Characteristics, Progression, and Output of Randomized Platform Trials: A Systematic Review

Importance

Platform trials have become increasingly common, and evidence is needed to determine how this trial design is actually applied in current research practice.

Objective

To determine the characteristics, progression, and output of randomized platform trials.

Evidence Review

In this systematic review of randomized platform trials, Medline, Embase, Scopus, trial registries, gray literature, and preprint servers were searched, and citation tracking was performed in July 2022. Investigators were contacted in February 2023 to confirm data accuracy and to provide updated information on the status of platform trial arms. Randomized platform trials were eligible if they explicitly planned to add or drop arms. Data were extracted in duplicate from protocols, publications, websites, and registry entries. For each platform trial, design features such as the use of a common control arm, use of nonconcurrent control data, statistical framework, adjustment for multiplicity, and use of additional adaptive design features were collected. Progression and output of each platform trial were determined by the recruitment status of individual arms, the number of arms added or dropped, and the availability of results for each intervention arm.

Findings

The search identified 127 randomized platform trials with a total of 823 arms; most trials were conducted in the field of oncology (57 [44.9%]) and COVID-19 (45 [35.4%]). After a more than twofold increase in the initiation of new platform trials at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of platform trials has since declined. Platform trial features were often not reported (not reported: nonconcurrent control, 61 of 127 [48.0%]; multiplicity adjustment for arms, 98 of 127 [77.2%]; statistical framework, 37 of 127 [29.1%]). Adaptive design features were only used by half the studies (63 of 127 [49.6%]). Results were available for 65.2% of closed arms (230 of 353). Premature closure of platform trial arms due to recruitment problems was infrequent (5 of 353 [1.4%]).

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review found that platform trials were initiated most frequently during the COVID-19 pandemic and declined thereafter. The reporting of platform features and the availability of results were insufficient. Premature arm closure for poor recruitment was rare.

Antibody Response After the Third SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients and People Living With HIV (COVERALL-2)

Background

After basic immunization with 2 mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine doses, only a small proportion of patients who are severely immunocompromised generate a sufficient antibody response. Hence, we assessed the additional benefit of a third SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in patients with different levels of immunosuppression.

Methods

In this observational extension of the COVERALL trial (Corona Vaccine Trial Platform), we recruited patients from the Swiss HIV Cohort Study and the Swiss Transplant Cohort Study (ie, lung and kidney transplant recipients). We collected blood samples before and 8 weeks after the third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination with either mRNA-1273 (Moderna) or BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech). The primary outcome was the proportion of participants showing an antibody response (Elecsys Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S test; threshold ≥100 U/mL) 8 weeks after the third SARS-CoV-2 vaccination. We also compared the proportion of patients who reached the primary outcome from basic immunization (the first and second vaccines) to the third vaccination.

Results

Nearly all participants (97.2% [95% CI, 95.9%-98.6%], 564/580) had an antibody response. This response was comparable between mRNA-1273 (96.1% [95% CI, 93.7%-98.6%], 245/255) and BNT162b2 (98.2% [95% CI, 96.7%-99.6%], 319/325). Stratification by cohort showed that 99.8% (502/503) of people living with HIV and 80.5% (62/77) of recipients of solid organ transplants achieved the primary endpoint. The proportion of patients with an antibody response in solid organ transplant recipients improved from the second vaccination (22.7%, 15/66) to the third (80.5%, 62/77).

Conclusions

People living with HIV had a high antibody response. The third vaccine increased the proportion of solid organ transplant recipients with an antibody response. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT04805125 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Antibody response after third vaccination with mRNA-1273 or BNT162b2: Extension of a randomised controlled SARS-CoV-2 non-inferiority vaccine trial in patients with different levels of immunosuppression (COVERALL-2)

Extension of the COVERALL randomised trial showed non-inferiority in antibody response of the third dose of Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine (95.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 91.9-98.7%) compared to Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine (98.1%; 95% CI: 95.9-100.0%) in individuals with different levels of immunosuppression (difference: -2.8%; 95% CI: -6.8-1.3%).

