Medicine. Moving toward transparency of clinical trials

Development and evaluation of objective trial performance metrics for multisite clinical studies: Experience from the AlcHep Network

BACKGROUND

Recruitment and retention are critical in clinical studies but there are limited objective metrics of trial performance. We tested if development of trial performance metrics will allow for objective evaluation of study quality. Performance metrics were developed using data from the observational cohort (OBS) and randomized clinical trial (RCT) arms of the prospective Alcoholic Hepatitis Network.

METHODS

Yield-rate (%YR; eligible/screened), recruitment index (RI; mean recruitment time/patient), completion index (CI; average number of days to complete the follow-up/patient), and protocol adherence index (AI; average number of deviations/subject recruited) were determined.

RESULTS

2250 patients (1168 for OBS; 1082 for RCT) were screened across 8 sites. Recruitment in the RCT (57% target) was similar to that in the OBS (59% target). Of those screened, 743 (63.6%) subjects in the OBS and 147 (13.6%) subjects in the RCT were enrolled in the study. In OBS study, 253 (34.1%) subjects, and in the RCT, 68 (46.3%) subjects, completed the study or reached a censoring event. Across all sites (range), YR for OBS was 63.6% (41.3-98.3%) and for RCT was 13.6% (5.5-92.6%); RI for OBS was 1.66 (8.79-19.85) and for RCT was 4.05 (19.76-36.43); CI for OBS was 4.87 (22.6-118.3) and for RCT was 8.75 (27.27-161.5); and AR for OBS was 0.56 (0.08-1.04) and for RCT was 1.55 (0.39-3.21. Factors related to participants, research design, study team, and research sponsors contributed to lower performance metrics.

CONCLUSIONS

Objective measures of clinical trial performance allow for strategies to enhance study quality and development of site-specific improvement plans.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT4072822 NCT03850899.

Trials and tribulations of transparency related to inconsistencies between plan and conduct in peer-reviewed physiotherapy publications: A methodology review

RATIONALE

The physiotherapy profession strives to be a leader in providing quality care and strongly recognizes the value of research to guide clinical practice. Adherence to guidelines for research reporting and conduct is a significant step towards high-quality, transparent and reproducible research.

AIM/OBJECTIVE

Assess integrity between planned and conducted methodology in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) published in physiotherapy journals.

METHODS

Eighteen journals were manually searched for RCTs and SRs published from 1 July 2021 through 31 December 2021. Studies were included if the journal or specific study was indexed in PubMed and published/translated in English. Descriptive statistics determined congruence between preregistration data and publication.

RESULTS

Forty RCTs and 68 SRs were assessed. Forty-three SRs included meta-analysis (MA). Of the 34 registered RCTs, 7 (20.6%) had no discrepancy between the registration and publication. Two trials (5.9%) addressed all discrepancies, 4 (11.8%) addressed some and 21 (61.8%) did not address any discrepancies. Of the 36 registered MAs, 33 (91.7%) had discrepancies between the registration and publication. Two (5.6%) addressed all discrepancies and three (8.3%) had no discrepancies. Eight SRs without MA published information not matching their registration, and none provided justification for the discrepancies.

CONCLUSION

Most RCTs/SRs were registered; the majority had discrepancies between preregistration and publication, potentially influencing the outcomes and interpretations of findings. Journals should require preregistration and compare the submission with the registration information when assessing publication suitability. Readers should be aware of these inconsistencies and their implications when interpreting and translating results into practice.

Addressing Ancestry and Sex Bias in Pharmacogenomics

The association of an individual's genetic makeup with their response to drugs is referred to as pharmacogenomics. By understanding the relationship between genetic variants and drug efficacy or toxicity, we are able to optimize pharmacological therapy according to an individual's genotype. Pharmacogenomics research has historically suffered from bias and underrepresentation of people from certain ancestry groups and of the female sex. These biases can arise from factors such as drugs and indications studied, selection of study participants, and methods used to collect and analyze data. To examine the representation of biogeographical populations in pharmacogenomic data sets, we describe individuals involved in gene-drug response studies from PharmGKB, a leading repository of drug-gene annotations, and showcaseCYP2D6, a gene that metabolizes approximately 25% of all prescribed drugs. We also show how the historical underrepresentation of females in clinical trials has led to significantly more adverse drug reactions in females than in males.

The Current Landscape of COPD-Related Clinical Trials Registered on the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform: A Comprehensive Analysis of Study Characteristics and Publication Status

Background

Despite studies investigating the publication rates and factors influencing publication outcomes of clinical trials in some disease fields, there is a notable lack of research focusing on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) clinical trials. This study aims to explore the characteristics of COPD-related clinical trials and identify factors associated with publication status and publication time.

Methods

A systematic search was conducted on the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on April 28, 2022, to identify completed interventional clinical trials related to COPD. Various trial features were analyzed, and factors influencing publication status and time were examined.

Results

A total of 2577 completed interventional clinical trials focusing on COPD were identified. A total of 42.76% of trials enrolled ≤50 participants. The majority of trials were randomized (81.72%), blind (57.39%), parallel-assignment (59.14%), single-center (51.30%), multi-arm (83.86%), nonindustry funded (52.00%), and conducted for therapeutic purposes (73.11%). The 2-year cumulative publication rate was found to be 27.9%. The median time of study duration, dissemination lag, and publication lag were 17.27, 21.07, and 24.70 months, respectively. Multivariate analysis revealed that sample size, blind design, and study phase significantly influenced the likelihood of publication, while intervention model, primary purpose, study phase, funder, and study duration were significant factors affecting publication time.

Conclusions

The findings highlight the inadequacy of large multi-center interventional clinical trials for COPD and indicate a low 2-year cumulative publication rate. Strengthening collaboration among investigators and adopting scientifically robust designs for larger phase 3 clinical trials are crucial to advancing COPD research and enhancing publication outcomes.

Characteristics of Phase IV Clinical Trials in Oncology: An Analysis Using the ClinicalTrials.gov Registry Data

The present study analyzed the characteristics of phase IV clinical trials in oncology using data from the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. The included trials were conducted between January 2013 and December 2022 and were examined for key characteristics, including outcome measures, interventions, sample sizes, and study design, different cancer types, and geographic regions. The analysis included 368 phase IV oncology studies. An amount of 50% of these studies examined both safety and efficacy, while 43.5% only reported efficacy outcome measures, and 6.5% only described safety outcome measures. Only 16.9% of studies were powered to detect adverse events with a frequency of 1 in 100. Targeted therapies accounted for the majority of included studies (53.5%), with breast (32.91%) and hematological cancers (25.82%) being the most frequently investigated malignancies. Most phase IV oncology studies lacked sufficient power to detect rare adverse events due to their small sample sizes and instead focused on effectiveness. To ensure that there is no gap in drug safety data collection and detection of rare adverse events due to limited phase IV clinical trials, there is a significant need for additional education and participation by both health care providers and patients in spontaneous reporting processes.

Comparison of Availability of Trial Results in ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed by Data Source and Funder Type

This study examines the dissemination of trial results by data source (ie, ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed) and funder type (ie, industry and nonindustry).

Status of pediatric echocardiography clinical trials: a cross-sectional study of registered trials in ClinicalTrials.gov

Background

The objective of this study is to analyze the characteristics of pediatric echocardiography clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.

