Improved clinical trial race/ethnicity reporting and updated inclusion profile, 2017-2022: A New Jersey snapshot

Background

Diverse representation in clinical trials is an important goal in the testing of a medical, diagnostic, or therapeutic intervention. To date, the desired level of trial equity and inclusivity has been unevenly achieved.

Methods

Employing the US National Library of Medicine's Clinicaltrials.gov registry, we examined 481 clinical trials conducted - at least in part - in the state of New Jersey. These trials were initiated after the FDA-mandated Common Rule changes, i.e., between January 2017 and October 2022, were enacted, and had their results posted. We analyzed sex/race/ethnicity reporting as well as applicable enrollment. Using meta-analysis, we estimated group participation proportions of a subset of the 481 identified trials; specifically, the 229 studies that were conducted solely within the US (i.e., without international sites) and compared them to US census data.

Findings

Within the 481 clinical trials analyzed, over 97% reported on the race and/or ethnicity of their enrollees; all included information on sex. Reporting was not affected by funding source or therapeutic area. Based on the 229 solely US-based studies, the participants overall were 76.7% White; 14.1% Black; 2.7% Asian; and 15% Hispanic. Inclusion of Black participants did not differ from the 2020 US census data; in contrast, the levels of Asian and Hispanic participation were below the corresponding census percentages.

Interpretation

The past five years have seen an overall uptick in the equity of race/ethnicity reporting and inclusivity of clinical trials, as compared to previously reported data, presaging the potential acquisition of ever more powerful and meaningful results of such interventional studies going forward.

Funding

Support for this study comes from the Hackensack Meridian Health Research Institute and the Hackensack Meridian School of Medicine.

Research in context

Evidence before this studyClinical trials are a critical part of determining whether or not a medical (drug/device/biologic) or socio-behavioral intervention is safe and truly effective. Through their use, scientific understanding is advanced and, ideally, human health is improved. To gain the most impactful information from a clinical trial, it should be sufficiently representative, that is, should enroll an adequate number of participants, and include a diverse population. Without such inclusion, the study is of only limited generalizability. Efforts are underway by funders, sites, and other stakeholders, to enhance reporting and promote inclusive enrollment. The extent to which such attempts are yielding results - at least for clinical trials in the state of New Jersey - is the focus of this data-driven analysis. The ClinicalTrials.gov registry database was carefully mined for the information contained in this report.Added value of this studyOur analysis of clinical trials initiated in the state of New Jersey and conducted there or elsewhere in the US reveals several positive trends. Our 5-year snapshot reveals that a very large percentage of trials report on race/ethnicity - and inclusivity is improving. While there is still some way to go to have the demographic numbers in these trials match US census values, our results suggest that recent efforts are having an effect.Implications of all the available evidenceFor myriad reasons, clinical trials have not enjoyed the public's universal trust over the years. In many ways, medicine moves at the speed of trust - without it, the promise of modern healthcare is brought into question. Clinical trials must include a commitment to diverse enrollment pools and equitable reporting under the law. Creating a legacy of trust - through greater inclusivity in clinical trials and more transparent reporting of results - will begin to heal the divide and engender faith in modern medicine and today's healthcare system. It would also allow for the desired far-reaching generalizability of results across patient populations. To better appreciate what needs to be done going forward, we must truly understand the state of clinical trials reporting and demographic inclusion. This report initiates such an analysis, by carefully documenting how New Jersey's clinical trials are performing. By virtue of its location (e.g., proximity to the cities of New York and Philadelphia) the state is part of a large biopharma cluster and healthcare nexus; it is critical that it performs well with respect to adopting/adhering to updated clinical trial guideline mandates. This report provides a glimpse - an important first look - into the state of clinical trials in New Jersey - from 2017 through 2022.

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on early termination of ophthalmology clinical trials: A cross-sectional analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov

Objective

To study the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the early termination of ophthalmology clinical trials.

Methods

On June 10, 2022, we searched ClinicalTrials.gov and identified clinical trials pertaining to eye diseases. We included trials last updated between January 1, 2020 and June 8, 2022, as ones possibly impacted by the pandemic. We selected all interventional trials in any stage and country that were "recruiting," "active, not recruiting," "enrolling by invitation," "suspended," "terminated," "completed," or "withdrawn" and excluded trials that had been completed or discontinued before 2020, had incomplete data, trials in which the eye was not the primary focus of the trial (e.g., Chediak-Higashi syndrome, myasthenia gravis). The following trial-level characteristics were collected: location, trial status, enrollment count, ocular condition, sponsors, intervention purpose, trial phase (I-IV), randomization, number of arms, and reasons for discontinuation. In addition to calculating descriptive statistics, we assessed whether trial characteristics differed between ophthalmology clinical trials canceled due to COVID-19 and those canceled for other reasons.

