Patient consent to publication and data sharing in industry and NIH-funded clinical trials

COVID-19 trials were not more likely to report intent to share individual data than non-COVID-19 trials in ClinicalTrials.gov

OBJECTIVES

To compare intent to share individual participant data (IPD) between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov between 01/09/2020, and 01/03/2021. We also evaluated factors independently associated with intent to share IPD and whether intent to share IPD has improved as compared with the prepandemic period.

METHODS

We searched ClinicalTrials.gov for all interventional phase 3 studies registered between 01/09/2020, and 01/03/2021. Then, we identified COVID-19 trials and selected a random sample of non-COVID-19 trials with a ratio 2:1. We compared the intent to share IPD between these trials and with 292 trials registered between 01/12/2019, and 01/03/2020 (prepandemic period).

RESULTS

We included 148 COVID-19 trials and 296 non-COVID-19 trials. Intent to share IPD did not significantly differ between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 trials (22.3% vs. 27.0%, P = 0.3). Intent to share IPD was independently associated with industry-sponsorship (odds ratio [OR] = 2.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.65-5.27) and location in the United States (OR = 2.93; 95% CI: 1.64-5.41) or the European Union (OR = 2.06; 95% CI: 1.03-4.19). The intent to share IPD has not significantly improved compared with the prepandemic period (P = 0.16).

CONCLUSION

Data-sharing intent at registration does not seem better for COVID-19 trials.

International data governance for neuroscience

As neuroscience projects increase in scale and cross international borders, different ethical principles, national and international laws, regulations, and policies for data sharing must be considered. These concerns are part of what is collectively called data governance. Whereas neuroscience data transcend borders, data governance is typically constrained within geopolitical boundaries. An international data governance framework and accompanying infrastructure can assist investigators, institutions, data repositories, and funders with navigating disparate policies. Here, we propose principles and operational considerations for how data governance in neuroscience can be navigated at an international scale and highlight gaps, challenges, and opportunities in a global brain data ecosystem. We consider how to approach data governance in a way that balances data protection requirements and the need for open science, so as to promote international collaboration through federated constructs such as the International Brain Initiative (IBI).

Clinical pharmacology: Current innovations and future challenges

Clinical pharmacology is the study of drugs in humans, from first-in-human studies to randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and benefit-risk ratio assessment in large populations. The objective of this review is to present the recent innovations that may revolutionize the development of drugs in the future. On behalf of the French Society of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, we provide recommendations to address those future challenges in clinical pharmacology. Whatever the future will be, robust preliminary data on drug mechanism of action and rigorous study design will remain crucial prior to the start of pharmacological studies in human. At the present time, RCTs remains the gold standard to evaluate the efficacy of human drugs, although alternative designs (pragmatic trials, platform trials, etc.) are emerging. Innovations in healthy volunteers' studies and the contribution of new technologies such as artificial intelligence, machine learning and internet-based trials have the potential to improve drug development. In the field of precision medicine, new disease phenotypes and endotypes will probably help to identify new pharmacological targets, responders to therapies and patients at risk for drug adverse events. In such a moving landscape, the development of translational research through academic and private partnership, transparent sharing of clinical trial data and enhanced interactions between drug experts, patients and the general public are priority areas for action.

Status, use and impact of sharing individual participant data from clinical trials: a scoping review

OBJECTIVES

To explore the impact of data-sharing initiatives on the intent to share data, on actual data sharing, on the use of shared data and on research output and impact of shared data.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

All studies investigating data-sharing practices for individual participant data (IPD) from clinical trials.

SOURCES OF EVIDENCE

We searched the Medline database, the Cochrane Library, the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Social Sciences Citation Index via Web of Science, and preprints and proceedings of the International Congress on Peer Review and Scientific Publication. In addition, we inspected major clinical trial data-sharing platforms, contacted major journals/publishers, editorial groups and some funders.

CHARTING METHODS

Two reviewers independently extracted information on methods and results from resources identified using a standardised questionnaire. A map of the extracted data was constructed and accompanied by a narrative summary for each outcome domain.

RESULTS

93 studies identified in the literature search (published between 2001 and 2020, median: 2018) and 5 from additional information sources were included in the scoping review. Most studies were descriptive and focused on early phases of the data-sharing process. While the willingness to share IPD from clinical trials is extremely high, actual data-sharing rates are suboptimal. A survey of journal data suggests poor to moderate enforcement of the policies by publishers. Metrics provided by platforms suggest that a large majority of data remains unrequested. When requested, the purpose of the reuse is more often secondary analyses and meta-analyses, rarely re-analyses. Finally, studies focused on the real impact of data-sharing were rare and used surrogates such as citation metrics.