Methods

A data set including pediatric echocardiography clinical trials was downloaded from ClinicalTrials.gov until May 13, 2022. We searched the PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, and Embase databases to extract publication data. Pediatric echocardiography trial characteristics, application areas, and publication status were described. The secondary objectives were to evaluate factors associated with trial publication.

Results

We identified 410 pediatric echocardiography reporting definite age, of which 246 were interventional and 146 were observational. Drug interventions were the most commonly studied (32.9%). The most applied area of pediatric echocardiography was congenital heart disease, followed by hemodynamics of preterm or neonatal infants, cardiomyopathy, inflammatory heart disease, pulmonary hypertension, and cardio-oncology. According to the primary completion data, 54.9% of the trials were completed before August 2020. 34.2% of the trials had been published within 24 months. Union countries and quadruple masking were more likely to be published.

Conclusion

Echocardiography is rapidly evolving in pediatric clinical applications, including anatomic imaging and functional imaging. Novel speckle tracking techniques have also been pivotal in the assessment of cancer therapeutics-related cardiac dysfunction. A small number of clinical trials in pediatric echocardiography are published in a timely fashion. Concerted efforts are needed to promote trial transparency.

Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy: Updated comparisons and meta-analyses of newer versus older trials

BACKGROUND

Valid assessment of drug efficacy and safety requires an evidence base free of reporting bias. Using trial reports in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approval packages as a gold standard, we previously found that the published literature inflated the apparent efficacy of antidepressant drugs. The objective of the current study was to determine whether this has improved with recently approved drugs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

Using medical and statistical reviews in FDA drug approval packages, we identified 30 Phase II/III double-blind placebo-controlled acute monotherapy trials, involving 13,747 patients, of desvenlafaxine, vilazodone, levomilnacipran, and vortioxetine; we then identified corresponding published reports. We compared the data from this newer cohort of antidepressants (approved February 2008 to September 2013) with the previously published dataset on 74 trials of 12 older antidepressants (approved December 1987 to August 2002). Using logistic regression, we examined the effects of trial outcome and trial cohort (newer versus older) on transparent reporting (whether published and FDA conclusions agreed). Among newer antidepressants, transparent publication occurred more with positive (15/15 = 100%) than negative (7/15 = 47%) trials (OR 35.1, CI95% 1.8 to 693). Controlling for trial outcome, transparent publication occurred more with newer than older trials (OR 6.6, CI95% 1.6 to 26.4). Within negative trials, transparent reporting increased from 11% to 47%. We also conducted and contrasted FDA- and journal-based meta-analyses. For newer antidepressants, FDA-based effect size (ESFDA) was 0.24 (CI95% 0.18 to 0.30), while journal-based effect size (ESJournals) was 0.29 (CI95% 0.23 to 0.36). Thus, effect size inflation, presumably due to reporting bias, was 0.05, less than for older antidepressants (0.10). Limitations of this study include a small number of trials and drugs-belonging to a single class-and a focus on efficacy (versus safety).

CONCLUSIONS

Reporting bias persists but appears to have diminished for newer, compared to older, antidepressants. Continued efforts are needed to further improve transparency in the scientific literature.

Reporting bias in clinical trials: Progress toward transparency and next steps

Mayookha Mitra-Majumdar and Aaron Kesselheim reflect on steps taken to combat reporting bias in clinical trials over the last two decades.

Social media attention and citations of published outputs from re-use of clinical trial data: a matched comparison with articles published in the same journals

BACKGROUND

Data-sharing policies in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) should have an evaluation component. The main objective of this case-control study was to assess the impact of published re-uses of RCT data in terms of media attention (Altmetric) and citation rates.

METHODS

Re-uses of RCT data published up to December 2019 (cases) were searched for by two reviewers on 3 repositories (CSDR, YODA project, and Vivli) and matched to control papers published in the same journal. The Altmetric Attention Score (primary outcome), components of this score (e.g. mention of policy sources, media attention) and the total number of citations were compared between these two groups.

RESULTS

89 re-uses were identified: 48 (53.9%) secondary analyses, 34 (38.2%) meta-analyses, 4 (4.5%) methodological analyses and 3 (3.4%) re-analyses. The median (interquartile range) Altmetric Attention Scores were 5.9 (1.3-22.2) for re-use and 2.8 (0.3-12.3) for controls (p = 0.14). No statistical difference was found on any of the components of in the Altmetric Attention Score. The median (interquartile range) numbers of citations were 3 (1-8) for reuses and 4 (1 - 11.5) for controls (p = 0.30). Only 6/89 re-uses (6.7%) were cited in a policy source.

CONCLUSIONS

Using all available re-uses of RCT data to date from major data repositories, we were not able to demonstrate that re-uses attracted more attention than a matched sample of studies published in the same journals. Small average differences are still possible, as the sample size was limited. However matching choices have some limitations so results should be interpreted very cautiously. Also, citations by policy sources for re-uses were rare.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Registration: osf.io/fp62e.

Meta-research in pharmacy: Time for a look in the mirror

The volume of the biomedical literature continues to expand at a substantial rate. The research literature surrounding pharmaceutical services is no different. Due in part to events in the recent past, researchers, consumers, funders, and policymakers have raised concerns about the credibility, transparency, and potential waste in the global research enterprise. Meta-research, or research on research, provides a way to examine the efficiency, quality, and potential bias in the overall research ecosystem. The field of meta-research is a relatively new but rapidly growing field that has seen many applications in biomedical research. Applications in pharmacy research, however, are still developing. The goals of this commentary are to introduce pharmacy researchers to the concept of meta-research, discuss several examples of meta-research in pharmacy, and motivate the importance of sustained meta-research efforts in pharmacy.

Current status of Bayesian clinical trials for oncology, 2020

Bayesian methods had established a foothold in developing therapies in oncology trials. Methods: We identified clinical trials posted on the ClinicalTrials.gov database focused on Oncology trials with a Bayesian approach in their design. Differences in study characteristics such as design, study phase, randomization, masking, purpose of study, main outcomes, gender, age and funding involvement according to Bayesian approach were assessed using Chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests. Results: We identified 225 studies with Bayesian components in their design addressing oncological diseases. The most common designs were Bayesian Toxicity Monitoring (26.4%), Model-based designs (36%) Model-assisted designs (8%). Statistical methods such as Bayesian logistic regression model (59.4%), Bayesian piecewise exponential survival regression (10.9%) and the Continual reassessment method (9.4%) were the most used. Conclusions: Bayesian trials are more common in the early phases of drug development specifically in phase II trials (43.6%). Cancer institutes or Hospitals funded most of the studies retrieved. This type of design has increased over time and represent an innovative means of increasing trial efficiency.

Registration of phase 3 crossover trials on ClinicalTrials.gov

BACKGROUND

In a randomized crossover trial, each participant is randomized to a sequence of treatments and treatment effect is estimated based on within-individual difference because each participant serves as his/her own control. This feature makes the design and reporting of randomized crossover trials different from that of parallel trials. Our objective was to characterize phase 3 crossover trials with results reported on ClinicalTrials.gov and identify issues and best practices for reporting.

METHODS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for phase 3 randomized crossover trials that provided results, registered at least one primary outcome, and included at least one link to a results publication in the record by August 6, 2019. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility and extracted information from each record into an electronic form developed and maintained in the Systematic Review Data Repository.