Results

Following the screening, 2280/12,679 (18%) ophthalmology clinical trials were retained. Of these, 142 (6.2%) were discontinued between January 1, 2020 and June 8, 2022. Moreover, 34 out of 142 (23.9%) ophthalmology clinical trials were discontinued due to COVID-19. These trials were more likely to be sponsored by academic medical centers (26/34, 76.5% vs 57/108, 52.8%, p = 0.03) and were not assigned to a specific study phase, indicating they were not investigational new drugs (22/34, 64.7% vs 46/108 42.6%, p = 0.003).

Conclusions

COVID-19-related trial discontinuations were more likely to be reported by academic medical centers and associated with trials investigating fully approved drugs, medical devices, procedures, diagnostic imaging, and behavioral changes. Further investigation of these characteristics may lead to a more robust and resilient understanding of the causes of early termination of these clinical trials.

Characteristics of immunotherapy trials for nasopharyngeal carcinoma over a 15-year period

Background

Immunotherapy has been a hotspot in nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NPC) in recent years. This study aimed to provide a comprehensive landscape of the characteristics of immunotherapy clinical trials in NPC and to determine whether contemporary studies are of sufficient quality to demonstrate therapeutic value.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional analysis of NPC trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov in the last 15 years (Jan 1, 2008-Nov 20, 2022). Only interventional trials with a primary purpose of treatment were included in the final analysis. Characteristics of immunotherapy trials were compared with those of other NPC trials. Chronological shifts in NPC immunotherapy trials were also analyzed.

Results

Of the 440 NPC studies selected, 161 (36.6%) were immunotherapy trials and 279 (63.4%) were other NPC trials. NPC immunotherapy trials were more likely than other NPC trials to be phase 1-2 (82.6% vs. 66.7%, P < 0.001), single-arm (51.3% vs. 39.6%, P = 0.020), non-randomized (64.8% vs. 44.4%, P < 0.001), and enroll fewer than 50 participants (46.3% vs. 34.4%, P = 0.015). Blinding was used in 8.8% of NPC immunotherapy trials. Also, 90.7% of NPC immunotherapy trials were recruited nationally and 82.6% were Asia-centric. Although academic institutions and governments (72.7%) were the major sponsors of NPC trials, immunotherapy trials were more likely to be industry-funded than other NPC trials (34.2% vs. 11.5%, P < 0.001). The number of NPC immunotherapy trials increased exponentially after 2017, attributed to the exploration of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Immunotherapy combined with chemotherapy was the most commonly investigated regimen.

Conclusion

NPC immunotherapy trials over a 15-year period were predominantly exploratory. To generate high-quality evidence and advance the clinical application of immunotherapy in NPC, more attention and concerted efforts are needed.

Trial Registry Searches In Plastic Surgery Systematic Reviews: A Meta-epidemiological Study

INTRODUCTION

Clinical trial registry searches for unpublished clinical trial data are a means of mitigating publication bias within systematic reviews (SRs). The purpose of our study is to look at the rate of clinical trial registry searches conducted by SRs in the top five Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery journals.

METHODS

We identified the top five plastic and reconstructive surgery journals using the Google h-5 index. We then searched Pubmed for SRs published in these journals and compared them to plastic surgery SRs published in the Cochrane Collaboration for SRs over the last 5 y. We included all SRs that were published within these top five journals and Cochrane between December 6, 2016 and December 6, 2021. We then conducted a secondary analysis on clinicaltrials.gov looking for unpublished clinical trials for 100 randomized SRs that did not conduct a clinical trial registry search.

RESULTS

In SRs, 3.3% (17/512) from plastic surgery journals conducted trial registry searches. In comparison, 95.0% (38/40) of Cochrane Collaboration SRs conducted trial registry searches. Our secondary analysis found that 50% (50/100) of SRs could have included at least one unpublished clinical trial data set.

CONCLUSIONS

We found that plastic surgery SRs rarely include searches for unpublished clinical trial data in clinical trial registries. To improve the data completeness of SRs in plastic surgery journals, we recommend journals alter their author guidelines to require a clinical trial registry search for unpublished literature.

