Industry Involvement and Transparency in the Most Cited Clinical Trials, 2019-2022

Data sharing and transparency indicators in published RCTs in Oral Health between 2017 and 2023

OBJECTIVES

To record the proportion of data sharing reporting in terms of primary data and/or statistical code of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs), published across 12 high impact journals in Dentistry, covering 6 specialty domains. Associations with certain journal, publication and outcome characteristics were examined. Transparency indicators such as registration or funding statements were assessed.

METHODS

We identified and included all RCTs published from January 1st, 2017 to December 31st, 2023 in journals of high impact of the following domains: Periodontology, Endodontics, Restorative Dentistry/Prosthodontics, Orthodontics, Pediatric Dentistry, Oral/Maxillofacial Surgery. The primary outcome was the proportion of RCTs reporting their intent to share or openly shared primary data and we tested for associations with potential predictors. Funding, registration, and statistical code/script sharing practices were also examined.

RESULTS

A total of 752 RCTs were included, of which only 119 (15.8%) either openly provided their data or included a statement of intention to share upon request. Only one study openly provided the statistical code underlying the analysis used. RCTs in periodontology more frequently included statements about positive intent to share (57/210;27.1%), followed by Orthodontics (35/157;22.3%). Significant effects of year, dentistry domain and continent of authorship on data sharing practices were identified (p < 0.001 in all cases). There was evidence that registered RCTs had 2.04 times higher odds for intention to share data (95%confidence interval: 1.06, 3.92;p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, in oral health RCTs, empirical evidence suggested very low prevalence of positive data sharing practices. Enhancing transparency is pivotal in promoting reproducibility and credibility of research findings.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The findings of this empirical report bring attention to key transparency indicators in randomized controlled trials. These largely impact on the credibility and reproducibility of the evidence base for clinical decision making.

Methodology of clinical trials on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors registered on ClinicalTrials.gov: a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

The research on sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 (SGLT2) inhibitors has been increasing rapidly in the last decade, as well as indications for their use. This study aimed to analyze the methodological characteristics of clinical trials on SGLT2 inhibitors registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.

DESIGN

We conducted a cross-sectional study of trials on SGLT2 inhibitors registered on ClinicalTrials.gov up to November 11, 2022. We included clinical trials that tested SGLT2 inhibitors for any clinical condition, as a single or combined SGLT2 therapy, compared to any other medication or placebo and mapped their characteristics.

RESULTS

We identified 1102 eligible trials on 14 different SGLT2 inhibitors. The first trial registration was in 2005. There were 993 (90%) interventional and 109 (10%) observational trials. Most trials were in Phase 1 (29%), Phase 3 (23%), or Phase 4 (24%). Interventional trials were mostly randomized (85%); almost half of them did not use masking (44%). Trials on empagliflozin, dapagliflozin, and canagliflozin accounted for 75% of all trials. More than 60% of trials included patients with diabetes mellitus, 13% included only healthy subjects, and 12% included patients with heart diseases. Overall, these trials included more than 9.5 million participants (~ 312,000 of which in interventional studies). Almost 65% of all clinical trials were industry-funded. Most trials were completed (60%) and 35% of those reported results. For trials that are obligated to report results by the Food and Drugs Administration (FDA), 88% of them did so. Trials fully or partially funded by industry more frequently published results compared to non-industry funded trials (46.1% vs. 11.2%; p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The number of registered trials on SGLT2 inhibitors is increasing progressively along with expanding indications for its use, shifting from diabetes mellitus to cardiovascular and renal diseases. Public reporting of trial results improved with time but remains suboptimal.

A novel framework to assess haematology and oncology registration trials: The THEOREMM project

BACKGROUND

Methodological limitations affect a significant number of oncology and haematology trials, raising concerns about the applicability of their results. For example, a suboptimal control arm or limited access to best care upon progression may skew the trial results toward a benefit in the experimental arm. Beyond the fact that such limitations do not prevent drugs reaching the market, other assessment tools, such as those developed by professional societies-ESMO-MCBS and ASCO Value Framework-do not integrate these important shortcomings.

METHODS

We propose creating a novel framework with the scope of assessing registration cancer clinical trials in haematology and oncology (randomized or single arm)-that is trials leading to a marketing authorization. The main steps of the methods are (1) assembling a scientific board; (2) defining the scope, goal and methods through pre-specified, pre-registered and protocolized methodology; (3) preregistration of the protocol; (4) conducting a scoping review of limitations and biases affecting oncology trials and assessing existing scores or methods; (5) developing a list of features to be included and assessed within the framework; (6) assessing each feature through a questionnaire sent to highly cited haematologists and oncologists involved in clinical trials; and (7) finalizing the first version of framework.

RESULTS

Not applicable.

CONCLUSIONS

Our proposal emerged in response to the lack of consideration for key limitations in current trial assessments. The goal is to create a framework specifically designed to assess single trials leading to marketing authorization in the field of oncology and haematogy.

The need for a change in medical research thinking. Eco-systemic research frames are better suited to explore patterned disease behaviors

Many practicing physicians struggle to properly evaluate clinical research studies - they either simply do not know them, regard the reported findings as 'truth' since they were reported in a 'reputable' journal and blindly implement these interventions, or they disregard them as having little pragmatic impact or relevance to their daily clinical work. Three aspects for the latter are highlighted: study populations rarely reflect their practice population, the absolute average benefits on specific outcomes in most controlled studies, while statistically significant, are so small that they are pragmatically irrelevant, and overall mortality between the intervention and control groups are unaffected. These observations underscore the need to rethink our research approaches in the clinical context - moving from the predominant reductionist to an eco-systemic research approach will lead to knowledge better suited to clinical decision-making for an individual patient as it takes into account the complex interplay of multi-level variables that impact health outcomes in the real-world setting.

Information on medicines: Does independence from industry influence matter?

No abstract available.

Are We Losing the Final Fight against Cancer?

Despite our increasing understanding of the biology and evolution of the cancer process, it is indisputable that the natural process of cancer creation has become increasingly difficult to cure, as more mutations are found with age. It is significantly more difficult to challenge the curative method when there is heterogeneity within the tumor, as it hampers clinical and genetic categorization. With advances in diagnostic technologies and screening leading to progressive tumor shrinkage, it becomes more difficult over time to evaluate the effects of treatment on overall survival. New treatments are often authorized based on early evidence, such as tumor response; disease-free, progression-free, meta-static-free, and event-free survival; and, less frequently, based on clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life, when standard guidelines are not available to approve pharmaceuticals. These clearances usually happen quite rapidly. Although approval takes longer, relative survival demonstrates the genuine worth of a novel medication. Pressure is being applied by pharmaceutical companies and patient groups to approve "new" treatments based on one of the above-listed measures, with results that are frequently insignificantly beneficial and frequently have no impact on quality of life.

The Buzz Surrounding Precision Medicine: The Imperative of Incorporating It into Evidence-Based Medical Practice

Precision medicine (PM), through the integration of omics and environmental data, aims to provide a more precise prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of disease. Currently, PM is one of the emerging approaches in modern healthcare and public health, with wide implications for health care delivery, public health policy making formulation, and entrepreneurial endeavors. In spite of its growing popularity and the buzz surrounding it, PM is still in its nascent phase, facing considerable challenges that need to be addressed and resolved for it to attain the acclaim for which it strives. In this article, we discuss some of the current methodological pitfalls of PM, including the use of big data, and provide a perspective on how these challenges can be overcome by bringing PM closer to evidence-based medicine (EBM). Furthermore, to maximize the potential of PM, we present real-world illustrations of how EBM principles can be integrated into a PM approach.