RESULTS

Of the 124 crossover trials analyzed, two thirds were a simple "Intervention A then B" or "Intervention B then A" (AB|BA) design. Most trials (78%, 97/124) provided enough information to understand the participant flow throughout the trial. Baseline characteristics were most often reported for all participants as a single group (52%, 65/124). Primary outcomes and adverse events were most commonly reported "per intervention" (85%, 105/124, and 80%, 99/124, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The registration and reporting of randomized crossover trials must account for the paired nature of the design. Our observations and recommendations informed the development of guidelines for good reporting practices in the registration and reporting of randomized crossover trials.

P-hacking in clinical trials and how incentives shape the distribution of results across phases

Statistical significance in clinical trials is a key prerequisite for marketing approval of new drugs. The large economic payoffs at stake might undermine investigators’ ethical obligations and incentivize manipulation of results. This study systematically evaluates the integrity of results reported to the largest registry of clinical trials, ClinicalTrials.gov. Contrary to what has been documented in previous studies of academic publications across a number of disciplines, our analysis does not detect evidence for widespread manipulation of results to clear the 5% threshold for statistical significance. However, we find that the increase in the share of significant results from phase II to phase III can be explained only partially by investigators’ incentives to selectively continue experimentation following favorable early results.

Clinical research should conform to high standards of ethical and scientific integrity, given that human lives are at stake. However, economic incentives can generate conflicts of interest for investigators, who may be inclined to withhold unfavorable results or even tamper with data in order to achieve desired outcomes. To shed light on the integrity of clinical trial results, this paper systematically analyzes the distribution of P values of primary outcomes for phase II and phase III drug trials reported to the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. First, we detect no bunching of results just above the classical 5% threshold for statistical significance. Second, a density-discontinuity test reveals an upward jump at the 5% threshold for phase III results by small industry sponsors. Third, we document a larger fraction of significant results in phase III compared to phase II. Linking trials across phases, we find that early favorable results increase the likelihood of continuing into the next phase. Once we take into account this selective continuation, we can explain almost completely the excess of significant results in phase III for trials conducted by large industry sponsors. For small industry sponsors, instead, part of the excess remains unexplained.

Characteristics of COVID-19 Clinical Trials in China Based on the Registration Data on ChiCTR and ClinicalTrials.gov

Objective

This study aimed to evaluate the fundamental characteristics of coronavirus disease (COVID-19) clinical trials registered in China.

Methods

COVID-19 clinical trials registered in China were analyzed from databases on ChiCTR and ClinicalTrials.gov. The study designs, samples, primary end points, and intervention measures were evaluated.

Results

In total, 262 intervention clinical trials were retrieved on March 10, 2020. Overall, 181 (69.1%) trials involved two groups, 200 (76.3%) trials were randomized parallel trials, 24 (9.2%) trials were double blind, and 60.3% of trials included ≤100 participants. Sixty (22.9%) trials considered symptom improvement as the primary endpoint and 43 (16.4%) trials considered the rate or time at which the subjects became virus-free as the primary endpoint. Of 262 intervention studies, chemical drugs and biological products were studied in 105 (40.1%) intervention studies, of which antiviral drugs accounted for 15.3% and malaria drugs accounted for 8.4% of the studies. Among all trials, 27.9% of the studies used traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), 10.3% used cell therapy, and 5.0% used plasma therapy.

Conclusion

This study is the first snapshot of the landscape of COVID-19 clinical trials registered in China and provided the basic features of clinical trial designs for the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 to offer useful information to guide future clinical trials on COVID-19 in other countries.

Results of trials assessing transarterial chemoembolization for treating hepatocellular carcinoma are critically underreported

OBJECTIVE

We aimed to evaluate to what extent the results of registered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) for treating hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are publicly available.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and primary registries for RCTs assessing TACE for treating HCC, registered between January 2008 and August 2018, that had exceeded their completion date by more than 1 year. We systematically searched PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar for a publication as well as the registry for results. The main outcomes were the availability of results, and the time to the first availability of results (i.e., posted on the registry or published). Secondary outcomes were the proportion of results available at 12 and 36 months after completion.

RESULTS

Among 67 identified RCTs, including a total target number to 11,599 participants, 26 had publicly available results (39%; i.e., 42% of total target number of participants). Results of 25 RCTs (37%) were published, with only 3 having results posted on the registry and 2 with both published and posted results. The median (Q1-Q3) time from completion to the first public availability of results was 18 months (11-29). The cumulative percentages of RCTs with results available were 10% (95% CI, 3-17%) and 29% (95% CI, 17-39%) at 12 and 36 months, respectively, after completion.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the ethical commitments and societal expectations for disclosure of results, the availability of results of RCTs on TACE for treating HCC is very limited.

KEY POINTS

• Underreporting of trial results is a major cause of wasted medical research since inaccessible research results fail to help both patients and clinicians. • Transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) is the most common treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and has called for considerable research efforts. • Yet, almost two-thirds of randomized controlled trials assessing TACE for treating HCC did not yield any public results, either on the registry platform or in scientific journals.

Characteristics of studies of pharmacist services registered in ClinicalTrials.gov

OBJECTIVE

To examine the characteristics of studies of pharmacist services registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

ClinicalTrials.gov and MEDLINE databases were searched to identify studies of pharmacist services. Registration information was obtained from the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT) database. Studies were excluded if the ClinicalTrials.gov submission date was after December 31, 2018; there were no U.S. study sites; pharmacist services were not mentioned; or pharmacist involvement was limited to medication dispensing, randomization, or measuring study outcomes.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Characteristics of registered studies from ClinicalTrials.gov and AACT data, categories of pharmacist services, changes in registration and focus of pharmacist services over time, and relationships between funding source and result availability and between the focus of pharmacist services and types of outcomes and types of pharmacist interventions.

RESULTS

Overall 401 studies were identified for initial review, with 151 included for detailed review. Pharmacist services were the only intervention in 68 studies (45.0%), a separate intervention in 14 (9.3%), and part of a combined intervention in 40 (26.5%). In 29 studies (19.2%), pharmacist services were not the focus. Registered studies primarily were interventional, randomized, and open-label; included behavioral or "other" interventions; were conducted in the outpatient setting; and were sponsored by "other" sources. The most common health conditions were hypertension and diabetes. Only 29 of the 104 completed studies (27.9%) posted results. Clinical outcomes were the most common primary (80; 53.0%) and secondary outcomes (66; 58.9%). Medication management (69; 45.7%) and patient education or counseling (88; 58.3%) were the most common types of pharmacist interventions.

CONCLUSION

This analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov identified 151 studies of pharmacist services in the United States registered through the end of 2018. Given the breadth of the pharmacy services literature, there is room for improvement in the registration of these types of studies.

Implementing a Cloud Based Method for Protected Clinical Trial Data Sharing

Clinical trials generate a large amount of data that have been underutilized due to obstacles that prevent data sharing including risking patient privacy, data misrepresentation, and invalid secondary analyses. In order to address these obstacles, we developed a novel data sharing method which ensures patient privacy while also protecting the interests of clinical trial investigators. Our flexible and robust approach involves two components: (1) an advanced cloud-based querying language that allows users to test hypotheses without direct access to the real clinical trial data and (2) corresponding synthetic data for the query of interest that allows for exploratory research and model development. Both components can be modified by the clinical trial investigator depending on factors such as the type of trial or number of patients enrolled. To test the effectiveness of our system, we first implement a simple and robust permutation based synthetic data generator. We then use the synthetic data generator coupled with our querying language to identify significant relationships among variables in a realistic clinical trial dataset.