Transparency of clinical trials in pancreatic cancer: An analysis of availability of trial results from the ClinicalTrials.gov database

Background

Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a highly malignant tumor of the digestive system. As clinical trials involving PC are increasingly being conducted, the transparency of the generated data has become an important issue of concern. In other areas of medicine, clinical trial transparency presents a worrying state of affairs. However, at present, there has been no study examining the transparency of data derived from PC clinical trials.

Methods

A comprehensive search was conducted in the ClinicalTrial.gov database for clinical trials investigating pancreatic cancer as of June 2022. We examined the availability of clinical trial results and recorded the characteristics of the trials.

Results

A total of 856 trials were included in this study, of which 668 were completed and 188 were terminated or suspended. The results of 626 trials (73.13%) were available, of these 230 trials (26.87%) did not disclose any information on the trial data in any form. The publication rate for trials with available results was 86.10%, but the report rate on ClinicalTrial.gov was only 39.78%.

Conclusion

Although approximately 90% of clinical trial investigating interventions on patients with PC have published study results, 30% of trials did not report any findings, and the disclosure of trial results from ClinicalTrial.gov was unsatisfactory. In general, there is still room for improvement in the transparency of PC clinical trials.

Effect of sponsor on enrollment criteria in non-small cell lung cancer clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Inclusion and exclusion criteria in clinical trials are used to mitigate the effects of confounding variables on study outcomes. In 2017 and 2021, ASCO and the Friends of Cancer Research published recommendations to loosen enrollment criteria in cancer clinical trials to improve generalizability. The purpose of this study is to determine if the source of funding influences the degree of transparency and selection of inclusion and exclusion criteria.

METHODS

Phase 2 and 3 non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) drug trials on clinicaltrials.gov were grouped into one of three sponsor categories: industry, government/cooperative group, and academic. Strictness of specific criteria and the level of transparency in listing organ function requirements were analyzed using Fisher Exact tests. Independent sample t-tests were used to assess the variability in total number of criteria.

RESULTS

Organ function requirements listed on clinicaltrials.gov are more often vague or incomplete in industry sponsored trials compared to government/cooperative group (p = 2.3 × 10-10, α = 0.01) and academic (p = 1.8 × 10-4, α = 0.01) sponsored trials. Industry sponsored trials more often excluded patients with worse performance status scores compared to government/cooperative group sponsored trials (p = 5.7 × 10-6, α = 0.01).

CONCLUSION

Industry sponsored NSCLC drug trials are more likely to exclude patients with worse performance status and are less transparent in listing complete study requirements on clinicaltrials.gov.

POLICY SUMMARY

Unnecessarily strict enrollment criteria are increasingly seen in clinical trials sponsored by industry. Regulators responsible for drug approvals should note when studies deviate from ASCO and Friends of Cancer Research framework and question the external validity of study findings with overly narrow enrollment criteria when making decisions on drug approvals.

Patient-reported outcomes are under-utilised in evaluating supportive therapies in paediatric oncology - A systematic review of clinical trial registries

BACKGROUND

Children with cancer suffer from numerous symptoms and side-effects, making supportive interventions indispensable to improve their quality of life. The gold standard for evaluating the latter is patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment. This systematic review investigates the current practice of clinical outcome assessment (COA) in clinical trials on supportive interventions.

METHODS

ClinicalTrials.gov and EudraCT were searched for trials including children and adolescents (≤21 years) with cancer receiving supportive care registered 2007-2020. The use of different types of COAs was analysed, focusing on PRO assessment and the domains measured with PRO measures (PROMs). Associations with trial characteristics were investigated using univariate and multivariable analyses.

RESULTS

Of 4789 identified trials, 229 were included. Among them, 44.1 % relied on PROMs, the most commonly used COA. The proportion of trials using PROMs did not significantly differ over time. In the multivariable analysis, intervention type (higher PROM use in behavioural vs. medical interventional trials) and cancer type (higher PROM use in mixed and solid tumour samples vs. haematological samples) were significant predictors of PROM use. The majority of trials using PROMs (59.6 %) measured more than one health domain. 'Physical health' was the most frequently assessed domain (92.6 %).

CONCLUSION

Less than half of registered clinical trials investigating supportive interventions for children with cancer used PROMs. This result is striking since supportive care explicitly focuses on patients' quality of life, which is best assessed using PROMs. Our systematic review underlines the need to identify barriers for PROM implementation and to improve PRO research in paediatric oncology.

