Legal regulations, ethical guidelines and recent policies to increase transparency of clinical trials

Post-publication research integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials: A scoping review of the literature

BACKGROUND

Post-publication handling of integrity concerns in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is a contentious matter.

OBJECTIVES

We undertook a scoping systematic review to map the literature regarding post-publication integrity issues in RCTs.

SEARCH STRATEGY AND SELECTION CRITERIA

Following prospective registration (https://osf.io/pgxd8) we initially searched PubMed and Scopus but subsequently extended it to include the Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar databases without language, article type or publication time restriction until November 2022. Reviewers independently selected published articles covering any aspect of post-publication research integrity concerns in RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

The study findings grouped within domains relating to issues concerning post-publication integrity were extracted in duplicate, verified by a third reviewer, and then tabulated.

MAIN RESULTS

The initial search captured 3159 citations, of which 89 studies were included in the review. Cross-sectional studies constituted the majority of included studies (n = 34, 38.2%), followed by systematic reviews (n = 10, 11.2%), methodology reviews/studies (n = 9, 10.1%) and other types of descriptive studies (n = 8, 9.0%). A total of 21 articles (23.6%) covered the domain on general issues, 25 (28.1%) in the journal's instructions and policies domain, eight (9.0%) in the editorial and peer review domain, one (1.1%) in the correspondence and complaints (post-publication peer review) domain, 12 (13.5%) in the investigation for concerns domain, six (6.7%) in the post-investigation decisions and sanctions domain, none in the critical appraisal guidance domain, five (5.6%) in the integrity assessment in systematic reviews domain, and 26 (29.2%) in the recommendations for future research domain. A total of 12 of the selected articles (13.5%) covered two (n = 9) or three (n = 3) different domains.

CONCLUSIONS

Various research integrity domains and issues covering post-publication aspects of RCT integrity were captured and gaps were identified, mostly related with the necessary implications for all stakeholders to improve research transparency. There is an urgent need for a multistakeholder consensus towards creating specific statements for addressing post-publication integrity concerns in RCTs.

Are European clinical trial funders policies on clinical trial registration and reporting improving? A cross-sectional study

Objectives

Assess the extent to which the clinical trial registration and reporting policies of 25 of the world's largest public and philanthropic medical research funders meet best practice benchmarks as stipulated by the 2017 WHO Joint Statement, and document changes in the policies and monitoring systems of 19 European funders over the past year.

Design Setting Participants

Cross-sectional study, based on assessments of each funder's publicly available documentation plus validation of results by funders. Our cohort includes 25 of the largest medical research funders in Europe, Oceania, South Asia, and Canada.

Interventions

Scoring all 25 funders using an 11-item assessment tool based on WHO best practice benchmarks, grouped into three primary categories: trial registries, academic publication, and monitoring, plus validation of results by funders.

Main outcome measures

How many of the 11 WHO best practice items each of the 25 funders has put into place, and changes in the performance of 19 previously assessed funders over the preceding year.

Results

The 25 funders we assessed had put into place an average of 5/11 (49%) WHO best practices. Only 6/25 funders (24%) took the PI's past reporting record into account during grant application reviews. Funders' performance varied widely from 0/11 to 11/11 WHO best practices adopted. Of the 19 funders for which 2021(2) baseline data was available, 10/19 (53%) had strengthened their policies over the preceding year.

Conclusions

Most medical research funders need to do more to curb research waste and publication bias by strengthening their clinical trial policies.

Institutional dashboards on clinical trial transparency for University Medical Centers: A case study

