research collaboration focusing on HIV/AIDS: lessons from ClinicalTrials.gov

BACKGROUND

A North-South (N-S) research collaboration is one way through which research capacity of developing countries can be strengthened. Whereas N-S collaboration in HIV/AIDS area may result in research capacity strengthening of Southern partners, it is not clear what factors are associated with this type of collaboration. The study aims to characterize N-S research collaboration focusing on HIV/AIDS and to determine factors associated with such N-S research collaborations.

METHODS

Clinical trial data on HIV/AIDS-related studies conducted between 2000 and 2019 were obtained from ClinicalTrials.gov. Using these data, we characterized N-S collaborative studies focusing on HIV/AIDS and summarized them using frequencies and percentages. To determine factors associated with these studies, we used logistic regression and reported results as adjusted odds ratios with Wald 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Of the 4,832 HIV/AIDS-related studies retrieved from the registry, less than one-quarter (n = 1133, 23%) involved a Southern institution, with 77% of these studies classified as N-S collaborations. Majority of these studies have single PI (50%), are conducted at single location (39%); have large sample sizes (41%); are federally-funded (32%) or receive funding from other sources (32%); are intervention studies (64%); and involve a mixture of male and female participants (58%) and adult participants (54%). Single PIs (as opposed to multiple PIs) were more likely to be from the North than South institution (odds ratio = 5.59, 95%CI: 4.16 - 11.57). Trend analyses showed that N-S research collaborations produced HIV/AIDS-related studies at a faster rate than S-S research collaborations. N-S collaborations involving female or children produced HIV/AIDS-related studies between 2000 and 2019 at a significantly faster rate than S-S collaborations involving females and children during the same period. Holding other factors constant, N-S collaborative research focusing on HIV/AIDS are associated with: multiple PIs as opposed to single PI, multiple institutions as opposed to a single institution, multiple locations as opposed to a single location, large number of participants as opposed to small sample sizes, and public funding as opposed to industry funding. Almost half of these studies had a Northern PI only, about one-third had a Southern PI only, and much fewer had PIs from both North and South. However, these studies were less likely to receive funding from other sources than industry funding.

CONCLUSIONS

HIV/AIDS-related research is increasingly becoming a more collaborative global research involving more N-S collaborations than S-S collaborations. Factors associated with N-S collaborative studies focusing on HIV/AIDS include multiple PIs, institutions, and locations; large sample sizes; publicly funded; and involve vulnerable populations such as women and children. Whereas almost half of these studies have a Northern PI only, about one-third have a Southern PI only, and much fewer have PIs from both North and South. Our results inform future design and implementation of N-S research collaborations in this area. Suggestions for improvement of ClinicalTrials.gov registry are provided.

Peer review blinding practices of highly ranked dental journals: analysis and discussion

Objectives To evaluate the type of peer review blinding used in highly ranked dental journals and to discuss the influence of the blinding approaches on the peer review process.Methods All 91 dental journals classified by impact factor (IF) had their websites scrutinised for the type of peer review blinding used for submissions. If the information was not reported, the journals were contacted to obtain the information. Linear and logistic regression were applied to evaluate the association between type of peer review blinding and IF.Results The selected journals reported the following peer review blinding approaches: single-blind (N = 36, 39.6%), double-blind (N = 46, 50.5%), transparent (N = 2, 2.2%) and open (N = 1, 1.1%). Information from six (6.6%) journals was not available. A linear regression analysis demonstrated that journals with lower IFs were associated with double-blind review (p = 0.001). A logistic regression suggested lower odds of association between single-blind peer review and journals with IFs below a threshold of 2 (odds ratio 0.157, confidence interval 0.059 to 0.417, p <0.001).Conclusions The majority of highly ranked dental journals had single- and double-blind peer review; journals with higher IFs presented single-blind peer review and those with lower IFs reported double-blind peer review.

Clinical trials, progression-speed differentiating features and swiftness rule of the innovative targets of first-in-class drugs

Drugs produce their therapeutic effects by modulating specific targets, and there are 89 innovative targets of first-in-class drugs approved in 2004–17, each with information about drug clinical trial dated back to 1984. Analysis of the clinical trial timelines of these targets may reveal the trial-speed differentiating features for facilitating target assessment. Here we present a comprehensive analysis of all these 89 targets, following the earlier studies for prospective prediction of clinical success of the targets of clinical trial drugs. Our analysis confirmed the literature-reported common druggability characteristics for clinical success of these innovative targets, exposed trial-speed differentiating features associated to the on-target and off-target collateral effects in humans and further revealed a simple rule for identifying the speedy human targets through clinical trials (from the earliest phase I to the 1st drug approval within 8 years). This simple rule correctly identified 75.0% of the 28 speedy human targets and only unexpectedly misclassified 13.2% of 53 non-speedy human targets. Certain extraordinary circumstances were also discovered to likely contribute to the misclassification of some human targets by this simple rule. Investigation and knowledge of trial-speed differentiating features enable prioritized drug discovery and development.