Characteristics of completed clinical trials for spinal cord injury from 1999 to 2020

Numerous clinical trials are being conducted in the field of spinal cord injury (SCI). These trials are typically registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. The objective of this study was to identify the characteristics of the completed SCI trials and characterize the potential factors associated with publication. ClinicalTrials.gov database was queried for all the completed trials on patients with SCI. Baseline characteristics of the completed trials were assessed. The publication status of these trials was identified using PubMed or Google Scholar. The secondary and primary outcomes reported in the publication were then compared to the outcomes registered in ClinicalTrial.gov. Multivariable logistic regression analysis was performed to determine the characteristics associated with publication status and time to publication. A total of 457 of 1,061 trials on SCI were completed. Of those, 60% were ultimately published. Trials that had received funding from sources besides the NIH, private industries, or the federal government were more likely to remain unpublished. The median time to publish was three years, with larger trials taking a longer time. The median sample size for completed trials was 30. Assessment of mismatch rates in primary outcomes of published data to registered outcomes was 8.9%. In SCI trials, outcomes registered on ClinicalTrial.gov often matched published results. Additionally, sample size and funding source play a significant role in the publication rate of these trials. Published data represents a reliable source for clinicians, researchers, and patients; efforts to curb publication bias and reporting bias are paramount for implementing evidence-based practices and ensure proper scientific conduct.

Delays in reporting and publishing trial results during pandemics: cross sectional analysis of 2009 H1N1, 2014 Ebola, and 2016 Zika clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Pandemic events often trigger a surge of clinical trial activity aimed at rapidly evaluating therapeutic or preventative interventions. Ensuring rapid public access to the complete and unbiased trial record is particularly critical for pandemic research given the urgent associated public health needs. The World Health Organization (WHO) established standards requiring posting of results to a registry within 12 months of trial completion and publication in a peer reviewed journal within 24 months of completion, though compliance with these requirements among pandemic trials is unknown.

METHODS

This cross-sectional analysis characterizes availability of results in trial registries and publications among registered trials performed during the 2009 H1N1 influenza, 2014 Ebola, and 2016 Zika pandemics. We searched trial registries to identify clinical trials testing interventions related to these pandemics, and determined the time elapsed between trial completion and availability of results in the registry. We also performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE via PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE to identify corresponding peer reviewed publications. The primary outcome was the compliance with either of the WHO's established standards for sharing clinical trial results. Secondary outcomes included compliance with both standards, and assessing the time elapsed between trial completion and public availability of results.

RESULTS

Three hundred thirty-three trials met eligibility criteria, including 261 H1N1 influenza trials, 60 Ebola trials, and 12 Zika trials. Of these, 139 (42%) either had results available in the trial registry within 12 months of study completion or had results available in a peer-reviewed publication within 24 months. Five trials (2%) met both standards. No results were available in either a registry or publication for 59 trials (18%). Among trials with registered results, a median of 42 months (IQR 16-76 months) elapsed between trial completion and results posting. For published trials, the median elapsed time between completion and publication was 21 months (IQR 9-34 months). Results were available within 24 months of study completion in either the trial registry or a peer reviewed publication for 166 trials (50%).

CONCLUSIONS

Very few trials performed during prior pandemic events met established standards for the timely public dissemination of trial results.

fMRI as an outcome measure in clinical trials: A systematic review in clinicaltrials.gov

INTRODUCTION

More than one-thousand trials with functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) as an outcome measure were registered in clinicaltrials.gov at the time of writing this article. However, 93% of these registered trials are still not completed with published results and there is no picture available about methodological dimensions of these ongoing trials with fMRI as an outcome measure.

METHODS

We collected trials that use fMRI as an outcome measure in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry on 13 October 2018 and reviewed each trial's record entry. Eligible trials' characteristics were extracted and summarized.

RESULTS

In total, 1,386 clinical trials were identified that reported fMRI in their outcome measures with fMRI as the only primary outcome in 33% of them. 82% of fMRI trials were started after 2011. The most frequent intervention was drug (pharmacological intervention) (29%). 57% of trials had parallel assignment design and 20% were designed for cross-over assignment. For task-based fMRI, cognitive systems (46%) based on Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) was the most frequent domain of tasks. Less than one-third of trials (28%) registered at least one region of interest for their analysis. Food cue reactivity task, pain perception task, n-back task, and monetary incentive delay task were recruited in more than 25 registered trials.

CONCLUSION

The number of fMRI trials (fMRI as an outcome measure) with both task and rest protocols is growing rapidly. Our study suggests a growing need for harmonization and standardized checklists on both methods and analysis for preregistration of fMRI-based outcomes in clinical trials.

Characteristics and publication status of gastrointestinal endoscopy clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

This study aimed to examine the fundamental characteristics of gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy trials and evaluate their publication status.