CONCLUSIONS

There is currently a gap in the evidence base for the impact of IPD sharing, which entails uncertainties in the implementation of current data-sharing policies. High level evidence is needed to assess whether the value of medical research increases with data-sharing practices.

Discoverability of information on clinical trial data-sharing platforms

OBJECTIVE

This study was intended to (1) provide clinical trial data-sharing platform designers with insight into users' experiences when attempting to evaluate and access datasets, (2) spark conversations about improving the transparency and discoverability of clinical trial data, and (3) provide a partial view of the current information-sharing landscape for clinical trials.

METHODS

We evaluated preview information provided for 10 datasets in each of 7 clinical trial data-sharing platforms between February and April 2019. Specifically, we evaluated the platforms in terms of the extent to which we found (1) preview information about the dataset, (2) trial information on ClinicalTrials.gov and other external websites, and (3) evidence of the existence of trial protocols and data dictionaries.

RESULTS

All seven platforms provided data previews. Three platforms provided information on data file format (e.g., CSV, SAS file). Three allowed batch downloads of datasets (i.e., downloading multiple datasets with a single request), whereas four required separate requests for each dataset. All but one platform linked to ClinicalTrials.gov records, but only one platform had ClinicalTrails.gov records that linked back to the platform. Three platforms consistently linked to external websites and primary publications. Four platforms provided evidence of the presence of a protocol, and six platforms provided evidence of the presence of data dictionaries.

CONCLUSIONS

More work is needed to improve the discoverability, transparency, and utility of information on clinical trial data-sharing platforms. Increasing the amount of dataset preview information available to users could considerably improve the discoverability and utility of clinical trial data.

Evaluation of repositories for sharing individual-participant data from clinical studies

BACKGROUND

Data repositories have the potential to play an important role in the effective and safe sharing of individual-participant data (IPD) from clinical studies. We analysed the current landscape of data repositories to create a detailed description of available repositories and assess their suitability for hosting data from clinical studies, from the perspective of the clinical researcher.

METHODS

We assessed repositories that enable storage, sharing, discoverability, re-use of the IPD and associated documents from clinical studies using a pre-defined set of 34 items and publicly available information from April to June 2018. For this purpose, we developed an indicator set to capture the maturity of the repositories' procedures and their suitability for the hosting of IPD. The indicators cover guidelines for data upload and data de-identification, data quality controls, contracts for upload and storage, flexibility of access, application of identifiers, availability of metadata, and long-term preservation.

RESULTS

We analysed 25 repositories, from an initial set of 55 identified as possibly relevant. Half of the included repositories were generic, i.e. not limited to a specific disease or clinical area and 13 were launched in the last 8 years. The sample was extremely heterogeneous and included repositories developed by research funders, infrastructures, universities, and editors. All but three repositories do not apply a fee for uploading, storage or access to data. None of the repositories completely demonstrated all the items included in the indicator set, but three repositories (Dryad, Drum, EASY) met - fully or partially - all items. Flexibility of data-access modalities appears to be limited, being lacking in half of the repositories.

CONCLUSIONS

Our evaluation, though often hampered by the lack of sufficient information, can help researchers to find a suitable repository for their datasets. Some repositories are more mature because of their support for clinical dataset preparation, contractual agreements, metadata and identifiers, different modalities of access, and long-term preservation of data. Further work is now required to achieve a more robust and accurate system for evaluation, which in turn may encourage the sharing of clinical study data.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Study protocol available at https://zenodo.org/record/1438261#.W64kW9Egrcs .

Authors of trials from high-ranking anesthesiology journals were not willing to share raw data

OBJECTIVES

To analyze data sharing practices among authors of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in seven high-ranking anesthesiology journals from 2014 to 2016.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We analyzed data sharing statements in 619 included RCTs and contacted their corresponding authors, asking them to share de-identified raw data from trial.

RESULTS

Of the 86 (14%) authors who responded to our query for data sharing, only 24 (4%) provided the requested data. Only one of those 24 had a data sharing statement in the published manuscript. Only 24 (4%) of manuscripts contained statements suggesting a willingness to share trial data; only one of those authors actually shared data. There was no difference in proportion of data sharing between studies with commercial and nonprofit funding. Among the 62 authors who refused to provide data, reasons were seldom provided. When reasons were provided, common themes included issues regarding data ownership and participant privacy. Only one of the seven analyzed journals encouraged authors toward data sharing.

CONCLUSION

Willingness to share data among anesthesiology RCTs is very low. To achieve widespread availability of de-identified trial data, journals should request their publication, as opposed to only encouraging authors to do so.