DRAMP 3.0: an enhanced comprehensive data repository of antimicrobial peptides

Stapled antimicrobial peptides are an emerging class of artificial cyclic peptide molecules which have antimicrobial activity and potent structure stability. We previously published the Data Repository of Antimicrobial Peptides (DRAMP) as a manually annotated and open-access database of antimicrobial peptides (AMPs). In the update of version 3.0, special emphasis was placed on the new development of stapled AMPs, and a subclass of specific AMPs was added to store information on these special chemically modified AMPs. To help design low toxicity AMPs, we also added the cytotoxicity property of AMPs, as well as the expansion of newly discovered AMP data. At present, DRAMP has been expanded and contains 22259 entries (2360 newly added), consisting of 5891 general entries, 16110 patent entries, 77 clinical entries and 181 stapled AMPs. A total of 263 entries have predicted structures, and more than 300 general entries have links to experimentally determined structures in the Protein Data Bank. The update also covers new annotations, statistics, categories, functions and download links. DRAMP is available online at http://dramp.cpu-bioinfor.org/.

Study Registration for the Field of Prevention Science: Considering Options and Paths Forward

The practice of prospectively registering the details of intervention studies in a public database or registry is gaining momentum across disciplines as a strategy for increasing the transparency, credibility, and accessibility of study findings. In this article, we consider five registries that may be relevant for registration of intervention studies in the field of prevention science: ClinicalTrials.gov, the American Economic Association Registry of Randomized Controlled Trials (AEA RCT Registry), the Open Science Framework Preregistration (OSF Preregistration), the Registry for International Development Impact Evaluations (RIDIE), and the Registry of Efficacy and Effectiveness Studies (REES). We examine the five registries in terms of substantive focus, study designs, and contents of registry entries. We consider two paths forward for prospective registration of intervention studies in the field of prevention science: Path A: register all studies in ClinicalTrials.gov and Path B: allow individual researchers to select the registry with the "best fit." Lastly, we consider how the field might begin to establish norms around registration.

Cross-sectional study of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 studies: discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation

OBJECTIVE

To compare results reporting and the presence of spin in COVID-19 study preprints with their finalised journal publications.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING

International medical literature.

PARTICIPANTS

Preprints and final journal publications of 67 interventional and observational studies of COVID-19 treatment or prevention from the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register published between 1 March 2020 and 30 October 2020.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Study characteristics and discrepancies in (1) results reporting (number of outcomes, outcome descriptor, measure, metric, assessment time point, data reported, reported statistical significance of result, type of statistical analysis, subgroup analyses (if any), whether outcome was identified as primary or secondary) and (2) spin (reporting practices that distort the interpretation of results so they are viewed more favourably).

RESULTS

Of 67 included studies, 23 (34%) had no discrepancies in results reporting between preprints and journal publications. Fifteen (22%) studies had at least one outcome that was included in the journal publication, but not the preprint; eight (12%) had at least one outcome that was reported in the preprint only. For outcomes that were reported in both preprints and journals, common discrepancies were differences in numerical values and statistical significance, additional statistical tests and subgroup analyses and longer follow-up times for outcome assessment in journal publications.At least one instance of spin occurred in both preprints and journals in 23/67 (34%) studies, the preprint only in 5 (7%), and the journal publications only in 2 (3%). Spin was removed between the preprint and journal publication in 5/67 (7%) studies; but added in 1/67 (1%) study.

CONCLUSIONS

The COVID-19 preprints and their subsequent journal publications were largely similar in reporting of study characteristics, outcomes and spin. All COVID-19 studies published as preprints and journal publications should be critically evaluated for discrepancies and spin.

Pressurized Intraperitoneal Aerosol Chemotherapy-Related Clinical Trials in the Treatment of Peritoneal Metastases

INTRODUCTION

Pressurized intraperitoneal aerosol chemotherapy (PIPAC) is a treatment option for patients with peritoneal metastases. We evaluated the current status of ongoing prospective clinical trials investigating PIPAC to provide an overview and predict trends in this field.

METHODS

All 367,494 records of clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for trials dealing with PIPAC. Active or unpublished trials were further analyzed.

RESULTS

In total, 22 clinical trials were identified and selected for further analyses. Most trials had a single-arm design and were phase I or II. No phase III trials were registered. Academic centers were recorded as primary sponsors in the majority of trials (63.6%). Every year, between 2 and 5 new trials were initiated. In 17 trials (81.8%), PIPAC was used in a palliative setting only, 2 trials performed PIPAC in a neoadjuvant setting, and 2 trials performed PIPAC in an adjuvant setting. Six different drugs (doxorubicin, cisplatin, oxaliplatin, nab-paclitaxel, 5-fluorouracil, and docetaxel) were used in these clinical trials. Most trials investigated the efficacy (n = 15) or safety (n = 7) of PIPAC therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of ongoing clinical trials will bring specific information on indications for PIPAC as well as the impact of PIPAC on quality of life and overall survival.