METHODS

A cross-sectional analysis was performed in the ClinicalTrials.gov database, and then the PubMed, Medline, Google Scholar, and Embase databases were searched. A dataset containing GI endoscopy clinical studies from ClinicalTrials.gov registered until November 24, 2017, was downloaded. Data of observational and interventional studies were extracted and analyzed. Publications in peer-reviewed journals were examined for completed trials, and factors associated with publication were identified.

RESULTS

A total of 1338 of 253,777 clinical trials were assigned into GI endoscopy, of which 1018 were interventional and 320 were observational studies. Of all the trials, those from the USA comprised the largest percentage (n = 377, 28.18%). The most common field for registered trials was gastroscopy (n = 436, 32.6%), followed by colonoscopy (n = 215, 16.1%), endoscopic ultrasound (n = 186, 13.9%), endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (n = 176, 13.1%), and novel endoscopic procedure (n = 103, 7.7%). A total of 501 trials were completed before November 25, 2015, 281 (56.1%) of which were published. The median time from study completion to publication was 21 months (interquartile range, 12-32 months). Trials that were comprised of medium sample sizes (150-1000 subjects), conducted in Europe or Asia and other countries, and single or quadruple blinded were more likely to be published.

CONCLUSIONS

GI endoscopy is rapidly evolving in clinical applications. Most clinical trials in GI endoscopy are published promptly. These findings demonstrated that investigators are active in performing and communicating the results of clinical trials in the field of GI endoscopy. In the future, the sample size calculation should be presented in detail in the registration system to maintain trial reporting transparency.

Clinical Trial Registration and Reporting: Drug Therapy and Prevention of Cardiac-Related Infections

Objective: Clinical trials are the source of evidence. ClinicalTrials.gov is valuable for analyzing current conditions. Until now, the state of drug interventions for heart infections is unknown. The purpose of this study was to comprehensively assess the characteristics of trials on cardiac-related infections and the status of drug interventions.

Methods: The website ClinicalTrials.gov was used to obtain all registered clinical trials on drug interventions for cardiac-related infections as of February 16, 2019. All registration studies were collected, regardless of their recruitment status, research results, and research type. Registration information, results, and weblink-publications of those trials were analyzed.

Results: A total of 45 eligible trials were evaluated and 86.7% of them began from or after 2008 while 91.1% of them adopted interventional study design. Of all trials, 35.6% were completed and 15.6% terminated. Besides, 62.2% of interventional clinical trials recruited more than 100 subjects. Meanwhile, 86.7% of the eligible trials included adult subjects only. Of intervention trials, 65.8% were in the third or fourth phase; 78.1% adopted randomized parallel assignment, containing two groups; 53.6% were masking, and 61.0% described treatment. Moreover, 41.5% of the trials were conducted in North America while 29.3% in Europe. Sponsors for 40.0% of the studies were from the industry. Furthermore, 48.9% of the trials mentioned information on monitoring committees, 24.4% have been published online, and 13.3% have uploaded their results. Drugs for treatments mainly contained antibiotics, among which glycopeptides, β-lactams, and lipopeptides were the most commonly studied ones in experimental group, with the former ones more common. Additionally, 16.2% of the trials evaluated new antimicrobials.

Conclusions: Most clinical trials on cardiac-related infections registered at ClinicalTrials.gov were interventional randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for treatment. Most drugs focused in trials were old antibiotics, and few trials reported valid results. It is necessary to strengthen supervision over improvements in results, and to combine antibacterial activity with drug delivery regimens to achieve optimal clinical outcomes.

MedEdTrials: Protocol registration for medical education research

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Publication bias (the tendency for studies with positive results to be more easily published than studies with null or negative results) and outcome switching (the adjustment of study aims to match results) have long been problematic in medical research. Recent legislation, protocol-registration sites, and agreements by medical journals have led to a reduction of these problems in medical research. In medical education specifically, however, there is no such legislation, registration, or agreement. This paper argues for the creation of such a registration site and agreement by medical education journals as a matter of ethical necessity.

MedEdTrials: Protocol registration for medical education research

This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Publication bias (the tendency for studies with positive results to be more easily published than studies with null or negative results) and outcome switching (the adjustment of study aims to match results) have long been problematic in medical research. Recent legislation, protocol-registration sites, and agreements by medical journals have led to a reduction of these problems in medical research. In medical education specifically, however, there is no such legislation, registration, or agreement. This paper argues for the creation of such a registration site and agreement by medical education journals as a matter of ethical necessity.