Effects of remdesivir in patients hospitalised with COVID-19: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Interpretation of the evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of remdesivir in patients treated in hospital for COVID-19 is conflicting. We aimed to assess the benefits and harms of remdesivir compared with placebo or usual care in these patients, and whether treatment effects differed between prespecified patient subgroups.

METHODS

For this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane COVID-19 trial registry, ClinicalTrials.gov, the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and preprint servers from Jan 1, 2020, until April 11, 2022, for RCTs of remdesivir in adult patients hospitalised with COVID-19, and contacted the authors of eligible trials to request individual patient data. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at day 28 after randomisation. We used multivariable hierarchical regression-adjusting for respiratory support, age, and enrollment period-to investigate effect modifiers. This study was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42021257134.

FINDINGS

Our search identified 857 records, yielding nine RCTs eligible for inclusion. Of these nine eligible RCTs, individual data were provided for eight, covering 10 480 patients hospitalised with COVID-19 (99% of such patients included in such RCTs worldwide) recruited between Feb 6, 2020, and April 1, 2021. Within 28 days of randomisation, 662 (12·5%) of 5317 patients assigned to remdesivir and 706 (14·1%) of 5005 patients assigned to no remdesivir died (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0·88, 95% CI 0·78-1·00, p=0·045). We found evidence for a credible subgroup effect according to respiratory support at baseline (p_interaction=0·019). Of patients who were ventilated-including those who received high-flow oxygen-253 (30·0%) of 844 patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 241 (28·5%) of 846 patients assigned to no remdesivir (aOR 1·10 [0·88-1·38]; low-certainty evidence). Of patients who received no oxygen or low-flow oxygen, 409 (9·1%) of 4473 patients assigned to remdesivir died compared with 465 (11·2%) of 4159 patients assigned to no remdesivir (0·80 [0·70-0·93]; high-certainty evidence). No credible subgroup effect was found for time to start of remdesivir after symptom onset, age, presence of comorbidities, enrolment period, or corticosteroid use. Remdesivir did not increase the frequency of severe or serious adverse events.

INTERPRETATION

This individual patient data meta-analysis showed that remdesivir reduced mortality in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 who required no or conventional oxygen support, but was underpowered to evaluate patients who were ventilated when receiving remdesivir. The effect size of remdesivir in patients with more respiratory support or acquired immunity and the cost-effectiveness of remdesivir remain to be further elucidated.

FUNDING

EU-RESPONSE.

Towards full clinical trial registration and results publication: longitudinal meta-research study in Northwestern and Central Switzerland

OBJECTIVE

The registration of clinical trials is required by law in Switzerland. We investigated (1) the proportion of registered and prospectively registered clinical trials, (2) the availability of results for ethically approved trial protocols, (3) factors associated with increased registration, and (4) reasons for non-registration.

DESIGN AND SETTING

We included all clinical trials with mandatory prospective registration, which were approved by the ethics committee of Northwestern and Central Switzerland between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020.

METHODS

We extracted relevant trial characteristics from the Swiss Business Administration System for Ethics Committees and systematically searched the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and primary trial registries for corresponding registry entries. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between trial characteristics and registration. We qualitatively assessed reasons for non-registration of trials through an email questionnaire for trial investigators.

RESULTS

Of 473 included clinical trials, 432 (91%) were registered at all and 326 (69%) were prospectively registered. While the percentages of registration and prospective registration of investigator-sponsored trials increased from 85 to 93% and from 59 to 70% over 5 years, respectively, industry-sponsored trials consistently remained at a high level of prospective registration (92 to 100%). Trials with multiple centres, higher risk category, or methodological support from the local clinical trials unit were independently associated with increased registration rates. Of 103 clinical trials completed before August 2020, results were available for 70% of industry-sponsored trials and 45% of investigator-sponsored trials as peer-reviewed journal publications or in trial registries. Most common reasons for non-registration provided by investigators were lack of time or resources (53%), lack of knowledge (22%), and lack of reminders by the ethics committee (36%).