Computational Drug Repurposing for Alzheimer's Disease Using Risk Genes From GWAS and Single-Cell RNA Sequencing Studies

Background: Traditional therapeutics targeting Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related subpathologies have so far proved ineffective. Drug repurposing, a more effective strategy that aims to find new indications for existing drugs against other diseases, offers benefits in AD drug development. In this study, we aim to identify potential anti-AD agents through enrichment analysis of drug-induced transcriptional profiles of pathways based on AD-associated risk genes identified from genome-wide association analyses (GWAS) and single-cell transcriptomic studies. Methods: We systematically constructed four gene lists (972 risk genes) from GWAS and single-cell transcriptomic studies and performed functional and genes overlap analyses in Enrichr tool. We then used a comprehensive drug repurposing tool Gene2Drug by combining drug-induced transcriptional responses with the associated pathways to compute candidate drugs from each gene list. Prioritized potential candidates (eight drugs) were further assessed with literature review. Results: The genomic-based gene lists contain late-onset AD associated genes (BIN1, ABCA7, APOE, CLU, and PICALM) and clinical AD drug targets (TREM2, CD33, CHRNA2, PRSS8, ACE, TKT, APP, and GABRA1). Our analysis identified eight AD candidate drugs (ellipticine, alsterpaullone, tomelukast, ginkgolide A, chrysin, ouabain, sulindac sulfide and lorglumide), four of which (alsterpaullone, ginkgolide A, chrysin and ouabain) have shown repurposing potential for AD validated by their preclinical evidence and moderate toxicity profiles from literature. These support the value of pathway-based prioritization based on the disease risk genes from GWAS and scRNA-seq data analysis. Conclusion: Our analysis strategy identified some potential drug candidates for AD. Although the drugs still need further experimental validation, the approach may be applied to repurpose drugs for other neurological disorders using their genomic information identified from large-scale genomic studies.

Trends and geographic variation in women's representation as principal investigators (PI) in phase 3 gynecologic oncology clinical trials

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the representation of women as principal investigators (PI) in phase 3, gynecologic oncology clinical trials.

METHODS

ClinicalTrials.gov was queried for all phase 3 clinical trials with start dates between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2020 using the search terms: "ovarian cancer", "endometrial cancer", and "cervical cancer". Trial characteristics were abstracted from the website. Gender of the PI was assessed by name, image on institutional website or by querying the trial coordinator. Trials were considered to have women's representation if women were the sole PI or among multiple co-PIs. Chi-square tests and relative risks were used to compare proportions across groups. Linear regression was used to assess trends over time.

RESULTS

200 unique clinical trials were included in this analysis, of which women were represented as PI in 76 (38%). Women were more likely to be a PI of trials funded by multiple sites than a single entity (RR = 1.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.25, 2.61, p = 0.01), registered outside of Asia than those in Asia (RR = 1.78, 95% CI 1.11, 2.88, p = 0.02), and trials with multiple co-PIs than with one PI (RR = 1.78 (95% CI 1.18, 2.67), p = 0.01). Overall, women's representation as a PI increased by 3% annually (by year of registration, R² = 0.61, p = 0.01). This increase was most evident in trials registered in multiple continents and Europe (both 4% annually).

CONCLUSIONS

Women's representation as PIs in clinical trials has increased in the last decade. Trials funded by multiple sources outside of Asia have the highest proportion of PIs who are women. These trends may represent ongoing leadership and mentorship opportunities for women gynecologic oncologists.

Heterogeneity of outcomes for intraoperative music interventions: a scoping review and evidence map

BACKGROUND

Over the past 30 years, numerous studies have been performed that assess the efficacy of intraoperative music as an adjunctive means to regional and local anaesthesia to improve clinical outcomes. Despite an emerging body of evidence and growing adoption of music in surgical settings, the variety of interventions studied, and the heterogeneity of outcomes and outcome measurement tools applied makes difficult the task of aggregating evidence.

OBJECTIVE

This study assesses the state of the field of intraoperative musical interventions by documenting and visualising the breadth of outcomes measured in studies.

DESIGN

Scoping review and evidence map.

METHODS

Three electronic databases (PubMed, Embase and a music-focussed research database, RILM (International Music Literature Repository)) were searched for full-text articles published between January 1991 and July 2019. Results from these searches were screened and relevant data was extracted from full-text articles on type of music intervention and type of anaesthesia; outcomes measured were recorded in an evidence map in order to identify the current state of the field and assess for trends in outcome measurements.

INTERVENTIONS

Music administered to adult patients via headphones or speakers under regional or local sedation in during the intraoperative period.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies with a total of 2283 patients were included. A total of 42 unique outcomes were measured across the 21 studies, with each measuring an average of 6.41±2.63 outcomes. Systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, heart rate, anxiety, pain, patient satisfaction, respiratory rate and sedation requirements were the most prevalent outcomes reported. Only 15 outcome measures (36%) were used in more than one study, while the remaining 27 outcome measures (64%) were identified in only one study in our review.

CONCLUSIONS

Our scoping review identifies that almost two-thirds of studies in this field used >1 outcome measure unique to that study (not also used in other studies), which hinders opportunities to aggregate data across studies and meta-analyse evidence. Future studies should provide clear documentation regarding the intervention and consider using valid and reliable outcome tools. Researchers should consider standardisation when appropriate and adopting the use of core outcome sets for conditions where these sets have been developed.