Peer reviewed evaluation of registered end-points of randomised trials (the PRE-REPORT study): protocol for a stepped-wedge, cluster-randomised trial

INTRODUCTION

Clinical trials are critical to the advancement of medical knowledge. However, the reliability of trial conclusions depends in part on consistency between pre-planned and reported study outcomes. Unfortunately, selective outcome reporting, in which outcomes reported in published manuscripts differ from pre-specified study outcomes, is common. Trial registries such as ClinicalTrials.gov have the potential to help identify and stop selective outcome reporting during peer review by allowing peer reviewers to compare outcomes between registry entries and submitted manuscripts. However, the persistently high rate of selective outcome reporting among published clinical trials indicates that the current peer review process at most journals does not effectively address the problem of selective outcome reporting.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

PRE-REPORT is a stepped-wedge cluster-randomised trial that will test whether providing peer reviewers with a summary of registered, pre-specified primary trial outcomes decreases inconsistencies between prospectively registered and published primary outcomes. Peer reviewed manuscripts describing clinical trial results will be included. Eligible manuscripts submitted to each participating journal during the study period will comprise each cluster. After an initial control phase, journals will transition to the intervention phase in random order, after which peer reviewers will be emailed registry information consisting of the date of registration and any prospectively defined primary outcomes. Blinded outcome assessors will compare registered and published primary outcomes for all included trials. The primary PRE-REPORT outcome is the presence of a published primary outcome that is consistent with a prospectively defined primary outcome in the study's trial registry. The primary outcome will be analysed using a mixed effect logistical regression model to compare results between the intervention and control phases.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The Cooper Health System Institutional Review Board determined that this study does not meet criteria for human subject research. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN41225307; Pre-results.

How Did These Data Get Here? Recommendations for the Analysis of Data From ClinicalTrials.gov

A paper by Drs Okada and Sengoku that appears in this issue of TIRS shows how data from Clinicaltrials.gov can be used for research on the pharmaceutical industry. This commentary identifies several challenges associated with using these data for research and concludes with 3 recommendations from a statistical perspective.

"Knee osteoarthritis and current research for evidence-are we on the right way?"

PURPOSE

An estimated 85% of research is of limited value or wasted because the wrong research questions are addressed. We sought to identify research gaps using American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeon (AAOS) clinical practice guidelines Treatment of Osteoarthritis of the Knee and Surgical Management of Osteoarthritis of the Knee. Using these recommendations, we conducted searches of ClinicalTrials.gov to discover the extent to which new and ongoing research addresses areas of deficiency.

METHODS

For each recommendation in the AAOS guidelines, we created participants, intervention, comparator, outcomes questions, and search strings using a systematic process. Searches were then conducted of ClinicalTrials.gov to locate relevant studies.

RESULTS

Our searches of ClinicalTrials.gov returned 945 studies for surgical and 1416 for non-surgical management of osteoarthritis. Of the 945 studies returned using our search string for surgical trials, 186 (20%) were relevant to 30 (79%) of the 38 recommendations made within the surgical management guideline. Of the 1416 studies returned using our search for non-surgical trials, 360 (25%) were relevant to 16 (89%) of the 18 recommendations made within the conservative management guideline.

CONCLUSIONS

The development of clinical practice guidelines is a unique opportunity to simultaneously redefine day-to-day decision-making and provide a critical analysis of the status of the literature. Upon our search of the literature since the guidelines introduction, we have found that some inconclusive areas have received more attention than others. Our results should guide researchers towards conducting research on the topics most in need and, by doing so, strengthen the clinical practice guideline recommendations.

Alzheimer's disease drug development pipeline: 2018

Introduction

Treatments for Alzheimer's disease (AD) are needed due to the growing number of individuals with preclinical, prodromal, and dementia forms of AD. Drug development for AD therapies can be examined by inspecting the drug development pipeline as represented on clinicaltrials.gov.

Methods

Clinicaltrials.gov was assessed as of January 30, 2018 to determine AD therapies represented in phase I, phase II, and phase III.

Results

There are 112 agents in the current AD treatment pipeline. There are 26 agents in 35 trials in phase III, 63 agents in 75 trials in phase II, and 23 agents in 25 trials in phase I. A review of the mechanisms of actions of the agents in the pipeline shows that 63% are disease-modifying therapies, 22% are symptomatic cognitive enhancers, and 12% are symptomatic agents addressing neuropsychiatric and behavioral changes. Trials in phase III are larger and longer than phase II or phase I trials, particularly those involving disease-modifying agents. Comparison with the 2017 pipeline shows that there are four new agents in phase III, 14 in phase II, and eight in phase I. Inspection of the use of biomarkers as revealed on clinicaltrials.gov shows that amyloid biomarkers are used as entry criterion in 14 phase III disease-modifying agent trials and 17 disease-modifying agent trials in phase II. Twenty-one trials of disease-modifying agents in phase II did not require biomarker confirmation for AD at trial entry.