CONCLUSIONS

In Northwestern and Central Switzerland about 10% of clinical trials remained unregistered despite the obligation by law. More support for investigators and stricter enforcement by regulators are needed to improve the transparency of investigator-sponsored trials in particular.

Reproducibility and Scientific Integrity of Big Data Research in Urban Public Health and Digital Epidemiology: A Call to Action

The emergence of big data science presents a unique opportunity to improve public-health research practices. Because working with big data is inherently complex, big data research must be clear and transparent to avoid reproducibility issues and positively impact population health. Timely implementation of solution-focused approaches is critical as new data sources and methods take root in public-health research, including urban public health and digital epidemiology. This commentary highlights methodological and analytic approaches that can reduce research waste and improve the reproducibility and replicability of big data research in public health. The recommendations described in this commentary, including a focus on practices, publication norms, and education, are neither exhaustive nor unique to big data, but, nonetheless, implementing them can broadly improve public-health research. Clearly defined and openly shared guidelines will not only improve the quality of current research practices but also initiate change at multiple levels: the individual level, the institutional level, and the international level.

Reporting quality of clinical trial protocols: a repeated cross-sectional study about the Adherence to SPIrit Recommendations in Switzerland, CAnada and GErmany (ASPIRE-SCAGE)

OBJECTIVES

Comprehensive protocols are key for the planning and conduct of randomised clinical trials (RCTs). Evidence of low reporting quality of RCT protocols led to the publication of the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklist in 2013. We aimed to examine the quality of reporting of RCT protocols from three countries before and after the publication of the SPIRIT checklist.

DESIGN

Repeated cross sectional study.

SETTING

Swiss, German and Canadian research ethics committees (RECs).

PARTICIPANTS

RCT protocols approved by RECs in 2012 (n=257) and 2016 (n=292).

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcomes were the proportion of reported SPIRIT items per protocol and the proportion of trial protocols reporting individual SPIRIT items. We compared these outcomes in protocols approved in 2012 and 2016, and built regression models to explore factors associated with adherence to SPIRIT. For each protocol, we also extracted information on general trial characteristics and assessed whether individual SPIRIT items were reported RESULTS: The median proportion of reported SPIRIT items among RCT protocols showed a non-significant increase from 72% (IQR, 63%-79%) in 2012 to 77% (IQR, 68%-82%) in 2016. However, in a preplanned subgroup analysis, we detected a significant improvement in investigator-sponsored protocols: the median proportion increased from 64% (IQR, 55%-72%) in 2012 to 76% (IQR, 64%-83%) in 2016, while for industry-sponsored protocols median adherence was 77% (IQR 72%-80%) for both years. The following trial characteristics were independently associated with lower adherence to SPIRIT: single-centre trial, no support from a clinical trials unit or contract research organisation, and investigator-sponsorship.

CONCLUSIONS

In 2012, industry-sponsored RCT protocols were reported more comprehensively than investigator-sponsored protocols. After publication of the SPIRIT checklist, investigator-sponsored protocols improved to the level of industry-sponsored protocols, which did not improve.

Scoping review and characteristics of publicly available checklists for assessing clinical trial feasibility

Background

Whether there is sufficient capacity and capability for the successful conduct and delivery of a clinical trial should be assessed by several stakeholders according to transparent and evidence-based criteria during trial planning. For this openly shared, user-tested, and validated tools are necessary. Therefore, we systematically examined the public availability and content of checklists which assess the study-level feasibility in the planning phase of clinical trials.