MicroRNA Therapeutics in Cancer: Current Advances and Challenges

Simple Summary

Cancer is a complex disease associated with deregulation of numerous genes. In addition, redundant cellular pathways limit efficiency of monotarget drugs in cancer therapy. MicroRNAs are a class of gene expression regulators, which often function by targeting multiple genes. This feature makes them a double-edged sword (a) as attractive targets for anti-tumor therapy and concomitantly (b) as risky targets due to their potential side effects on healthy tissues. As for conventional antitumor drugs, nanocarriers have been developed to circumvent the problems associated with miRNA delivery to tumors. In this review, we highlight studies that have established the pre-clinical proof-of concept of miRNAs as relevant therapeutic targets in oncology. Particular attention was brought to new strategies based on nanovectorization of miRNAs as well as to the perspectives for their applications.

Abstract

The discovery of microRNAs (miRNAs) in 1993 has challenged the dogma of gene expression regulation. MiRNAs affect most of cellular processes from metabolism, through cell proliferation and differentiation, to cell death. In cancer, deregulated miRNA expression leads to tumor development and progression by promoting acquisition of cancer hallmark traits. The multi-target action of miRNAs, which enable regulation of entire signaling networks, makes them attractive tools for the development of anti-cancer therapies. Hence, supplementing downregulated miRNA by synthetic oligonucleotides or silencing overexpressed miRNAs through artificial antagonists became a common strategy in cancer research. However, the ultimate success of miRNA therapeutics will depend on solving pharmacokinetic and targeted delivery issues. The development of a number of nanocarrier-based platforms holds significant promises to enhance the cell specific controlled delivery and safety profile of miRNA-based therapies. In this review, we provide among the most comprehensive assessments to date of promising nanomedicine platforms that have been tested preclinically, pertaining to the treatment of selected solid tumors including lung, liver, breast, and glioblastoma tumors as well as endocrine malignancies. The future challenges and potential applications in clinical oncology are discussed.

A multiple network-based bioinformatics pipeline for the study of molecular mechanisms in oncological diseases for personalized medicine

Motivation

Assessment of genetic mutations is an essential element in the modern era of personalized cancer treatment. Our strategy is focused on ‘multiple network analysis’ in which we try to improve cancer diagnostics by using biological networks. Genetic alterations in some important hubs or in driver genes such as BRAF and TP53 play a critical role in regulating many important molecular processes. Most of the studies are focused on the analysis of the effects of single mutations, while tumors often carry mutations of multiple driver genes. The aim of this work is to define an innovative bioinformatics pipeline focused on the design and analysis of networks (such as biomedical and molecular networks), in order to: (1) improve the disease diagnosis; (2) identify the patients that could better respond to a given drug treatment; and (3) predict what are the primary and secondary effects of gene mutations involved in human diseases.

Results

By using our pipeline based on a multiple network approach, it has been possible to demonstrate and validate what are the joint effects and changes of the molecular profile that occur in patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC) carrying mutations in multiple genes. In this way, we can identify the most suitable drugs for the therapy for the individual patient. This information is useful to improve precision medicine in cancer patients. As an application of our pipeline, the clinically significant case studies of a cohort of mCRC patients with the BRAF V600E-TP53 I195N missense combined mutation were considered.

Availability

The procedures used in this paper are part of the Cytoscape Core, available at (www.cytoscape.org). Data used here on mCRC patients have been published in [55].

Supplementary Information

A supplementary file containing a more detailed discussion of this case study and other cases is available at the journal site as Supplementary Data.

Assessing the Impact of US Food and Drug Administration Breakthrough Therapy Designation Timing on Trial Characteristics and Development Speed

The US Congress created the Breakthrough Therapy designation in 2012 to expedite drug development and review through efficient clinical trial design and intensive interaction with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviewers. Yet, of the 116 pivotal trials supporting Breakthrough-designated drugs approved 2013-2018, 96 (83%) were already underway or completed when the designation was granted, limiting the potential of the designation to influence trial design. We found no difference between these trials and the 20 (17%) that had not yet begun when the designation was granted (which had greater potential to be impacted by the designation) with respect to phase, size, intervention model (single-arm vs. multi-arm), or use of surrogate end points under the Accelerated Approval (AA) pathway. This finding suggests that, in contrast to previous studies, observed trial characteristics were not likely attributable to the designation, and instead other factors such as disease category (e.g., oncology) may be driving both trial design and Breakthrough designation. The 20 trials in our sample that began after designation was granted were, however, over 8 months shorter than trials of nondesignated drugs. This suggests that designations granted early in clinical development may reduce trial time by influencing aspects of clinical programs other than design characteristics, such as timelines for FDA responses. Alternately, certain drugs may be more likely to both receive an early designation and have a shorter trial duration, for example, because of therapeutic category or large effect size.

PhenCards: a data resource linking human phenotype information to biomedical knowledge

We present PhenCards ( https://phencards.org ), a database and web server intended as a one-stop shop for previously disconnected biomedical knowledge related to human clinical phenotypes. Users can query human phenotype terms or clinical notes. PhenCards obtains relevant disease/phenotype prevalence and co-occurrence, drug, procedural, pathway, literature, grant, and collaborator data. PhenCards recommends the most probable genetic diseases and candidate genes based on phenotype terms from clinical notes. PhenCards facilitates exploration of phenotype, e.g., which drugs cause or are prescribed for patient symptoms, which genes likely cause specific symptoms, and which comorbidities co-occur with phenotypes.