European Medicines Agency Policy 0070: an exploratory review of data utility in clinical study reports for academic research

Background

Clinical study reports (CSRs) have been increasingly utilised within academic research in recent years. European Medicines Agency (EMA) Policy 0070 ‘Phase 1,’ which came into effect in January 2015, requires the publication of regulatory documents such as CSRs from central applications in an anonymised format. EMA Policy 0070 requires sponsors to demonstrate careful consideration of data utility within anonymised CSRs published within the scope of the policy, yet the concept of data utility is not clearly defined in the associated anonymisation guidance.

Objective

To review the use of data from CSRs in published academic research and to hypothesise the potential data utility of CSRs anonymised under the objectives of EMA Policy 0070 for future academic research.

Methods

Review of the objectives, research methodologies and findings of academic research reports using unpublished data from CSRs (prior to EMA Policy 0070). Semi-structured interviews with authors of academic research reports, including questions related to data utility of anonymised CSRs published under EMA Policy 0070.

Results

Thirteen academic research reports were identified and reviewed. The research purposes ranged from assessment of reporting bias, comparison of methods and results with published data sources, detailed evaluation of harms and adverse events, re-analysis and novel analyses including systematic reviews and meta-analysis. All of the examples identified required access to the methods and results sections of CSRs (including aggregated summary tables) and research purposes relating to evaluation of adverse events also required access to participant narratives. Retaining anonymised participant narratives relating to interventions, findings and events, while maintaining an acceptably low risk of participant re-identification, may provide an important gain in data utility and further understanding of drug safety profiles.

Conclusions

This work provides an initial insight into the previous use of CSR data and current practices for including regulatory data in academic research. This work also provides early guidance to qualitatively assess and document data utility within anonymised CSRs published under EMA Policy 0070.

To end disease tomorrow, begin with trials today: Digital strategies for increased awareness of a clinical trials finder

Introduction:

Individuals experiencing different medical conditions, as well as healthy volunteers, may often be interested in trial participation, and researchers similarly need to find participants to advance medical knowledge. The ResearchMatch (RM) Trials Today clinical trial searching tool leverages clinicaltrials.gov data to enable potential participants to look for trial opportunities relevant to their situation. To facilitate expanded use of this tool, we undertook a national digital public awareness campaign to increase awareness of Trials Today among members of the general public.

Methods:

The awareness campaign promoted Trials Today using Facebook and digital banner messages in 2017, encompassing nine cities across the USA. The digital strategy was complemented by print media in several outlets. We employed descriptive statistics to summarize campaign metrics and site usage data during the campaign.

Results:

The campaign was successful in increasing visits to Trials Today, with 142,303 sessions logged during its run, as compared to pre-campaign data indicating 104,688 total sessions during the entire 2-year period since the site’s inception. The city-specific click-through rate for all digital impressions, combining Facebook and banner messaging, ranged from 0.50% to 1.09%, resulting in a cost-per-click range of $0.69–$1.15. In addition, visitors conducted 29,697 searches and viewed individual trial records 173,512 times.

Conclusion:

The public awareness campaign was successful in increasing use of the RM Trials Today clinical trial searching tool. Our findings support the value of digital media messaging as a cost-effective vehicle for promoting clinical trial awareness, especially for chronic ailments.

Declaring and Diagnosing Research Designs

Researchers need to select high-quality research designs and communicate those designs clearly to readers. Both tasks are difficult. We provide a framework for formally "declaring" the analytically relevant features of a research design in a demonstrably complete manner, with applications to qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods research. The approach to design declaration we describe requires defining a model of the world (M), an inquiry (I), adatastrategy(D), andananswerstrategy(A). Declaration of these features in code provides sufficient information for researchers and readers to use Monte Carlo techniques to diagnose properties such as power, bias, accuracy of qualitative causal inferences, and other "diagnosands." Ex ante declarations can be used to improve designs and facilitate preregistration, analysis, and reconciliation of intended and actual analyses. Ex post declarations are useful for describing, sharing, reanalyzing, and critiquing existing designs. We provide open-source software, DeclareDesign, to implement the proposed approach.

Result dissemination from clinical trials conducted at German university medical centers was delayed and incomplete

OBJECTIVES

Timely and comprehensive reporting of clinical trial results builds the backbone of evidence-based medicine and responsible research. The proportion of timely disseminated trial results can inform alternative national and international benchmarking of university medical centers (UMCs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

For all German UMCs, we tracked all registered trials completed between 2009 and 2013. The results and an interactive website benchmark German UMCs regarding their performance in result dissemination.

RESULTS

We identified and tracked 2,132 clinical trials. For 1,509 trials, one of the German UMCs took the academic lead. Of these 1,509 "lead trials," 39% published their results (mostly via journal publications) in a timely manner (<24 months after completion). More than 6 years after study completion, 26% of all eligible lead trials still had not disseminated results.

CONCLUSION

Despite substantial attention from many stakeholders to the topic, there is still a strong delay or even absence of result dissemination for many trials. German UMCs have several opportunities to improve this situation. Further research should evaluate whether and how a transparent benchmarking of UMC performance in result dissemination helps to increase value and reduce waste in medical research.

Assessing the adoption of clinical trial results summary disclosure to patients and the public

Introduction: There is a broad global acknowledgment that the timely and effective communication of clinical trial results is not only essential to the development, diagnosis, and treatment of medical conditions but also meets an ethical obligation to inform patients and the public. Areas covered: At this time, less than 2% of all clinical trials completed or terminated within the past three years returned plain language summaries to study volunteers. This estimate is far below our forecast made 10 years ago when we evaluated a pilot effort to demonstrate a feasible and efficient process for communicating summary results to patients. At that time, we anticipated that research sponsors would embrace the obligation and in so doing would improve their relationship with and trust among their study volunteers and patient communities. This article discusses why adoption remains low and suggests that the absence of clear regulatory requirements and their enforcement are the primary cause. Expert opinion: The authors anticipate that the regulatory environment will tighten and that public, patient and patient advocate appetite and expectation for the disclosure of clinical trial results summaries in plain language will intensify during the next 18 months. These pressures will compel research sponsors to accelerate adoption.

Entry Into New Therapeutic Areas: The Effect of Alliance on Clinical Trials

BACKGROUND

Entry into a new therapeutic area, that is, one in which a pharmaceutical firm lacks experience, is a considerable challenge for firms that need to overcome scientific and technological barriers. To address this issue, the present study aims to explore the potentiality of alliances in an empirical manner.

METHODS

From the clinical trials sponsored by 20 major pharmaceutical firms during 2008-2016 listed at ClinicalTrials.gov (n = 14,941 clinical trials), cases of entering a new therapeutic area for a pharmaceutical firm were extracted (n = 73), followed by statistical analyses to evaluate the effect of alliances in this regard.