Methods

In our scoping review we systematically searched Medline, EMBASE, and Google (last search, June 2021). We included all publicly available checklists or tools that assessed study level feasibility of clinical trials, examined their content, and checked whether they were user-tested or validated in any form. Data was analysed and synthesised using conventional content analysis.

Results

A total of 10 publicly available checklists from five countries were identified. The checklists included 48 distinct items that were classified according to the following seven different domains of clinical trial feasibility: regulation, review and oversight; participant recruitment; space, material and equipment; financial resources; trial team resources; trial management; and pilot or feasibility studies. None of the available checklists appeared to be user-tested or validated.

Conclusions

Although a number of publicly available checklists to assess the feasibility of clinical trials exist, their reliability and usefulness remain unclear. Openly shared, user-tested, and validated feasibility assessment tools for a better planning of clinical trials are lacking.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01617-6.

Nonregistration, discontinuation, and nonpublication of randomized trials: A repeated metaresearch analysis

BACKGROUND

We previously found that 25% of 1,017 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved between 2000 and 2003 were discontinued prematurely, and 44% remained unpublished at a median of 12 years follow-up. We aimed to assess a decade later (1) whether rates of completion and publication have increased; (2) the extent to which nonpublished RCTs can be identified in trial registries; and (3) the association between reporting quality of protocols and premature discontinuation or nonpublication of RCTs.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

We included 326 RCT protocols approved in 2012 by research ethics committees in Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada in this metaresearch study. Pilot, feasibility, and phase 1 studies were excluded. We extracted trial characteristics from each study protocol and systematically searched for corresponding trial registration (if not reported in the protocol) and full text publications until February 2022. For trial registrations, we searched the (i) World Health Organization: International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (ICTRP); (ii) US National Library of Medicine (ClinicalTrials.gov); (iii) European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EUCTR); (iv) ISRCTN registry; and (v) Google. For full text publications, we searched PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. We recorded whether RCTs were registered, discontinued (including reason for discontinuation), and published. The reporting quality of RCT protocols was assessed with the 33-item SPIRIT checklist. We used multivariable logistic regression to examine the association between the independent variables protocol reporting quality, planned sample size, type of control (placebo versus other), reporting of any recruitment projection, single-center versus multicenter trials, and industry versus investigator sponsoring, with the 2 dependent variables: (1) publication of RCT results; and (2) trial discontinuation due to poor recruitment. Of the 326 included trials, 19 (6%) were unregistered. Ninety-eight trials (30%) were discontinued prematurely, most often due to poor recruitment (37%; 36/98). One in 5 trials (21%; 70/326) remained unpublished at 10 years follow-up, and 21% of unpublished trials (15/70) were unregistered. Twenty-three of 147 investigator-sponsored trials (16%) reported their results in a trial registry in contrast to 150 of 179 industry-sponsored trials (84%). The median proportion of reported SPIRIT items in included RCT protocols was 69% (interquartile range 61% to 77%). We found no variables associated with trial discontinuation; however, lower reporting quality of trial protocols was associated with nonpublication (odds ratio, 0.71 for each 10% increment in the proportion of SPIRIT items met; 95% confidence interval, 0.55 to 0.92; p = 0.009). Study limitations include that the moderate sample size may have limited the ability of our regression models to identify significant associations.

CONCLUSIONS

We have observed that rates of premature trial discontinuation have not changed in the past decade. Nonpublication of RCTs has declined but remains common; 21% of unpublished trials could not be identified in registries. Only 16% of investigator-sponsored trials reported results in a trial registry. Higher reporting quality of RCT protocols was associated with publication of results. Further efforts from all stakeholders are needed to improve efficiency and transparency of clinical research.

Investigational medicinal products, related costs and hospital pharmacy services for investigator-initiated trials: A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

Conducting high quality investigator-initiated trials (IITs) is challenging and costly. The costs of investigational medicinal products (IMPs) in IITs and the role of hospital pharmacies in the planning of IITs are unclear. We conducted a mixed-methods study to compare planned and actual costs of IMPs in Swiss IITs, to examine potential reasons for differences, and to gather stakeholder views about hospital services for IITs.