Evolution of the Neurosurgeon's Role in Clinical Trials for Glioblastoma: A Systematic Overview of the Clinicaltrials.Gov Database

BACKGROUND

The therapeutic challenge of glioblastoma (GBM) has catalyzed the development of clinical trials to evaluate novel interventions. With increased understanding of GBM biology and technological advances, the neurosurgeon's role in neuro-oncology has evolved.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the current landscape of procedure-based clinical trials for GBM to characterize this evolution, gain insight into past failures, and accordingly outline implications for future research and practice that may inform future studies.

METHODS

The ClinicalTrials.gov database was searched for surgical/procedural trials in individuals with GBM. Demographics, specific intervention, trial phase, and main outcome measures were abstracted.

RESULTS

A total of 224 of 2311 GBM trials (9.7%) were identified as procedural, with the majority being based in the United States (155/224, 69.2%), single-center (155/224, 69.2%), and not randomized (176/224, 78.6%). Primary and recurrent GBMs were evenly addressed. The leading interventions were local delivery of therapeutics (50.0%), surgical techniques (33.9%), such as image-guided surgery, and novel device applications (14.3%). Phase I designs predominated (82/224, 36.6%). The top primary outcome was safety/tolerability/feasibility (88/224, 39.3%), followed by survival (46/224, 20.5%). Approximately 17% of studies were terminated, withdrawn, or suspended. Fifty-two linked publications were identified, among which 42 were classified as having a positive result.

CONCLUSION

Procedural interventions comprised ∼10% of all registered GBM trials. Local delivery of therapeutics, use of surgical imaging techniques and novel device applications, predominantly through phase I designs, represent the evolved role of the neurosurgeon in neuro-oncology. Improved reporting of trial designs, outcomes, and results are needed to better inform the field and increase efficiency.

Rise of Clinical Studies in the Field of Machine Learning: A Review of Data Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov

Although advances in machine-learning healthcare applications promise great potential for innovative medical care, few data are available on the translational status of these new technologies. We aimed to provide a comprehensive characterization of the development and status quo of clinical studies in the field of machine learning. For this purpose, we performed a registry-based analysis of machine-learning-related studies that were published and first available in the ClinicalTrials.gov database until 2020, using the database’s study classification. In total, n = 358 eligible studies could be included in the analysis. Of these, 82% were initiated by academic institutions/university (hospitals) and 18% by industry sponsors. A total of 96% were national and 4% international. About half of the studies (47%) had at least one recruiting location in a country in North America, followed by Europe (37%) and Asia (15%). Most of the studies reported were initiated in the medical field of imaging (12%), followed by cardiology, psychiatry, anesthesia/intensive care medicine (all 11%) and neurology (10%). Although the majority of the clinical studies were still initiated in an academic research context, the first industry-financed projects on machine-learning-based algorithms are becoming visible. The number of clinical studies with machine-learning-related applications and the variety of medical challenges addressed serve to indicate their increasing importance in future clinical care. Finally, they also set a time frame for the adjustment of medical device-related regulation and governance.

The peripheral and core regions of virus-host network of COVID-19

Two thousand nineteen novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, the pathogen of COVID-19, has caused a catastrophic pandemic, which has a profound and widespread impact on human lives and social economy globally. However, the molecular perturbations induced by the SARS-CoV-2 infection remain unknown. In this paper, from the perspective of omnigenic, we analyze the properties of the neighborhood perturbed by SARS-CoV-2 in the human interactome and disclose the peripheral and core regions of virus-host network (VHN). We find that the virus-host proteins (VHPs) form a significantly connected VHN, among which highly perturbed proteins aggregate into an observable core region. The non-core region of VHN forms a large scale but relatively low perturbed periphery. We further validate that the periphery is non-negligible and conducive to identifying comorbidities and detecting drug repurposing candidates for COVID-19. We particularly put forward a flower model for COVID-19, SARS and H1N1 based on their peripheral regions, and the flower model shows more correlations between COVID-19 and other two similar diseases in common functional pathways and candidate drugs. Overall, our periphery-core pattern can not only offer insights into interconnectivity of SARS-CoV-2 VHPs but also facilitate the research on therapeutic drugs.

Discovering treatment effectiveness via median treatment effects-Applications to COVID-19 clinical trials

Comparing median outcomes to gauge treatment effectiveness is widespread practice in clinical and other investigations. While common, such difference-in-median characterizations of effectiveness are but one way to summarize how outcome distributions compare. This paper explores properties of median treatment effects (TEs) as indicators of treatment effectiveness. The paper's main focus is on decisionmaking based on median TEs and it proceeds by considering two paths a decisionmaker might follow. Along one, decisions are based on point-identified differences in medians alongside partially identified median differences; along the other decisions are based on point-identified differences in medians in conjunction with other point-identified parameters. On both paths familiar difference-in-median measures play some role yet in both the traditional standards are augmented with information that will often be relevant in assessing treatments' effectiveness. Implementing either approach is straightforward. In addition to its analytical results the paper considers several policy contexts in which such considerations arise. While the paper is framed by recently reported findings on treatments for COVID-19 and uses several such studies to explore empirically some properties of median-treatment-effect measures of effectiveness, its results should be broadly applicable.