RESULTS

We found that the average number of participating organizations in the cases of entering a new therapeutic area was significantly larger than that in the cases of entering an area in which firms had experience (P < .01), suggesting that alliance has a positive effect on new therapeutic entry for these pharmaceutical firms. Second, we found that the cases of partnering with nonindustrial or nongovernmental organizations (ie, universities, research institutes, hospitals, funding agencies, and others; n = 32 of the 73) were significantly associated with these new entry trials (adjusted odds ratio = 1.1, P < .05). Furthermore, we identified that 10 of the 32 clinical trials were associated with rare diseases, which is an overrepresentation compared to the occurrence in the universe (1015 of the 14,941; P < 10^-5).

CONCLUSIONS

These findings strongly suggest the importance of alliances with diversified partners in new therapeutic entry and also provide a basis for further detailed investigation of key success factors for pharmaceutical firms.

Registration of published randomized trials: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Prospective trial registration is a powerful tool to prevent reporting bias. We aimed to determine the extent to which published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were registered and registered prospectively.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE from January 2005 to October 2017; we also screened all articles cited by or citing included and excluded studies, and the reference lists of related reviews. We included studies that examined published RCTs and evaluated their registration status, regardless of medical specialty or language. We excluded studies that assessed RCT registration status only through mention of registration in the published RCT, without searching registries or contacting the trial investigators. Two independent reviewers blinded to the other's work performed the selection. Following PRISMA guidelines, two investigators independently extracted data, with discrepancies resolved by consensus. We calculated pooled proportions and 95% confidence intervals using random-effects models.

RESULTS

We analyzed 40 studies examining 8773 RCTs across a wide range of clinical specialties. The pooled proportion of registered RCTs was 53% (95% confidence interval 44% to 58%), with considerable between-study heterogeneity. A subset of 24 studies reported data on prospective registration across 5529 RCTs. The pooled proportion of prospectively registered RCTs was 20% (95% confidence interval 15% to 25%). Subgroup analyses showed that registration was higher for industry-supported and larger RCTs. A meta-regression analysis across 19 studies (5144 RCTs) showed that the proportion of registered trials significantly increased over time, with a mean proportion increase of 27%, from 25 to 52%, between 2005 and 2015.

CONCLUSIONS

The prevalence of trial registration has increased over time, but only one in five published RCTs is prospectively registered, undermining the validity and integrity of biomedical research.

The 10-year Landscape of United States-Registered Parkinson Disease Clinical Trials: 2007-2016

Background

We know little about how well the goals and results of clinical trials in Parkinson disease (PD) reflect the priorities of patients and the broader PD community.

Objectives

We conducted a review of registered trials on http://clincialtrials.gov from 2007 to 2016 to explore whether PD trials have moved closer to the therapeutic priority goals articulated by the PD community.

Methods

Using the search terms: Parkinson, interventional trials, phase "0-4," we categorized therapeutic PD studies from http://clinicaltrials.gov between January 1, 2007 and December 31, 2016. Seven hundred and sixty-six trials met the criteria for analysis. We explored temporal trends in the utilization of balance problems and falls; mood symptoms, including stress and anxiety; cognitive dysfunction, including dementia; and dyskinesias as primary outcomes. We analyzed trials where recruitment was listed as "completed" (n = 391) to explore publication rates.

Results

Balance problems and falls were listed as primary outcome measures in 125 studies (16.3%), cognitive measures in 48 (6.3%), mood features in 37 (4.8%), and dyskinesias in 30 (3.9%). Trials using balance problems and falls as a primary outcome increased in frequency per year between 2007 and 2016 (Z = -2.128, p = 0.033) unlike the proportion of trials evaluating cognitive dysfunction including dementia (Z = -0.380, p = 0.704), mood symptoms including stress and anxiety (Z = 0.345, p = 0.730), or dyskinesias (Z = 0.340, p = 0.734), which did not show temporal changes. 231 (59.1%) completed trials had results published in manuscript form as of 5/1/2017, leaving 40.9% of trials unpublished.

Conclusions

PD trials focusing on balance problems and falls are becoming more common. About 40% of completed PD trials are unpublished, reflecting suboptimal utilization of participant efforts.

Clinical trial design and dissemination: comprehensive analysis of clinicaltrials.gov and PubMed data since 2005

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the distribution, design characteristics, and dissemination of clinical trials by funding organisation and medical specialty.

DESIGN

Cross sectional descriptive analysis.

DATA SOURCES

Trial protocol information from clinicaltrials.gov, metadata of journal articles in which trial results were published (PubMed), and quality metrics of associated journals from SCImago Journal and Country Rank database.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All 45 620 clinical trials evaluating small molecule therapeutics, biological drugs, adjuvants, and vaccines, completed after January 2006 and before July 2015, including randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies across all clinical phases.

RESULTS

Industry was more likely than non-profit funders to fund large international randomised controlled trials, although methodological differences have been decreasing with time. Among 27 835 completed efficacy trials (phase II-IV), 15 084 (54.2%) had disclosed their findings publicly. Industry was more likely than non-profit trial funders to disseminate trial results (59.3% (10 444/17 627) v 45.3% (4555/10 066)), and large drug companies had higher disclosure rates than small ones (66.7% (7681/11 508) v 45.2% (2763/6119)). Trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were disseminated more often than those of other non-profit institutions (60.0% (1451/2417) v 40.6% (3104/7649)). Results of studies funded by large drug companies and NIH were more likely to appear on clinicaltrials.gov than were those from non-profit funders, which were published mainly as journal articles. Trials reporting the use of randomisation were more likely than non-randomised studies to be published in a journal article (6895/19 711 (34.9%) v 1408/7748 (18.2%)), and journal publication rates varied across disease areas, ranging from 42% for autoimmune diseases to 20% for oncology.

CONCLUSIONS

Trial design and dissemination of results vary substantially depending on the type and size of funding institution as well as the disease area under study.

Methodological and reporting quality in laboratory studies of human eating behavior

The methodological quality and reporting practices of laboratory studies of human eating behavior determine the validity and replicability of nutrition science. The aim of this research was to examine basic methodology and reporting practices in recent representative laboratory studies of human eating behavior. We examined laboratory studies of human eating behavior (N = 140 studies) published during 2016. Basic methodology (e.g., sample size, use of participant blinding) and reporting practices (e.g., information on participant characteristics) were assessed for each study. Some information relating to participant characteristics (e.g., age, gender) and study methodology (e.g., length of washout periods in within-subjects studies) were reported in the majority of studies. However, other aspects of study reporting, including participant eligibility criteria and how sample size was determined were frequently not reported. Studies often did not appear to standardize pre-test meal appetite or attempt to blind participants to study aims. The average sample size of studies was small (between-subjects design studies in particular) and the primary statistical analyses in a number of studies (24%) were reliant on very small sample sizes that would be likely to produce unreliable results. There are basic methodology and reporting practices in the laboratory study of human eating behavior that are sub-optimal and this is likely to be affecting the validity and replicability of research. Recommendations to address these issues are discussed.

Discontinuation and nonpublication of interventional clinical trials conducted in patients with mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease

Introduction

Discontinuation and nonpublication of interventional clinical trials represents a waste of already scarce resources. We sought to identify the prevalence of discontinuation and nonpublication of interventional clinical trials conducted in patients afflicted by mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional study on mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease–based interventional clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov dating back to 1995. The analyzed data included trial phase, intervention type, enrollment, and funding sources. Fisher's exact and χ² tests were used to determine any potential associations between trial characteristics and completion.

