Few studies reporting results at US government clinical trials site

Review of Pediatric Otolaryngology Clinical Trials: Past Trends and Future Opportunities

OBJECTIVES/HYPOTHESIS

Pediatric otolaryngologic conditions are highly prevalent in the United States. Although data gathered from clinical trials drive therapeutic strategies, the trends of research in pediatric otolaryngology remain unclear. The objective of this study was to characterize recent trials in pediatric otolaryngology to better understand current directions of study and to identify opportunities for future research.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis.

METHODS

A retrospective analysis of United States pediatric clinical trials in otolaryngology between 2001 and 2017 was conducted on ClinicalTrials.gov. Criteria for inclusion included otolaryngologic trials with at least one trial arm of participants <18 years of age, interventional design that was closed, and conducted in the United States. We assessed the information available to us on ClinicalTrials.gov to identify recent trends in pediatric otolaryngology interventional research. We used PubMed to examine publication rates and National Institutes of Health RePORTER to characterize funding patterns for these trials.

RESULTS

Of the 122 trials analyzed, 25% investigated treatments for rhinitis, 25% for acute otitis media, and 50% for all other conditions. Drug studies comprised 72% of all trials. Overall, 65% had their results published in a peer-reviewed journal. Industry funding accounted for 73% of financial support.

CONCLUSIONS

Continued focus on the development of pediatric otolaryngologic clinical trials allows an opportunity to better represent the wide spectrum of disease and therapy in the specialty. Increasing the rates of results publication and federal funding may spearhead a more balanced landscape of clinical trials and further advance the care of children with otolaryngologic disease.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

NA Laryngoscope, 130:2719-2724, 2020.

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.

Using Blockchain Technology to Manage Clinical Trials Data: A Proof-of-Concept Study

Background

Blockchain technology is emerging as an innovative tool in data and software security.

Objective

This study aims to explore the role of blockchain in supporting clinical trials data management and develop a proof-of-concept implementation of a patient-facing and researcher-facing system.

Methods

Blockchain-based Smart Contracts were built using the Ethereum platform.

Results

We described BlockTrial, a system that uses a Web-based interface to allow users to run trials-related Smart Contracts on an Ethereum network. Functions allow patients to grant researchers access to their data and allow researchers to submit queries for data that are stored off chain. As a type of distributed ledger, the system generates a durable and transparent log of these and other transactions. BlockTrial could be used to increase the trustworthiness of data collected during clinical research with benefits to researchers, regulators, and drug companies alike. In addition, the system could empower patients to become more active and fully informed partners in research.

Conclusions

Blockchain technology presents an opportunity to address some of the common threats to the integrity of data collected in clinical trials and ensure that the analysis of these data comply with prespecified plans. Further technical work is needed to add additional functions. Policies must be developed to determine the optimal models for participation in the system by its various stakeholders.

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.

A Review of Skull Base Tumor Clinical Trials: Past Trends and Future Opportunities

Objective Tumors of the anterior and lateral skull base (TALSB) are relatively rare but can be devastating to patients. By examining trials focused on TALSB, we can characterize the studies that predominate and better understand current directions of study. This gives us a better understanding of future studies to pursue. Study Design This is a retrospective analysis. Settings We set skull base tumor clinical trials in the United States which are listed in ClinicalTrials.gov. Subjects and Methods We used the information available on ClinicalTrials.gov to identify trends in clinical trials studying sinonasal/anterior skull base (SNASB) tumors, vestibular schwannoma (VS), and pituitary tumors. The publication rate for these trials was examined using PubMed.gov. Results Of the 71 trials analyzed, 83% investigated treatments for pituitary tumors, 16% for VSs, and 1% for SNASB tumors. Drug studies comprised 90% of all trials, while 9% included radiation therapy in their treatment and 10% included and surgical component. Overall, 64% had their results published in a peer-reviewed journal. Conclusion Among TALSB clinical trials we analyzed, they are weighted heavily toward drug trials. Radiation therapy and surgery, common treatment modalities, are underrepresented in clinical trials. There is a gap between the trials conducted and the rate of reporting, with an emphasis on positive results.

