Medicine. Moving toward transparency of clinical trials

An analysis of current pharmaceutical industry practices for making clinical trial results publicly accessible

We compared the clinical trial transparency practices of US/European pharma by analyzing the publicly-accessible clinical trial results databases of major drugs (doripenem, varenicline, lapatinib, zoledronic acid, adalimumab, insulin glargine, raltegravir, gefitinib). We evaluated their accessibility and utility from the perspective of the lay public. We included databases on company websites, http://www.clinicalstudyresults.org, http://www.clinicaltrials.gov and http://clinicaltrials.ifpma.org. Only 2 of 8 company homepages provide a direct link to the results. While the use of common terms on company search engines led to results for 5 of the 8 drugs following 2-4 clicks, no logical pathway was identified. The number of clinical trials in the databases was inconsistent: 0 for doripenem to 45 for insulin glargine. Results from all phases of clinical development were provided for 2 (insulin glargine and gefitinib) of the 8 drugs. Analyses of phase III reports revealed that most critical elements of the International Conference of Harmonization E3 Structure and Content of Synopses for Clinical Trial Reports were provided for 2 (varenicline, lapatinib) of the 8 drugs. For adalimumab and zoledronic acid, only citations were provided, which the lay public would be unable to access. None of the clinical trial reports was written in lay language. User-friendly support, when provided, was of marginal benefit. Only 1 of the databases (gefitinib) permitted the user to find the most recently updated reports. None of the glossaries included explanations for adverse events or statistical methodology. In conclusion, our study indicates that the public faces significant hurdles in finding and understanding clinical trial results databases.

A call for more transparency of registered clinical trials on endometriosis

In response to the pressing need for more efficacious and safer therapeutics for endometriosis, there have been numerous reports in the last decade of positive results from animal and in vitro studies of various compounds as potential therapeutics for endometriosis. A handful of these have undergone phase II/III clinical trials. Since the announcement of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors that mandated registration as a prerequisite for publication, 57 endometriosis-related clinical trials have been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, an Internet-based public depository for information on drug studies. Among them, 25 are listed as completed, and 2 as suspended. There are 15 completed phase II/III trials, which evaluated the efficacy of various promising compounds. Yet only three of the 15 trials (20%) have published their results. The remaining 12 (80%) studies so far have not published their findings. We argue that this apparent lack of transparency will actually not benefit the trial sponsors or the public, and will ultimately prove detrimental to research efforts attempting to develop more efficacious and safer therapeutics for endometriosis. Thus we call for more transparency of clinical trials on endometriosis.

Disclosure issues in neuroscience research

Issues of disclosure arise in neuroscientific research during the informed consent process, whenever incidental findings are identified, and when study results are generated. The possibility of disclosure of incidental findings and/or research results may raise informational expectations on the part of subjects and may alter a study's risk:benefit ratio. We recommend that the informed consent process address this potential consequence of research participation, and specify the conditions under which particular types of information will be offered, the conditions under which information may not be disclosed, and any provisions for helping subjects make sense of the information to be disclosed.

Evaluating oversight of human drugs and medical devices: a case study of the FDA and implications for nanobiotechnology

This article evaluates the oversight of drugs and medical devices by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) using an integration of public policy, law, and bioethics approaches and employing multiple assessment criteria, including economic, social, safety, and technological. Criteria assessment and expert elicitation are combined with existing literature, case law, and regulations in an integrative historical case studies approach. We then use our findings as a tool to explore possibilities for effective oversight and regulatory mechanisms for nanobiotechnology. Section I describes oversight mechanisms for human drugs and medical devices and presents current nanotechnology products. Section II describes the results of expert elicitation research. Section III highlights key criteria and relates them to the literature and larger debate. We conclude with broad lessons for the oversight of nanobiotechnology informed by Sections I-III in order to provide useful analysis from multiple disciplines and perspectives to guide discussions regarding appropriate FDA oversight.