Results

A total of 744 studies were identified, of which 502 (67%) were industry-sponsored ones. A total of 127 (17%) were discontinued prematurely. Of the 617 completed trials, 450 (73%) were not published, representing approximately 66,655 participants who incurred the risks of trial participation without subsequently contributing to the medical literature. Similarly, there were 18,246 patients from unpublished, discontinued trials. Of the 744 trials examined, 247 publications from 167 trials could be identified via PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE searches. Most notably, the odds of nonpublication among industry-sponsored trials were more than 75% higher than those in studies funded by academia (odds ratio = 1.78; 95% confidence interval, 1.14–2.78; P = .01). Furthermore, industry-sponsored trials had a 50% greater odds of study discontinuation compared with trials funded by academia (odds ratio = 1.50; 95% confidence interval, 1.04–2.16; P = .03).

Discussion

The nonpublication of many trials and preliminary results of trials that are discontinued early dilutes the quality and decreases the comprehensive nature of the medical literature. This occurs in both industry and academia. Publication of inconclusive or negative results ensures that all research activities, regardless of outcome, contribute to global medical knowledge.

Transparency in ovarian cancer clinical trial results: ClinicalTrials.gov versus PubMed, Embase and Google scholar

Background

In recent years the question of the lack of transparency in clinical research has been debated by clinicians, researchers, citizens and their representatives, authors and publishers. This is particularly important for infrequent cancers such as ovarian cancer, where treatment still gives disappointing results in the majority of cases. Our aim was to assess the availability to the public of results in ClinicalTrials.gov, and the frequency of non-publication of results in ClinicalTrials.gov and in PubMed, Embase and Google Scholar. We collected all trials on ovarian cancer identified as “completed status” in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry on 17 January 2017. We checked the availability of the results in ClinicalTrials.gov and systematically identified published manuscripts on results.

Results

Out of 2725 trials on ovarian cancer identified, 752 were classified as “completed status”. In those closed between 2008 and 2015, excluding phase I, the frequency of results in ClinicalTrials.gov was 35%. Of the 752 completed studies the frequency of published results in PubMed, Embase or Google Scholar ranged from 57.9% to 69.7% in the last years.

Conclusions

These findings show a lack of transparency and credibility of research. Citizens or patients’ representatives, with the medical community, should continuously support initiatives to improve the publication and dissemination of clinical study results.

Big Data in Drug Discovery

Interpretation of Big Data in the drug discovery community should enhance project timelines and reduce clinical attrition through improved early decision making. The issues we encounter start with the sheer volume of data and how we first ingest it before building an infrastructure to house it to make use of the data in an efficient and productive way. There are many problems associated with the data itself including general reproducibility, but often, it is the context surrounding an experiment that is critical to success. Help, in the form of artificial intelligence (AI), is required to understand and translate the context. On the back of natural language processing pipelines, AI is also used to prospectively generate new hypotheses by linking data together. We explain Big Data from the context of biology, chemistry and clinical trials, showcasing some of the impressive public domain sources and initiatives now available for interrogation.

Unreported links between trial registrations and published articles were identified using document similarity measures in a cross-sectional analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov

OBJECTIVES

Trial registries can be used to measure reporting biases and support systematic reviews, but 45% of registrations do not provide a link to the article reporting on the trial. We evaluated the use of document similarity methods to identify unreported links between ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We extracted terms and concepts from a data set of 72,469 ClinicalTrials.gov registrations and 276,307 PubMed articles and tested methods for ranking articles across 16,005 reported links and 90 manually identified unreported links. Performance was measured by the median rank of matching articles and the proportion of unreported links that could be found by screening ranked candidate articles in order.

RESULTS

The best-performing concept-based representation produced a median rank of 3 (interquartile range [IQR] 1-21) for reported links and 3 (IQR 1-19) for the manually identified unreported links, and term-based representations produced a median rank of 2 (1-20) for reported links and 2 (IQR 1-12) in unreported links. The matching article was ranked first for 40% of registrations, and screening 50 candidate articles per registration identified 86% of the unreported links.

CONCLUSION

Leveraging the growth in the corpus of reported links between ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed, we found that document similarity methods can assist in the identification of unreported links between trial registrations and corresponding articles.

Factors associated with reporting results for pulmonary clinical trials in ClinicalTrials.gov

Background/aims The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act mandates that applicable clinical trials report basic summary results to the ClinicalTrials.gov database within 1 year of trial completion or termination. We aimed to determine the proportion of pulmonary trials reporting basic summary results to ClinicalTrials.gov and assess factors associated with reporting. Methods We identified pulmonary clinical trials subject to the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (called highly likely applicable clinical trials) that were completed or terminated between 2008 and 2012 and reported results by September 2013. We estimated the cumulative percentage of applicable clinical trials reporting results by pulmonary disease category. Multivariable Cox regression modeling identified characteristics independently associated with results reporting. Results Of 1450 pulmonary highly likely applicable clinical trials, 380 (26%) examined respiratory neoplasms, 238 (16%) asthma, 175 (12%) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 657 (45%) other respiratory diseases. Most (75%) were pharmaceutical highly likely applicable clinical trials and 71% were industry-funded. Approximately 15% of highly likely applicable clinical trials reported results within 1 year of trial completion, while 55% reported results over the 5-year study period. Earlier phase highly likely applicable clinical trials were less likely to report results compared to phase 4 highly likely applicable clinical trials (phases 1/2 and 2 (adjusted hazard ratio 0.41 (95% confidence interval: 0.31-0.54)), phases 2/3 and 3 (adjusted hazard ratio 0.55 (95% confidence interval: 0.42-0.72)) and phase not applicable (adjusted hazard ratio 0.43 (95% confidence interval: 0.29-0.63)). Pulmonary highly likely applicable clinical trials without Food and Drug Administration oversight were less likely to report results compared with those with oversight (adjusted hazard ratio 0.65 (95% confidence interval: 0.51-0.83)). Conclusion A total of 15% of pulmonary clinical highly likely applicable clinical trials report basic summary results to ClinicalTrials.gov within 1 year of trial completion. Strategies to improve reporting are needed within the pulmonary community.

ClinicalTrials.gov, stem cells and ‘pay-to-participate’ clinical studies

Numerous US businesses that engage in direct-to-consumer advertising of stem cell interventions that are not US FDA-approved also recruit clients by listing ‘pay-to-participate’ studies listed on ClinicalTrials.gov . Individuals considering enrolling in such studies and NIH officials responsible for overseeing the database need to be aware that some businesses are using the registry to promote unapproved stem cell interventions that study subjects are charged to receive. Inclusion of such studies in ClinicalTrials.gov reveals that the database needs better screening tools. In particular, screening should evaluate whether studies submitted to the registry have been reviewed and permitted to proceed by the FDA in the case of clinical studies requiring FDA clearance in addition to institutional review board approval.

Linking quality indicators to clinical trials: an automated approach

OBJECTIVE

Quality improvement of health care requires robust measurable indicators to track performance. However identifying which indicators are supported by strong clinical evidence, typically from clinical trials, is often laborious. This study tests a novel method for automatically linking indicators to clinical trial registrations.

DESIGN

A set of 522 quality of care indicators for 22 common conditions drawn from the CareTrack study were automatically mapped to outcome measures reported in 13 971 trials from ClinicalTrials.gov.