Discussion

The AD drug development pipeline is slightly larger in 2018 than in 2017. Trials increasingly include preclinical and prodromal populations. There is an increase in nonamyloid mechanisms of action for drugs in earlier phases of drug development. Biomarkers are increasingly used in AD drug development but are not used uniformly for AD diagnosis confirmation.

From the other side: The patient perspective on cancer clinical trials

This article provides the patient perspective on cancer clinical trials.

Reporting Compliance of Stroke Trials: Cross-Sectional Analysis

BACKGROUND

The FDA mandates timely reporting of all clinical trials conducted in the United States. However, often the results are not reported in a timely manner, resulting in wastage of finite resources. We assessed the reporting of results of completed stroke trials and compared the reporting trends between U.S. and non-U.S. stroke trials.

METHODS

We assessed consecutive clinical stroke trials registered as completed in ClinicalTrials.gov between January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2015. Descriptive data collected included study phase, study type, participant age, number of enrolled patients, study locations, start and primary completion dates, result availability, time to reporting (months), sponsorship, funding sources, and publication status. We also performed manual search for stroke trials in Pubmed, Web of Science, and Google scholar.

RESULTS

Out of a total 140 completed trials, 39 trials (35,359 patients) involved at least 1 U.S. center and 101 trials (58,542 patients) were conducted in non-U.S. centers. Of the trials involving at least a single U.S. center, 31 of 39 (79%) reported their results, whereas only 6 of 31 (19%) reported their results within 1 year. Of the trials conducted at non-U.S. centers, 72 of 101 (71%) reported their results, whereas results for 24 of 72 (33%) trials were available within a year of completion. The time to reporting of results was significantly lower for all the included clinical trials in the 2012-2014 period (P < .001, Cohen's d = .726) as compared to the 2008-2011 period.

CONCLUSION

Only one-fifth of completed stroke trials involving at least a single U.S. center report their results within 1 year. Additionally, every fifth completed trial involving stroke patients at U.S. centers remain unreported.

Current status and perspectives of interventional clinical trials for glioblastoma - analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov

The records of 208.777 (100%) clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov were downloaded on the 19th of February 2016. Phase II and III trials including patients with glioblastoma were selected for further classification and analysis. Based on the disease settings, trials were classified into three groups: newly diagnosed glioblastoma, recurrent disease and trials with no differentiation according to disease setting. Furthermore, we categorized trials according to the experimental interventions, the primary sponsor, the source of financial support and trial design elements. Trends were evaluated using the autoregressive integrated moving average model. Two hundred sixteen (0.1%) trials were selected for further analysis. Academic centers (investigator initiated trials) were recorded as primary sponsors in 56.9% of trials, followed by industry 25.9%. Industry was the leading source of monetary support for the selected trials in 44.4%, followed by 25% of trials with primarily academic financial support. The number of newly initiated trials between 2005 and 2015 shows a positive trend, mainly through an increase in phase II trials, whereas phase III trials show a negative trend. The vast majority of trials evaluate forms of different systemic treatments (91.2%). In total, one hundred different molecular entities or biologicals were identified. Of those, 60% were involving drugs specifically designed for central nervous system malignancies. Trials that specifically address radiotherapy, surgery, imaging and other therapeutic or diagnostic methods appear to be rare. Current research in glioblastoma is mainly driven or sponsored by industry, academic medical oncologists and neuro-oncologists, with the majority of trials evaluating forms of systemic therapies. Few trials reach phase III. Imaging, radiation therapy and surgical procedures are underrepresented in current trials portfolios. Optimization in research portfolio for glioblastoma is needed.

Portfolio of prospective clinical trials including brachytherapy: an analysis of the ClinicalTrials.gov database

Background

To evaluate the current status of prospective interventional clinical trials that includes brachytherapy (BT) procedures.

Methods

The records of 175,538 (100 %) clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov were downloaded on September 2014 and a database was established. Trials using BT as an intervention were identified for further analyses. The selected trials were manually categorized according to indication(s), BT source, applied dose rate, primary sponsor type, location, protocol initiator and funding source. We analyzed trials across 8 available trial protocol elements registered within the database.