Updated analysis of pediatric clinical studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 2008-2019

Background

Since the national clinical trials registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) launched in February 2000, more than 360,000 research studies in the United States and over 200 countries have registered. As the characteristics of pediatric clinical studies keep changing over time and the results-reporting mechanism is under evolving, to know about the relevant updates of data elements and the effect of policies on the quality of reporting results is significant.

Methods

In this research, 53,060 clinical studies related to children registered from January 2008 to December 2019 were downloaded from ClinicalTrials.gov on August 1st, 2020. Different types of studies and critical categorical variables were identified, based on which, Cochran-Armitage test was performed to explore temporal trend of study characteristics and common pediatric clinical conditions in four time subsets. Further, to examine heterogeneity among subgroups (funding sources, funding sites, pediatric clinical conditions,etc), chi-squared test was applied.

Results

A total of 36,136 clinical trials and 16,692 observational studies were identified during the study period. The pediatric clinical trials increased from 7,029 (January 2008–December 2010) to 11,738 (January 2017–December 2019). The number of missing data has declined, with the maximum extent decline from 3.7 to 0.0% (Z = − 15.90, p <  0.001). Drug trials decreased from 48.8 to 28.9% (Z = − 24.68, p <  0.001). Behavioral trials, on the other hand, increased from 12.6 to 20.4% (Z = 12.28, p <  0.001). Most pediatric clinical trials were small-scale (58.9% enrolling 1–100 participants), single-site (61.4%) and funded neither by industry nor by the NIH (59.2%). The proportion of reporting study results varied by study type (χ² = 1,256.8, p <  0.001), lead sponsor (χ² = 4,545.6, p <  0.001), enrollment (χ² = 29.4, p <  0.001) and trial phase (χ² = 218.8, p <  0.001).

Conclusion

Pediatric clinical studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov were dominated by small-scale interventional trials, containing significant heterogeneity in funding sources, funding sites, pediatric clinical conditions and study characteristics. Although the results database has evolved in the past decade, efforts to strengthen the practice of systematic reporting must be continued.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12887-021-02658-4.

A data science approach to drug safety: Semantic and visual mining of adverse drug events from clinical trials of pain treatments

Clinical trials are the basis of Evidence-Based Medicine. Trial results are reviewed by experts and consensus panels for producing meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines. However, reviewing these results is a long and tedious task, hence the meta-analyses and guidelines are not updated each time a new trial is published. Moreover, the independence of experts may be difficult to appraise. On the contrary, in many other domains, including medical risk analysis, the advent of data science, big data and visual analytics allowed moving from expert-based to fact-based knowledge. Since 12 years, many trial results are publicly available online in trial registries. Nevertheless, data science methods have not yet been applied widely to trial data. In this paper, we present a platform for analyzing the safety events reported during clinical trials and published in trial registries. This platform is based on an ontological model including 582 trials on pain treatments, and uses semantic web technologies for querying this dataset at various levels of granularity. It also relies on a 26-dimensional flower glyph for the visualization of the Adverse Drug Events (ADE) rates in 13 categories and 2 levels of seriousness. We illustrate the interest of this platform through several use cases and we were able to find back conclusions that were initially found during meta-analyses. The platform was presented to four experts in drug safety, and is publicly available online, with the ontology of pain treatment ADE.

Parkinson's Disease Drug Development Since 1999: A Story of Repurposing and Relative Success

Background:

A global overview of drug development programs in Parkinson’s disease over the last few decades is lacking, while such programs are challenging given the multifaceted and heterogeneous nature of the disease.

Objective:

To indirectly assess drug development programs in Parkinson’s disease, exploring some factors associated with compound attrition at different trial phases.

Methods:

We assessed all Parkinson’s disease trials in the WHO trials portal, from inception (1999) to September 2019. Independent authors selected trials and extracted data. The success rate was the number of compounds that progressed to the next drug development phase divided by the number of compounds in that phase.

Results:

Overall, 357 trials (studying 152 compounds) fulfilled our inclusion criteria, with 62 (17.3%) phase 1 trials, 135 (37.8%) phase 2 trials, 85 (23.8%) phase 3 trials, and 53 (14.8%) phase 4 trials. The success rate was 42.4% from phase 2 to 3. Original compounds received regulatory approval by the FDA in 21.4% of cases, compared with 6.7% of repurposed compounds, representing an overall success rate of 14.9%. We found 172 trials (48.2%) conducted for repurposing previously licensed compounds. These figures were approximately the same regarding approval by the EMA. Most compounds were approved to treat parkinsonism and motor fluctuations.

Conclusion:

We found a moderate-to-high success rate in all phases of drug development. This was largely based on the success of original compounds, despite almost half of the identified trials attempting compound repurposing.