BACKGROUND

University Medical Centers (UMCs) must do their part for clinical trial transparency by fostering practices such as prospective registration, timely results reporting, and open access. However, research institutions are often unaware of their performance on these practices. Baseline assessments of these practices would highlight where there is room for change and empower UMCs to support improvement. We performed a status quo analysis of established clinical trial registration and reporting practices at German UMCs and developed a dashboard to communicate these baseline assessments with UMC leadership and the wider research community.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We developed and applied a semiautomated approach to assess adherence to established transparency practices in a cohort of interventional trials and associated results publications. Trials were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS), led by a German UMC, and reported as complete between 2009 and 2017. To assess adherence to transparency practices, we identified results publications associated to trials and applied automated methods at the level of registry data (e.g., prospective registration) and publications (e.g., open access). We also obtained summary results reporting rates of due trials registered in the EU Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) and conducted at German UMCs from the EU Trials Tracker. We developed an interactive dashboard to display these results across all UMCs and at the level of single UMCs. Our study included and assessed 2,895 interventional trials led by 35 German UMCs. Across all UMCs, prospective registration increased from 33% (n = 58/178) to 75% (n = 144/193) for trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and from 0% (n = 0/44) to 79% (n = 19/24) for trials registered in DRKS over the period considered. Of trials with a results publication, 38% (n = 714/1,895) reported the trial registration number in the publication abstract. In turn, 58% (n = 861/1,493) of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and 23% (n = 111/474) of trials registered in DRKS linked the publication in the registration. In contrast to recent increases in summary results reporting of drug trials in the EUCTR, 8% (n = 191/2,253) and 3% (n = 20/642) of due trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and DRKS, respectively, had summary results in the registry. Across trial completion years, timely results reporting (within 2 years of trial completion) as a manuscript publication or as summary results was 41% (n = 1,198/2,892). The proportion of openly accessible trial publications steadily increased from 42% (n = 16/38) to 74% (n = 72/97) over the period considered. A limitation of this study is that some of the methods used to assess the transparency practices in this dashboard rely on registry data being accurate and up-to-date.

CONCLUSIONS

In this study, we observed that it is feasible to assess and inform individual UMCs on their performance on clinical trial transparency in a reproducible and publicly accessible way. Beyond helping institutions assess how they perform in relation to mandates or their institutional policy, the dashboard may inform interventions to increase the uptake of clinical transparency practices and serve to evaluate the impact of these interventions.

Results publications are inadequately linked to trial registrations: An automated pipeline and evaluation of German university medical centers

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Informed clinical guidance and health policy relies on clinicians, policymakers, and guideline developers finding comprehensive clinical evidence and linking registrations and publications of the same clinical trial. To support the finding and linking of trial evidence, the World Health Organization, the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials ask researchers to provide the trial registration number in their publication and a reference to the publication in the registration. This practice costs researchers minimal effort and makes evidence synthesis more thorough and efficient. Nevertheless, trial evidence appears inadequately linked, and the extent of trial links in Germany remains unquantified. This cross-sectional study aims to evaluate links between registrations and publications across clinical trials conducted by German university medical centers and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov or the German Clinical Trials Registry. Secondary aims are to develop an automated pipeline that can be applied to other cohorts of trial registrations and publications, and to provide stakeholders, from trialists to registries, with guidance to improve trial links.

METHODS

We used automated strategies to download and extract data from trial registries, PubMed, and results publications for a cohort of registered, published trials conducted across German university medical centers and completed between 2009 and 2017. We implemented regular expressions to detect and classify publication identifiers in registrations, and trial registration numbers in publication metadata, abstracts, and full-texts.

RESULTS

In breach of long-standing guidelines, 75% (1,418) of trials failed to reference trial registration numbers in both the abstract and full-text of the journal article in which the results were published. Furthermore, 50% (946) of trial registrations did not contain links to their results publications. Seventeen percent (327) of trials had no links, so that associating registration and publication required manual searching and screening. Overall, trials in ClinicalTrials.gov were better linked than those in the German Clinical Trials Registry; PubMed and registry infrastructures appear to drive this difference. Trial registration numbers were more likely to be transferred to PubMed metadata from abstracts for ClinicalTrials.gov trials than for German Clinical Trials Registry trials. Most (78%, 662/849) ClinicalTrials.gov registrations with a publication link were automatically indexed from PubMed metadata, which is not possible in the German Clinical Trials Registry.

CONCLUSIONS

German university medical centers have not comprehensively linked trial registrations and publications, despite established recommendations. This shortcoming threatens the quality of evidence synthesis and medical practice, and burdens researchers with manually searching and linking trial data. Researchers could easily improve this by copy-and-pasting references between their trial registrations and publications. Other stakeholders could build on this practice, for example, PubMed could capture additional trial registration numbers using automated strategies (like those developed in this study), and the German Clinical Trials Registry could automatically index publications from PubMed.

