Borysowski J, Górski A. ClinicalTrials.gov as a Source of Information About Expanded Access Programs: Cohort Study.
J Med Internet Res 2021;
23:e26890. [PMID:
34709189 PMCID:
PMC8587192 DOI:
10.2196/26890]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/02/2021] [Revised: 06/30/2021] [Accepted: 07/27/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND
ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov) is the most comprehensive internet-based register of different types of clinical studies. Expanded access is the use of unapproved drugs, biologics, or medical devices outside of clinical trials. One of the key problems in expanded access is the availability to both health care providers and patients of information about unapproved treatments.
OBJECTIVE
We aimed to evaluate CT.gov as a potential source of information about expanded access programs.
METHODS
We assessed the completeness of information in the records of 228 expanded access programs registered with CT.gov from February 2017 through May 2020. Moreover, we examined what percentage of published expanded access studies has been registered with CT.gov. Logistic regression (univariate and multivariate) and mediation analyses were used to identify the predictors of the absence of some information and a study's nonregistration.
RESULTS
We found that some important data were missing from the records of many programs. Information that was missing most often included a detailed study description, facility information, central contact person, and eligibility criteria (55.3%, 54.0%, 41.7%, and 17.5% of the programs, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that information about central contact person was more likely to be missing from records of studies registered in 2017 (adjusted OR 21.93; 95% CI 4.42-172.29; P<.001). This finding was confirmed by mediation analysis (P=.02). Furthermore, 14% of the programs were registered retrospectively. We also showed that only 33 of 77 (42.9%) expanded access studies performed in the United States and published from 2014 through 2019 were registered with CT.gov. However, multivariate logistic regression analysis showed no significant association between any of the variables related to the studies and the odds of study nonregistration (P>.01).
CONCLUSIONS
Currently, CT.gov is a quite fragmentary source of data on expanded access programs. This problem is important because CT.gov is the only publicly available primary source of information about specific programs. We suggest the actions that should be taken by different stakeholders to fully exploit this register as a source of information about expanded access.
Collapse