Impact of a shared decision-making mHealth tool on caregivers' team situational awareness, communication effectiveness, and performance during pediatric cardiopulmonary resuscitation: study protocol of a cluster randomized controlled trial

Background

Effective team communication, coordination, and situational awareness (SA) by team members are critical components to deliver optimal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Complexity of care during CPR, involvement of numerous providers, miscommunication, and other exogenous factors can all contribute to negatively influencing patient care, thus jeopardizing survival. We aim to investigate whether an mHealth supportive tool (the Interconnected and Focused Mobile Apps on patient Care Environment [InterFACE]) developed as a collaborative platform to support CPR providers in real-time and share patient-centered information would increase SA during pediatric CPR.

Methods

We will conduct a prospective, cluster randomized controlled trial by groups of 6 participants in a tertiary pediatric emergency department (33,000 consultations/year) with pediatric physicians and nurses. We will compare the impact of the InterFACE tool with conventional communication methods on SA and effective team communication during a standardized pediatric in-hospital cardiac arrest and a polytrauma high-fidelity simulations. Forty-eight participants will be randomized (1:1) to consecutively perform two 20-min video-recorded scenarios using either the mHealth tool or conventional methods. The primary endpoint is the SA score, measured with the Situation Awareness Global Assessment Technique (SAGAT) instrument. Enrollment will start in late 2020 and data analysis in early 2021. We anticipate that the intervention will be completed by early 2021 and study results will be submitted in mid 2021 for publication.

Discussion

This clinical trial will assess the impact of a collaborative mHealth tool on increasing situational awareness and effective team communication during in-hospital pediatric resuscitation. As research in this area is scarce, the results generated by this study may become of paramount importance in improving the care of children receiving in-hospital CPR, in the era of increasing communication technology.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04464603. Registered on 9 July 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05170-3.

A knowledge base of clinical trial eligibility criteria

OBJECTIVE

We present the Clinical Trial Knowledge Base, a regularly updated knowledge base of discrete clinical trial eligibility criteria equipped with a web-based user interface for querying and aggregate analysis of common eligibility criteria.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used a natural language processing (NLP) tool named Criteria2Query (Yuan et al., 2019) to transform free text clinical trial eligibility criteria from ClinicalTrials.gov into discrete criteria concepts and attributes encoded using the widely adopted Observational Medical Outcomes Partnership (OMOP) Common Data Model (CDM) and stored in a relational SQL database. A web application accessible via RESTful APIs was implemented to enable queries and visual aggregate analyses. We demonstrate CTKB's potential role in EHR phenotype knowledge engineering using ten validated phenotyping algorithms.

RESULTS

At the time of writing, CTKB contained 87,504 distinctive OMOP CDM standard concepts, including Condition (47.82%), Drug (23.01%), Procedure (13.73%), Measurement (24.70%) and Observation (5.28%), with 34.78% for inclusion criteria and 65.22% for exclusion criteria, extracted from 352,110 clinical trials. The average hit rate of criteria concepts in eMERGE phenotype algorithms is 77.56%.

CONCLUSION

CTKB is a novel comprehensive knowledge base of discrete eligibility criteria concepts with the potential to enable knowledge engineering for clinical trial cohort definition, clinical trial population representativeness assessment, electronical phenotyping, and data gap analyses for using electronic health records to support clinical trial recruitment.

A review of pragmatic trials found a high degree of diversity in design and scope, deficiencies in reporting and trial registry data, and poor indexing

OBJECTIVE

We established a large database of trials to serve as a resource for future methodological and ethical analyses. Here, we use meta-data to describe the broad landscape of pragmatic trials including research areas, identification as pragmatic, quality of trial registry data and enrolment.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Trials were identified by a validated search filter and included if a primary report of a health-related randomized trial published January 2014-April 2019. Data were collated from MEDLINE, Web of Science, ClinicalTrials.gov, and full text.

RESULTS

4337 eligible trials were identified from 13,065 records, of which 1988 were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Research areas were diverse, with the most common being general and internal medicine; public, environmental and occupational health; and health care sciences and services. The term "pragmatic" was seldom used in titles or abstracts. Several domains in ClinicalTrials.gov had questionable data quality. We estimated that one-fifth of trials under-accrued by at least 15%.

CONCLUSION

There is a need to improve reporting of pragmatic trials and quality of trial registry data. Under accrual remains a challenge in pragmatic RCTs despite calls for more streamlined recruitment approaches. The diversity of pragmatic trials should be reflected in future ethical analyses.

Selective outcome reporting in root coverage randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Outcome discrepancies between protocols and respective publications represent a concerning bias. The purpose of this study was to assess the prevalence of selective outcome reporting (SOR) in root coverage randomized clinical trials (RCTs).

METHODS

Published root coverage RCTs (July 2005 to March 2020) were included if a corresponding protocol could be identified in a public registry. Discrepancies between protocol and its correspondent publication(s) were compared regarding primary and secondary outcomes and other study characteristics. Associations between trial characteristics and SOR were evaluated.