Results

In total 245 clinical trials were identified, 147 with BT as primary investigated treatment modality and 98 that included BT as an optional treatment component or as part of the standard treatment. Academic centers were the most frequent protocol initiators in trials where BT was the primary investigational treatment modality (p < 0.01). High dose rate (HDR) BT was the most frequently investigated type of BT dose rate (46.3 %) followed by low dose rate (LDR) (42.0 %). Prostate was the most frequently investigated tumor entity in trials with BT as the primary treatment modality (40.1 %) followed by breast cancer (17.0 %). BT was rarely the primary investigated treatment modality for cervical cancer (6.8 %).

Conclusion

Most clinical trials using BT are predominantly in early phases, investigator-initiated and with low accrual numbers. Current investigational activities that include BT mainly focus on prostate and breast cancers. Important questions concerning the optimal usage of BT will not be answered in the near future.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13014-016-0624-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Are Phase 3 Clinical Trials Really Becoming More Complex?

BACKGROUND

This study uses the data from many of the mandatory fields in ClinicalTrials.gov to examine changes, possibly leading to more complexity in the design and execution of commercially sponsored phase 3 clinical trials.

METHODS

In this analysis we compare baseline year 2008 data, when a broad number of the protocol/study design and execution variables became mandatory, with the data from the last full year of results, 2013.

RESULTS

There has been relatively little change in the protocol and study design over the years covered in this study. The most pronounced change is associated with single-patient duration: there is a significant increase in the period of time a patient is treated in the study protocol. The study also highlights an important methodological issue: many of the claims in print about complexity have yet been substantiated through the use of peer-reviewed data or in settings where others can interrogate the results.

CONCLUSIONS

In general, there is limited evidence for significant increases in the study and protocol design and execution of phase 3 clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies.

A Brief Report of the Status of Central Nervous System Metastasis Enrollment Criteria for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Clinical Trials: A Review of the ClinicalTrials.gov Trial Registry

INTRODUCTION

Central nervous system (CNS) metastases are common in non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), yet clinical trials of new drugs in advanced NSCLC have varying inclusion and exclusion criteria for CNS disease. The true extent of variation in CNS-related enrollment criteria in NSCLC clinical trials has not been documented.

METHODS

We performed a systematic search of the ClinicalTrials.gov website to characterize interventional drug trials enrolling adult patients with advanced NSCLC.

RESULTS

Of 413 open trials, 78 (19%) strictly excluded patients with leptomeningeal disease (LMD). Separate from LMD, patients with any history of CNS metastases were strictly excluded in 59 trials (14%), allowed after local treatment in 169 (41%), and allowed with no prior treatment in 106 (26%). No explicit mention of CNS disease was made in 79 trials (19%). In multivariate analysis looking at trial phase, location, sponsor, and treatment type, only sponsor was statistically significant, with pharmaceutical industry-sponsored trials having higher odds of excluding patients with brain metastases than did university or investigator-initiated trials (OR = 2.262, 95% confidence interval: 1.063-4.808, p = 0.0342) CONCLUSIONS: With 14% to 19% of trials excluding any history of LMD or CNS parenchymal metastatic disease and 41% of trials permitting CNS disease only after prior CNS-directed treatment, direct evidence of activity of a treatment on CNS disease cannot be reliably generated in most NSCLC trials. Given the high frequency of CNS disease in NSCLC and only sponsor being associated with specific CNS exclusion criteria, sponsors should consider tailoring trial designs to explore CNS benefit more explicitly.

Clinical trial spots for cancer patients by tumour type: The cancer trials portfolio at clinicaltrials.gov

BACKGROUND

Although participation in cancer clinical trials is low, little is known about the number of available clinical trials, and open spots for patients. Moreover, it is unclear what the relationship is between clinical trial openings and the incidence and mortality of cancer subtypes.

METHODOLOGY

We identified the number of phase I, phase II and phase III registered at clinicaltrials.gov by cancer (tumour) type. All counts were over the preceding 5 years (2008-2013). We compared these counts against the incidence and prevalence of disease reported by Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER) database for 32 common cancers.

RESULTS

From 2008 to 2013, 3879 phase I trials, 4982 phase II trials and 1379 phase III trials concerning a cancer subtype were registered in clinicaltrials.gov. These trials had a cumulative proposed recruitment of 203,396, 421,502 and 697,787 patients, respectively. Trial enrollment varied by tumour type, with both over and under-representation occurring.

CONCLUSION

Opportunities to enroll in clinical trials vary by phase and tumour type. Oncologists must remain committed to clinical trials.