INTERVENTION

Text mining methods extracted phrases mentioning indicators and outcome phrases, and these were compared using the Levenshtein edit distance ratio to measure similarity.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Number of care indicators that mapped to outcome measures in clinical trials.

RESULTS

While only 13% of the 522 CareTrack indicators were thought to have Level I or II evidence behind them, 353 (68%) could be directly linked to randomized controlled trials. Within these 522, 50 of 70 (71%) Level I and II evidence-based indicators, and 268 of 370 (72%) Level V (consensus-based) indicators could be linked to evidence. Of the indicators known to have evidence behind them, only 5.7% (4 of 70) were mentioned in the trial reports but were missed by our method.

CONCLUSIONS

We automatically linked indicators to clinical trial registrations with high precision. Whilst the majority of quality indicators studied could be directly linked to research evidence, a small portion could not and these require closer scrutiny. It is feasible to support the process of indicator development using automated methods to identify research evidence.

From transplanting Schwann cells in experimental rat spinal cord injury to their transplantation into human injured spinal cord in clinical trials

Among the potential therapies designed to repair the injured spinal cord is cell transplantation, notably the use of autologous adult human Schwann cells (SCs). Here, we detail some of the critical research accomplished over the last four decades to establish a foundation that enables these cells to be tested in clinical trials. New culture systems allowed novel information to be gained about SCs, including discovering ways to stimulate their proliferation to acquire adequately large numbers for transplantation into the injured human spinal cord. Transplantation of rat SCs into rat models of spinal cord injury has demonstrated that SCs promote repair of injured spinal cord. Additional work required to gain approval from the Food and Drug Administration for the first SC trial in the Miami Project is disclosed. This trial and a second one now underway are described.

The Landscape of Clinical Trials Evaluating the Theranostic Role of PET Imaging in Oncology: Insights from an Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov Database

In the war on cancer marked by personalized medicine, positron emission tomography (PET)-based theranostic strategy is playing an increasingly important role. Well-designed clinical trials are of great significance for validating the PET applications and ensuring evidence-based cancer care. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive landscape of the characteristics of PET clinical trials using the substantial resource of ClinicalTrials.gov database. We identified 25,599 oncology trials registered with ClinicalTrials.gov in the last ten-year period (October 2005-September 2015). They were systematically reviewed to validate classification into 519 PET trials and 25,080 other oncology trials used for comparison. We found that PET trials were predominantly phase 1-2 studies (86.2%) and were more likely to be single-arm (78.9% vs. 57.9%, P <0.001) using non-randomized assignment (90.1% vs. 66.7%, P <0.001) than other oncology trials. Furthermore, PET trials were small in scale, generally enrolling fewer than 100 participants (20.3% vs. 25.7% for other oncology trials, P = 0.014), which might be too small to detect a significant theranostic effect. The funding support from industry or National Institutes of Health shrunk over time (both decreased by about 5%), and PET trials were more likely to be conducted in only one region lacking international collaboration (97.0% vs. 89.3% for other oncology trials, P <0.001). These findings raise concerns that clinical trials evaluating PET imaging in oncology are not receiving the attention or efforts necessary to generate high-quality evidence. Advancing the clinical application of PET imaging will require a concerted effort to improve the quality of trials.

Reporting of statistically significant results at ClinicalTrials.gov for completed superiority randomized controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Publication bias and other reporting bias have been well documented for journal articles, but no study has evaluated the nature of results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov. We aimed to assess how many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov report statistically significant results and whether the proportion of trials with significant results differs when no treatment effect estimate or p-value is posted.

METHODS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov in June 2015 for all studies with results posted. We included completed RCTs with a superiority hypothesis and considered results for the first primary outcome with results posted. For each trial, we assessed whether a treatment effect estimate and/or p-value was reported at ClinicalTrials.gov and if yes, whether results were statistically significant. If no treatment effect estimate or p-value was reported, we calculated the treatment effect and corresponding p-value using results per arm posted at ClinicalTrials.gov when sufficient data were reported.

RESULTS

From the 17,536 studies with results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov, we identified 2823 completed phase 3 or 4 randomized trials with a superiority hypothesis. Of these, 1400 (50%) reported a treatment effect estimate and/or p-value. Results were statistically significant for 844 trials (60%), with a median p-value of 0.01 (Q1-Q3: 0.001-0.26). For the 1423 trials with no treatment effect estimate or p-value posted, we could calculate the treatment effect and corresponding p-value using results reported per arm for 929 (65%). For 494 trials (35%), p-values could not be calculated mainly because of insufficient reporting, censored data, or repeated measurements over time. For the 929 trials we could calculate p-values, we found statistically significant results for 342 (37%), with a median p-value of 0.19 (Q1-Q3: 0.005-0.59).

CONCLUSIONS

Half of the trials with results posted at ClinicalTrials.gov reported a treatment effect estimate and/or p-value, with significant results for 60% of these. p-values could be calculated from results reported per arm at ClinicalTrials.gov for only 65% of the other trials. The proportion of significant results was much lower for these trials, which suggests a selective posting of treatment effect estimates and/or p-values when results are statistically significant.

Overview of phase IV clinical trials for postmarket drug safety surveillance: a status report from the ClinicalTrials.gov registry

OBJECTIVE

Phase IV trials are often used to investigate drug safety after approval. However, little is known about the characteristics of contemporary phase IV clinical trials and whether these studies are of sufficient quality to advance medical knowledge in pharmacovigilance. We aimed to determine the fundamental characteristics of phase IV clinical trials that evaluated drug safety using the ClinicalTrials.gov registry data.

METHODS

A data set of 19 359 phase IV clinical studies registered in ClinicalTrials.gov was downloaded. The characteristics of the phase IV trials focusing on safety only were compared with those evaluating both safety and efficacy. We also compared the characteristics of the phase IV trials in three major therapeutic areas (cardiovascular diseases, mental health and oncology). Multivariable logistic regression was used to evaluate factors associated with the use of blinding and randomisation.

RESULTS

A total of 4772 phase IV trials were identified, including 330 focusing on drug safety alone and 4392 evaluating both safety and efficacy. Most of the phase IV trials evaluating drug safety (75.9%) had enrolment <300 with 96.5% <3000. Among these trials, 8.2% were terminated or withdrawn. Factors associated with the use of blinding and randomisation included the intervention model, clinical specialty and lead sponsor.

CONCLUSIONS

Phase IV trials evaluating drug safety in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry were dominated by small trials that might not have sufficient power to detect less common adverse events. An adequate sample size should be emphasised for phase IV trials with safety surveillance as main task.

Discontinuation and Nonpublication of Randomized Clinical Trials Conducted in Children

BACKGROUND

Trial discontinuation and nonpublication represent potential waste in research resources and lead to compromises in medical evidence. Pediatric trials may be particularly vulnerable to these outcomes given the challenges encountered in conducting trials in children. We aimed to determine the prevalence of discontinuation and nonpublication of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) conducted in pediatric populations.

METHODS

Retrospective, cross-sectional study of pediatric RCTs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from 2008 to 2010. Data were collected from the registry and associated publications identified (final search on September 1, 2015).