RESULTS

Forty four studies (54 publications) were included. The majority of studies (77.3%) were retrospectively registered. SOR was frequent (40.9% of trials) and consisted of primary outcome downgrade (22.7%); secondary outcome upgrade (11.4%); new primary outcome introduced in publication (25%); protocol primary outcome omitted from publication (13.6%) and discrepancy in primary outcome timing (18.2%). SOR was unclear in 20.5% of studies and favoured statistical significance in 12 studies (27.3%). SOR was significantly associated with study significance (p < 0.001) and unclear outcome definition in the publication (p < 0.001). Only a third (32.8%) of primary outcomes were completely defined.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study identified high prevalence of SOR in root coverage RCTs.

Range and Consistency of Infection Outcomes Reported in Trials Conducted in Kidney Transplant Recipients: a Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Infection remains a leading cause of death in kidney transplant recipients. This study aimed to assess the scope and consistency of infection outcomes reported in contemporary trials conducted in kidney transplant recipients.

METHODS

A literature review of all randomized trials and trial protocols reporting infection outcomes in adult kidney transplant recipients were identified in the Cochrane Kidney and Transplant Specialized Register from January 2014 to July 2019. Characteristics and infection outcomes from the trials were analyzed.

RESULTS

From 102 included trials, 772 outcome measures were extracted and categorized into 216 unique measures with a median of 3.2 outcome measures per trial (range: 1 to 9). Measures were further grouped into 32 outcomes based on site of infection (14 outcomes) and organism (18 outcomes). The most commonly reported site-specific outcome and organism-specific outcome was systemic infection (71% trials) and cytomegalovirus infection (62% trials), respectively. Outcome metric and methods of aggregation included mean, median, proportion, proportional change and number of patients with at least 1 episode. Across all trials, measures were assessed at 55 different time points with a range of 1 to 11 time points per trial.

CONCLUSIONS

Infection outcomes in kidney transplant recipients were frequently reported by site and organism but varied widely in terms of outcome, metrics, method of aggregation and time point of measurement. Establishment of core outcomes for infection based on the shared priorities of patients/caregivers and health professionals may improve the consistency, comparability and usefulness of trial evidence.Supplemental Visual Abstract; http://links.lww.com/TP/C169.

The Risks of miRNA Therapeutics: In a Drug Target Perspective

RNAi therapeutics have been growing. Patisiran and givosiran, two siRNA-based drugs, were approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 2018 and 2019, respectively. However, there is rare news on the advance of miRNA drugs (another therapeutic similar to siRNA drug). Here we report the existing obstacles of miRNA therapeutics by analyses for resources available in a drug target perspective, despite being appreciated when it began. Only 10 obtainable miRNA drugs have been in clinical trials with none undergoing phase III, while over 60 siRNA drugs are in complete clinical trial progression including two approvals. We mechanically compared the two types of drug and found that their major distinction lay in the huge discrepancy of the target number of two RNA molecules, which was caused by different complementary ratios. One miRNA generally targets tens and even hundreds of genes. We named it “too many targets for miRNA effect” (TMTME). Further, two adverse events from the discontinuation of two miRNA therapeutics were exactly answered by TMTME. In summary, TMTME is inevitable because of the special complementary approach between miRNA and its target. It means that miRNA therapeutics would trigger a series of unknown and unpreventable consequences, which makes it a considerable alternative for application.

Evolving landscape and academic attitudes toward the controversies of global immuno-oncology trials

This cross‐sectional and longitudinal descriptive analysis aimed to track the evolving landscape of global immuno‐oncology (IO) trials and provide insight into the resolution of IO‐related controversies. Clinical trials (n = 4510) registered on ClinicalTrials.gov in 2007 to 2019 studying immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), adoptive cell transfer (ACT), cancer vaccines and immune modulators were included. Most of IO trials are Phase 2 and focus on ICIs and multiple IO therapies. The United States leads global IO research, with stable growth and the best methodological quality. Mainland China ranks first in the number of ACT trials but has the lowest article publication rate (6.2%). A multiple‐arm comparative design is often adopted in multiple IO therapies trials (44.0%). Trials studying ICIs and multiple IO therapies are likely to use early registration (80.0% and 86.6%) and stringent corticosteroid‐/infection‐related criteria. Hospitals have provided the most extensive and strongest support for all IO categories. Big pharma prefers to fund Phase 3‐4 ICI trials (6.98%), while small pharma has a wider sponsorship favoring Phase 1‐2 trials. The “partial‐use‐of‐corticosteroids” strategy is generally well accepted in ICI trials with a definitive trend (32.5%; P < .001) but is associated with the poor dissemination of results (P ≤ .020), while the complete disclosure and standardization of dose/timing limits are still lacking. Disparities in design features and dissemination of results are widespread in IO trials and are modulated by IO category, cancer type and sponsor. We propose policy reforms to redefine the timely publication of IO trials and standardize the resolution of corticosteroid‐/infection‐related issues.

What's new?

In recent decades, immunotherapy has emerged and advanced to become a key part of cancer‐fighting strategies. The rapid growth of immuno‐oncology, however, has been accompanied by controversy in suitable interventions and trial design. In this cross‐sectional and longitudinal analysis, disparities in design were found to be common in immuno‐oncology trials, with differences influenced by factors such as cancer type and trial sponsor. Trials with strict limitations on corticosteroid use had significantly higher publications rates than trials permitting partial corticosteroid administration. The data further suggest that timely publication of immuno‐oncology trials is the third year after trial completion.