METHODS

We included all IITs with IMP services from the Basel hospital pharmacy invoiced between January 2014 and June 2020 (n = 24). We documented trial and IMP characteristics including planned and actual IMP costs. Our working definition for a substantial cost difference was that the actual IMP costs were more than 10% higher than the planned IMP costs in a trial. We conducted semi-structured interviews with investigators, clinical trials unit and hospital pharmacy staff, and qualitatively analyzed transcribed interviews.

RESULTS

For 13 IITs we observed no differences between planned and actual costs of IMPs (median, 11'000 US$; interquartile range [IQR], 8'882-16'302 US$), but for 11 IITs we found cost increases from a median of 11'000 US$ (IQR, 8'922-36'166 US$) to a median over 28'000 US$ (IQR, 13'004-49'777 US$). All multicenter trials and 10 of 11 IITs with patients experienced substantial cost differences. From the interviews we identified four main themes: 1) Patient recruitment and organizational problems were identified as main reasons for cost differences, 2) higher actual IMP costs were bearable for most investigators, 3) IMP services for IITs were not a priority for the hospital pharmacy, and 4) closer collaboration between clinical trial unit and hospital pharmacy staff, and sufficient staff for IITs at the hospital pharmacy could improve IMP services.

CONCLUSIONS

Multicenter IITs enrolling patients are particularly at risk for higher IMP costs than planned. These trials are more difficult to plan and logistically challenging, which leads to delays and expiring IMP shelf-lives. IMP services of hospital pharmacies are important for IITs in Switzerland, but need to be further developed.

Reliability of Trial Information Across Registries for Trials With Multiple Registrations: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Clinical trial registries are important for gaining an overview of ongoing research efforts and for deterring and identifying publication bias and selective outcome reporting. The reliability of the information in trial registries is uncertain.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the reliability of information across registries for trials with multiple registrations.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

For this systematic review, 360 protocols of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) approved by research ethics committees in Switzerland, the UK, Canada, and Germany in 2012 were evaluated. Clinical trial registries were searched from March to September 2019 for corresponding registrations of these RCTs. For RCTS that were recorded in more than 1 clinical trial registry, key trial characteristics that should be identical among all trial registries (ie, sponsor, funding source, primary outcome, target sample size, trial status, date of first patient enrollment, results available, and main publication indexed) were extracted in duplicate. Agreement between the different trial registries for these key characteristics was analyzed descriptively. Data analyses were conducted from May 1 to November 30, 2020. Representatives from clinical trial registries were interviewed to discuss the study findings between February 1 and March 31, 2021.

FINDINGS

The analysis included 197 RCTs registered in more than 1 trial registry (151 in 2 registries and 46 in 3 registries), with 188 trials in ClinicalTrials.gov, 185 in the European Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials Database (EudraCT), 20 in ISRCTN, and 47 in other registries. The agreement of key information across all registries was as follows: 178 of 197 RCTs (90%; 95% CI, 85%-94%) for sponsor, 18 of 20 (90%; 95% CI, 68%-99%) for funding source (funding was not reported on ClinicalTrials.gov), 154 of 197 (78%; 95% CI, 72%-84%) for primary outcome, 90 of 197 (46%; 95% CI, 39%-53%) for trial status, 122 of 194 (63%; 95% CI, 56%-70%) for target sample size, and 43 of 57 (75%; 95% CI, 62%-86%) for the date of first patient enrollment when the comparison time was increased to 30 days (date of first patient enrollment was not reported on EudraCT). For results availability in trial registries, agreement was 122 of 197 RCTs (62%; 95% CI, 55%-69%) for summary data reported in the registry and 91 of 197 (46%; 95% CI, 39%-53%) for whether a published article with the main results was indexed. Different legal requirements were stated as the main reason for inconsistencies by representatives of clinical trial registries.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this systematic review, for a substantial proportion of registered RCTs, information about key trial characteristics was inconsistent across trial registries, raising concerns about the reliability of the information provided in these registries. Further harmonization across clinical trial registries may be necessary to increase their usefulness.

