Clinical trials on drug-drug interactions registered in ClinicalTrials.gov reported incongruent safety data in published articles: an observational study

Reporting characteristics of nonsurgical periodontal therapy trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov: an observational study

Aim: To evaluate the completeness of the description of nonsurgical periodontal therapy interventions in clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and correspondence of registered information for trial participants and outcome measures with published articles. Materials & methods: We retrieved data from ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding publications. The completeness of intervention reporting was assessed using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist for oral hygiene instructions (OHI), professional mechanical plaque removal (PMPR), and subgingival instrumentation, antiseptics and antibiotics. The completeness of registration of trial protocol information was assessed according to the WHO Trial Registration DataSet for participant information (enrollment, sample size calculation, age, gender, condition) and primary/secondary outcome measures. Results: 79 included trials involved OHI (n = 38 trials, 48.1%), PMPR (n = 19, 24.1%), antiseptics (n = 11, 12.7%), or antibiotics (n = 11, 12.7%). There was a great variety in the terms used to describe these interventions. Most of the analyzed trials (93.7%) were completed and did not provide any data on study phase (74.7%). The description of intervention in the registry in ClinicalTrials.gov was inadequate for all analyzed interventions, with description inconsistencies in matching publications. There were also discrepancies in registered and published outcomes: for 39 trials with published results, 18 had different registered and reported primary outcomes, and 29 different registered and reported secondary outcomes. Conclusion: The completeness of the description of nonsurgical therapy of periodontitis in clinical trials is unsatisfactory, reducing the quality of translation of the new evidence and procedures into clinical practice. Significant discrepancy in registered and reported trial outcomes calls into question the validity of reported results and relevance for practice.

Reporting of the safety from allergic rhinitis trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and in publications: An observational study

BACKGROUND

Incomplete and inconsistent reporting of adverse events (AEs) through multiple sources can distort impressions of the overall safety of the medical interventions examined as well as the benefit-risk relationship. We aimed to assess completed allergic rhinitis (AR) trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov for completeness and consistency of AEs reporting comparing ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding publications.

METHODS

We retrospectively examined completed randomised controlled trials on AR registered in ClinicalTrials.gov on or after 9/27/2009 to trials updated with results on or before 12/31/2021 along with any corresponding publications. Complete reporting of AEs in ClinicalTrials.gov were summarised in tables describing AE information, and complete reporting in publications was an explicit statement of serious AE, death or other AE. Difference in completeness, number, or description of AEs between ClinicalTrials.gov and publication was classified as inconsistent reporting of AEs.

RESULTS

There were 99 registered trials with 45 (45.5%) available publications. All published trials completely reported AEs in ClinicalTrials.gov, and 21 (46.7%) in publications (P < .001). In 43 (95.6%) publications, there was at least one inconsistency in the reporting of AEs (P < .001). 8 (17.8%) publications had different number of serious AEs (P = .003), 36 (80.0%) of other AEs (P < .001) while deaths reporting was inconsistent in 8 (57.1%) publications (P = .127).

CONCLUSION

The reporting of AEs from AR trials is complete in ClinicalTrials.gov and incomplete and inconsistent in corresponding publications. There is a need to improve the reporting of AEs from AR trials in corresponding publications, and thus to improve patient safety.

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.

Ethics of Pharma Clinical Trials in the Era of Precision Oncology

Pharmaceutical industry clinical trials are ethically problematic: human research subjects are being used as a means to the end of demonstrating statistically significant efficacy of novel anticancer agents to achieve regulatory registration and marketing approval. Randomized controlled trial design is inequitable since control arm patients are denied access to the postulated best treatment. Most pharma studies do not provide clinically meaningful benefit of increased overall survival and enhanced quality of life (QOL) to cohorts and are not reliably generalizable to real-world patients. Precision oncology now enables prospective identification of patients expressing a specific cancer biomarker to determine their particular eligibility for evaluation of efficiency of molecular-targeted treatments. A patient-centered approach, collecting prospective real-world data in large populations, could provide real-world evidence of cost-effective, sustained clinical benefits of survival and QOL, while preserving the ethical beneficent compact between patient and doctor.

Drug-drug interaction trials incompletely described drug interventions in ClinicalTrials.gov and published articles: an observational study

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the study was to evaluate the completeness of intervention description in ClinicalTrials.gov and corresponding journal articles for registered and published drug-drug interaction (DDI) trials because complete and transparent description of interventions is particularly important for DDI.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Observational study of completed interventional trials on DDIs with up to two drugs within the Intervention registration element in ClinicalTrials.gov until October 2015. We used the Template for Intervention Description and Replication items to assess the quality of intervention description in both ClinicalTrials.gov Descriptive Information section and matching publications. Corresponding articles were identified in March 2019.

RESULTS

The description of 1,180 drug interventions registered for 642 DDI trials mostly lacked information on the intervention provider (99.7%), adherence strategies (99.2%), procedure (83.8%), location (71.3%), and dosage form (60.7%). Generic name (82.5%), dose (70.8%), and duration of administration (65.6%) were most frequently reported. Among 51 trials that had data reported both in ClinicalTrials.gov and publication, 60.8% were in phase 1. Less than half of 96 interventions had clear and matching description of dosage form, procedure, and route of administration in both sources.

CONCLUSION

DDI trials did not sufficiently report components required for complete intervention description. Further improvements in ClinicalTrials.gov registration requirements, including phase 1 trials, and more stringent publishing requirements for essential data on drug interventions, are needed to prevent patient risk in clinical practice regarding concomitant medication use.