A network biology model of micronutrient related health

Micronutrients are involved in specific biochemical pathways and have dedicated functions in the body, but they are also interconnected in complex metabolic networks, such as oxidative-reductive and inflammatory pathways and hormonal regulation, in which the overarching function is to optimise health. Post-genomic technologies, in particular metabolomics and proteomics, both of which are appropriate for plasma samples, provide a new opportunity to study the metabolic effects of micronutrients in relation to optimal health. The study of micronutrient-related health status requires a combination of data on markers of dietary exposure, markers of target function and biological response, health status metabolites, and disease parameters. When these nutrient-centred and physiology/health-centred parameters are combined and studied using a systems biology approach with bioinformatics and multivariate statistical tools, it should be possible to generate a micronutrient phenotype database. From this we can explore external factors that define the phenotype, such as lifestage and lifestyle, and the impact of genotype, and the results can also be used to define micronutrient requirements and provide dietary advice. New mechanistic insights have already been developed using biological network models, for example genes and protein-protein interactions in the aetiology of type 2 diabetes mellitus. It is hoped that the challenge of applying this approach to micronutrients will, in time, result in a change from micronutrient oriented to a health oriented views and provide a more holistic understanding of the role played by multiple micronutrients in the maintenance of homeostasis and prevention of chronic disease, for example through their involvement in oxidation and inflammation.

Next stop, don't block the doors: opening up access to clinical trials results

The PLoS Medicine Editors discuss the requirements in the 2007 Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act for reporting of clinical trials results, and the role of journals.

The Primary Care Research Object Model (PCROM): a computable information model for practice-based primary care research

OBJECTIVES

Chronic disease prevalence and burden is growing, as is the need for applicable large community-based clinical trials of potential interventions. To support the development of clinical trial management systems for such trials, a community-based primary care research information model is needed. We analyzed the requirements of trials in this environment, and constructed an information model to drive development of systems supporting trial design, execution, and analysis. We anticipate that this model will contribute to a deeper understanding of all the dimensions of clinical research and that it will be integrated with other clinical research modeling efforts, such as the Biomedical Research Integrated Domain Group (BRIDG) model, to complement and expand on current domain models.

DESIGN

We used unified modeling language modeling to develop use cases, activity diagrams, and a class (object) model to capture components of research in this setting. The initial primary care research object model (PCROM) scope was the performance of a randomized clinical trial (RCT). It was validated by domain experts worldwide, and underwent a detailed comparison with the BRIDG clinical research reference model.

RESULTS

We present a class diagram and associated definitions that capture the components of a primary care RCT. Forty-five percent of PCROM objects were mapped to BRIDG, 37% differed in class and/or subclass assignment, and 18% did not map.

CONCLUSION

The PCROM represents an important link between existing research reference models and the real-world design and implementation of systems for managing practice-based primary care clinical trials. Although the high degree of correspondence between PCROM and existing research reference models provides evidence for validity and comprehensiveness, existing models require object extensions and modifications to serve primary care research.

Trial registration and results disclosure: impact of US legislation on sponsors, investigators, and medical journal editors

BACKGROUND

Recently enacted federal legislation, the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007 (FDAAA), mandates public registration and disclosure of results of "applicable" clinical trials of drugs, biologics and devices on www.clinicaltrials.gov. The law calls for registering more information about more trials than has been the policy of many medical journal editors to date. Beginning December 2007, results disclosure will occur in three stages initially with links to information from the FDA and NIH about FDA-approved products, as well as to Medline citations. A Basic Results Database will appear in September 2008, and an Expanded Results Database two years later. Results for trials of FDA-approved products must be posted within 12 months of trial completion. Such postings will not be peer reviewed or contain explanatory text or discussion. Sponsors who file regulatory submissions (IND, NDA, 510(k), PMA, etc.) to the FDA must certify compliance with FDAAA's registration and disclosure provisions. The FDA's determination of such compliance will be made public, and if non-compliance is not cured within 30 days, sponsors may be fined up to $10,000/day.

CONCLUSIONS

FDAAA requirements differ in a number of ways from those of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) and other journal editors, creating potential conflicts for sponsors and investigators who must comply with the law, and a need for better alignment of editors' policies with the law. The public will have access to massive amounts of clinical trial data as a result of FDAAA but it is unclear this will be useful to patients and prescribing physicians.