Evaluation of Planned Subgroup Analysis in Protocols of Randomized Clinical Trials

This cross-sectional study compares randomized clinical trial protocols to assess the prevalence and reporting quality of planned subgroup analyses over time.

A meta-research study revealed several challenges in obtaining placebos for investigator-initiated drug trials

OBJECTIVES

To systematically assess the kind of placebos used in investigator-initiated randomized controlled trials (RCTs), from where they are obtained, and the hurdles that exist in obtaining them.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

PubMed was searched for recently published noncommercial, placebo-controlled randomized drug trials. Corresponding authors were invited to participate in an online survey.

RESULTS

From 423 eligible articles, 109 (26%) corresponding authors (partially) participated. Twenty-one of 102 (21%) authors reported that the placebos used were not matching (correctly labeled in only one publication). The main sources in obtaining placebos were hospital pharmacies (32 of 107; 30%) and the manufacturer of the study drug (28 of 107; 26%). RCTs with a hypothesis in the interest of the manufacturer of the study drug were more likely to have obtained placebos from the drug manufacturer (18 of 49; 37% vs. 5 of 29; 17%). Median costs for placebos and packaging were US$ 58,286 (IQR US$ 2,428- US$ 160,770; n = 24), accounting for a median of 10.3% of the overall trial budget.

CONCLUSION

Although using matching placebos is widely accepted as a basic practice in RCTs, there seems to be no standard source to acquire them. Obtaining placebos requires substantial resources, and using nonmatching placebos is common.

Rationale and design of repeated cross-sectional studies to evaluate the reporting quality of trial protocols: the Adherence to SPIrit REcommendations (ASPIRE) study and associated projects

BACKGROUND

Clearly structured and comprehensive protocols are an essential component to ensure safety of participants, data validity, successful conduct, and credibility of results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Funding agencies, research ethics committees (RECs), regulatory agencies, medical journals, systematic reviewers, and other stakeholders rely on protocols to appraise the conduct and reporting of RCTs. In response to evidence of poor protocol quality, the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) guideline was published in 2013 to improve the accuracy and completeness of clinical trial protocols. The impact of these recommendations on protocol completeness and associations between protocol completeness and successful RCT conduct and publication remain uncertain.

OBJECTIVES AND METHODS

Aims of the Adherence to SPIrit REcommendations (ASPIRE) study are to investigate adherence to SPIRIT checklist items of RCT protocols approved by RECs in the UK, Switzerland, Germany, and Canada before (2012) and after (2016) the publication of the SPIRIT guidelines; determine protocol features associated with non-adherence to SPIRIT checklist items; and assess potential differences in adherence across countries. We assembled an international cohort of RCTs based on 450 protocols approved in 2012 and 402 protocols approved in 2016 by RECs in Switzerland, the UK, Germany, and Canada. We will extract data on RCT characteristics and adherence to SPIRIT for all included protocols. We will use multivariable regression models to investigate temporal changes in SPIRIT adherence, differences across countries, and associations between SPIRIT adherence of protocols with RCT registration, completion, and publication of results. We plan substudies to examine the registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs; the use of patient-reported outcomes in RCT protocols; SPIRIT adherence of RCT protocols with non-regulated interventions; the planning of RCT subgroup analyses; and the use of routinely collected data for RCTs.

DISCUSSION

The ASPIRE study and associated substudies will provide important information on the impact of measures to improve the reporting of RCT protocols and on multiple aspects of RCT design, trial registration, premature discontinuation, and non-publication of RCTs observing potential changes over time.