Affordable Prices Without Threatening the Oncological R&D Pipeline-An Economic Experiment on Transparency in Price Negotiations

The high prices of innovative medicines endanger access to care worldwide. Sustainable prices need to be affordable while sufficiently incentivizing research and development (R&D) investments. A proposed solution is increased transparency. Proponents argue that price and R&D cost confidentiality are drivers of high prices. On the contrary, supporters of confidentiality claim that confidentiality enables targeted discounts which make treatments affordable; moreover, pharmaceutical companies argue that R&D investments would suffer with more transparency. Despite the political relevance, limited empirical evidence exists on the effects of transparency regulations. We contribute to fill this gap with an experiment where we replicate the EU pharmaceutical market in a laboratory setting. In a randomized controlled study, we analyzed how participants, 400 students located in four European countries, negotiated in the current system of Price Secrecy in comparison with innovative bargaining settings where either prices only (Price Transparency) or prices and R&D costs (Full Transparency) were made transparent to buyers. We found that Price transparency had no statistically significant effect on average prices or number of patients treated and made R&D investments significantly smaller (-16.86%; P: 0.0024). On the other hand, Full Transparency reduced prices (-26%; P: 0.0004) and held the number of patients constant at the level of Price Secrecy. It produced price convergence between countries with low and high health budgets, and, despite lower prices, had no effect on R&D investments. Our findings provide novel evidence that combining price and R&D cost transparency could be an effective policy to contribute to sustainable medicine prices. See related article by Franzen et al. (Cancer Discov 2022;12:299-302).

An examination of the use of clinical trials as a source of information in scientific research

Abstract: As part of the innovation process, clinical research generates valuable data to assess technological solutions in healthcare, linking scientific research and knowledge transfer to provide beneficial innovations for society. However, the generated clinical data do not appear to be adequately available to the scientific community and society. The present study seeks to analyze the effectiveness of databases of clinical records as a source of relevant information for scientific research. We conducted a comparative analysis of 27 correlations of clinical trials between three different technologies and their scientific articles by consulting two information sources. Making connections between the data from these sources proved to be challenging. In addition, a considerable time lag (40 months on average) was observed between the end of the study and the publication of the results. Among the completed studies, 56% had not published their results in any of the channels studied. In addition to the paucity of reported results, the poor publication record of clinical trials is further evident in the lack of information on these studies in scientific publications. Thus, databases of clinical records are a potential source of information and may come to represent a central tool in the search for new technological solutions in healthcare.

Public availability of results of ClinicalTrials.gov-registered expanded access studies

AIMS

Expanded access is the use of investigational treatments outside of clinical trials. Results of expanded access studies provide insights into how investigational treatments work in real-world settings. The objective of this study was to evaluate public availability of results of expanded access studies.

METHODS

Eligible expanded access studies were identified in ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov). Publications matching records of individual studies were searched for in Medline and Embase. In addition, we assessed whether results of the included studies were publicly available from other sources including CT.gov, sponsor web sites and conference proceedings.

RESULTS

After median time of 49.5 (interquartile range, 36.7-64.7) months from study completion, the results of 69 out of the 152 included studies (45.39%) were publicly available, either as a journal publication (53 studies; 34.87%) or from other source (16 studies; 10.52%). The percentage of studies whose results were available as a journal publication after 12, 24, 36 and 48 months from study completion was 13.2, 21.1, 33.1 and 35.7%, respectively. The percentage of studies whose results were publicly available from any source (including journal publications) at 12, 24, 36 and 48 months were 19.1, 29.6, 43.2 and 47.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Results of a considerable proportion of expanded access studies are not publicly available. In view of the growing importance of real-world data, sponsors and principal investigators of those studies should always consider making their findings public.

Legal regulations, ethical guidelines and recent policies to increase transparency of clinical trials

Timely and accurate dissemination of outcomes is essential to accomplish main benefits of scientific research including clinical trials. Clinical trial results can be disseminated in two main ways: by publication in a peer-reviewed journal and by posting on a publicly available clinical trial register. The credibility of the literature on clinical trials is significantly diminished because a high percentage of trials is not published. While current legal regulations both in the European Union (EU) and the USA impose a duty to submit summary results of clinical trials to a respective register (EU Clinical Trial Register and ClinicalTrials.gov, respectively), the compliance with this requirement has been generally inadequate. Trial outcomes can be also made accessible by data sharing. However, in spite of the wide promotion of this idea, the access of investigators to participant-level datasets remains limited. The main objective of this review is to discuss current legal regulations, international standards, ethical guidelines and recent policies pertaining to dissemination of clinical trial results.