RESULTS

Of 559 trials, 104 (19%) were discontinued early, accounting for an estimated 8369 pediatric participants. Difficulty with patient accrual (37%) was the most commonly cited reason for discontinuation. Trials were less likely to be discontinued if they were funded by industry compared with academic institutions (odds ratio [OR] 0.46, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.27-0.77). Of the 455 completed trials, 136 (30%) were not published, representing 69 165 pediatric participants. Forty-two unpublished trials posted results on ClinicalTrials.gov. Trials funded by industry were more than twice as likely to result in nonpublication at 24 and 36 months (OR 2.21, 95% CI 1.35-3.64; OR 3.12, 95% CI 1.6-6.08, respectively) and had a longer mean time to publication compared with trials sponsored by academia (33 vs 24 months, P < .001).

CONCLUSIONS

In this sample of pediatric RCTs, discontinuation and nonpublication were common, with thousands of children exposed to interventions that did not lead to informative or published findings. Trial funding source was an important determinant of these outcomes, with both academic and industry sponsors contributing to inefficiencies.

Informed consent in implantable BCI research: identification of research risks and recommendations for development of best practices

OBJECTIVE

Implantable brain-computer interface (BCI) research promises improvements in human health and enhancements in quality of life. Informed consent of subjects is a central tenet of this research. Rapid advances in neuroscience, and the intimate connection between functioning of the brain and conceptions of the self, make informed consent particularly challenging in BCI research. Identification of safety and research-related risks associated with BCI devices is an important step in ensuring meaningful informed consent.

APPROACH

This paper highlights a number of BCI research risks, including safety concerns, cognitive and communicative impairments, inappropriate subject expectations, group vulnerabilities, privacy and security, and disruptions of identity.

MAIN RESULTS

Based on identified BCI research risks, best practices are needed for understanding and incorporating BCI-related risks into informed consent protocols.

SIGNIFICANCE

Development of best practices should be guided by processes that are: multidisciplinary, systematic and transparent, iterative, relational and exploratory.

Timing of pivotal clinical trial results reporting for newly approved medications varied by reporting source

OBJECTIVE

The study aimed to characterize the public availability of pivotal clinical trial results for newly approved drugs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We examined the availability of pivotal clinical trial results for new molecular entities (NMEs) approved by the US Food and Drug administration (FDA) from 2009 to 2013. For each NME, we quantified the time from approval date until results were available on the FDA web site, in the ClinicalTrials.gov basic results database, and in a medical journal.

RESULTS

Two hundred fifty-five pivotal trials supporting 88 NMEs met our criteria. The median time until pivotal trial results were available on the FDA web site, ClinicalTrials.gov, and in a publication was 42 days, 27 days, and -28 days, respectively. In the first 30 days after approval, 52% of pivotal trials were summarized in ClinicalTrials.gov, 20% were posted to the FDA web site, and 46% were published in a journal. Across all sources, 79% of pivotal trials had results available within 30 days of approval. From 2009 to 2013, the average time until public availability has improved for federal sources.

CONCLUSIONS

Pivotal trials of newly approved drugs appeared first in publications. Results from most pivotal trials were publicly available in some source within 30 days of approval.

Publication and non-publication of drug trial results: a 10-year cohort of trials in Norwegian general practice

OBJECTIVES

Previously, we identified a 10-year cohort of protocols from applications to the Norwegian Medicines Agency 1998-2007, consisting of 196 drug trials in general practice. The aim of this study was to examine whether trial results were published and whether trial funding and conflicts of interest were reported.

DESIGN

Cohort study of trials with systematic searches for published results.

SETTING

Clinical drug trials in Norwegian general practice.

METHODS

We performed systematic literature searches of MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL to identify publications originating from each trial using characteristics such as test drug, comparator and patient groups as search terms. When no publication was identified, we contacted trial sponsors for information regarding trial completion and reference to any publications.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

We determined the frequency of publication of trial results and trial characteristics associated with publication of results.

RESULTS

Of the 196 trials, 5 were never started. Of the remaining 191 trials, 71% had results published in a journal, 11% had results publicly available elsewhere and 18% of trials had no results available. Publication was more common among trials with an active comparator drug (χ(2) test, p=0.040), with a larger number of patients (total sample size≥median, p=0.010) and with a longer trial period (duration≥median, p=0.025). Trial funding was reported in 85% of publications and increased over time, as did reporting of conflicts of interest among authors. Among the 134 main journal articles from the trials, 60% presented statistically significant results for the investigational drug, and the conclusion of the article was favourable towards the test drug in 78% of papers.

CONCLUSIONS

We did not identify any journal publication of results for 29% of the general practice drug trials. Trials with an active comparator, larger and longer trials were more likely to be published.

Towards exergaming commons: composing the exergame ontology for publishing open game data

BACKGROUND

It has been shown that exergames have multiple benefits for physical, mental and cognitive health. Only recently, however, researchers have started considering them as health monitoring tools, through collection and analysis of game metrics data. In light of this and initiatives like the Quantified Self, there is an emerging need to open the data produced by health games and their associated metrics in order for them to be evaluated by the research community in an attempt to quantify their potential health, cognitive and physiological benefits.

METHODS

We have developed an ontology that describes exergames using the Web Ontology Language (OWL); it is available at http://purl.org/net/exergame/ns#. After an investigation of key components of exergames, relevant ontologies were incorporated, while necessary classes and properties were defined to model these components. A JavaScript framework was also developed in order to apply the ontology to online exergames. Finally, a SPARQL Endpoint is provided to enable open data access to potential clients through the web.

RESULTS

Exergame components include details for players, game sessions, as well as, data produced during these game-playing sessions. The description of the game includes elements such as goals, game controllers and presentation hardware used; what is more, concepts from already existing ontologies are reused/repurposed. Game sessions include information related to the player, the date and venue where the game was played, as well as, the results/scores that were produced/achieved. These games are subsequently played by 14 users in multiple game sessions and the results derived from these sessions are published in a triplestore as open data.

CONCLUSIONS

We model concepts related to exergames by providing a standardized structure for reference and comparison. This is the first work that publishes data from actual exergame sessions on the web, facilitating the integration and analysis of the data, while allowing open data access through the web in an effort to enable the concept of Open Trials for Active and Healthy Ageing.

Effect Sizes and Primary Outcomes in Large-Budget, Cardiovascular-Related Behavioral Randomized Controlled Trials Funded by NIH Since 1980

PURPOSE

We reviewed large-budget, National Institutes of Health (NIH)-supported randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with behavioral interventions to assess (1) publication rates, (2) trial registration, (3) use of objective measures, (4) significant behavior and physiological change, and (5) effect sizes.

METHODS

We identified large-budget grants (>$500,000/year) funded by NIH (National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) or National Institute of Diabetes & Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)) for cardiovascular disease (dates January 1, 1980 to December 31, 2012). Among 106 grants that potentially met inclusion criteria, 20 studies were not published and 48 publications were excluded, leaving 38 publications for analysis. ClinicalTrials.gov abstracts were used to determine whether outcome measures had been pre-specified.

RESULTS

Three fourths of trials were registered in ClinicalTrials.gov and all published pre-specified outcomes. Twenty-six trials reported a behavioral outcome with 81 % reporting significant improvements for the target behavior. Thirty-two trials reported a physiological outcome. All were objectively measured, and 81 % reported significant benefit. Seventeen trials reported morbidity outcomes, and seven reported a significant benefit. Nine trials assessed mortality, and all were null for this outcome.

CONCLUSIONS

Behavioral trials complied with trial registration standards. Most reported a physiological benefit, but few documented morbidity or mortality benefits.