Analysis of 473 US Head and Neck Cancer Trials (1996-2014): Trends, Gaps, and Opportunities

OBJECTIVE

To report on types of investigations being conducted in US clinical trials, the types of therapeutic investigations that predominate, and the publication rates.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective analysis.

SETTINGS

US head and neck cancer clinical trials.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

We used the information available on ClinicalTrials.gov to identify trends in head and neck squamous cell carcinoma clinical trials to characterize the types of trials and treatments being investigated. The publication rate for these trials was also examined with PubMed.gov.

RESULTS

Of the 473 trials analyzed, similar drug regimens have been used repeatedly in head and neck cancer clinical trials. Drug studies are highly represented, composing 62% of all trials. The most common drugs studied were cisplatin, cetuximab, and docetaxel. Among all head and neck cancer clinical trials, 33% included radiation therapy in their treatment, while 10% included a surgical component. Forty-nine percent of trials had their results published in a medical journal, and 70% of the publications reported positive results.

CONCLUSION

Head and neck cancer trials are heavily weighted toward drug trials and demonstrate redundancy. Other therapies are underrepresented, especially surgery. There is a gap between the trials conducted and the rate of reporting, with an emphasis on positive results. Better balance in studying treatment modalities, less redundancy in clinical trials, and reporting all results have potential benefits for head and neck cancer and the public good.

FDAAA legislation is working, but methodological flaws undermine the reliability of clinical trials: a cross-sectional study

The relationship between clinical research and the pharmaceutical industry has placed clinical trials in jeopardy. According to the medical literature, more than 70% of clinical trials are industry-funded. Many of these trials remain unpublished or have methodological flaws that distort their results. In 2007, it was signed into law the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA), aiming to provide publicly access to a broad range of biomedical information to be made available on the platform ClinicalTrials (available at https://www.clinicaltrials.gov). We accessed ClinicalTrials.gov and evaluated the compliance of researchers and sponsors with the FDAAA. Our sample comprised 243 protocols of clinical trials of biological monoclonal antibodies (mAb) adalimumab, bevacizumab, infliximab, rituximab, and trastuzumab. We demonstrate that the new legislation has positively affected transparency patterns in clinical research, through a significant increase in publication and online reporting rates after the enactment of the law. Poorly designed trials, however, remain a challenge to be overcome, due to a high prevalence of methodological flaws. These flaws affect the quality of clinical information available, breaching ethical duties of sponsors and researchers, as well as the human right to health.

Compliance with results reporting at ClinicalTrials.gov

BACKGROUND

The Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA) mandates timely reporting of results of applicable clinical trials to ClinicalTrials.gov. We characterized the proportion of applicable clinical trials with publicly available results and determined independent factors associated with the reporting of results.

METHODS

Using an algorithm based on input from the National Library of Medicine, we identified trials that were likely to be subject to FDAAA provisions (highly likely applicable clinical trials, or HLACTs) from 2008 through 2013. We determined the proportion of HLACTs that reported results within the 12-month interval mandated by the FDAAA or at any time during the 5-year study period. We used regression models to examine characteristics associated with reporting at 12 months and throughout the 5-year study period.

RESULTS

From all the trials at ClinicalTrials.gov, we identified 13,327 HLACTs that were terminated or completed from January 1, 2008, through August 31, 2012. Of these trials, 77.4% were classified as drug trials. A total of 36.9% of the trials were phase 2 studies, and 23.4% were phase 3 studies; 65.6% were funded by industry. Only 13.4% of trials reported summary results within 12 months after trial completion, whereas 38.3% reported results at any time up to September 27, 2013. Timely reporting was independently associated with factors such as FDA oversight, a later trial phase, and industry funding. A sample review suggested that 45% of industry-funded trials were not required to report results, as compared with 6% of trials funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and 9% of trials that were funded by other government or academic institutions.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite ethical and legal obligations to disclose findings promptly, most HLACTs did not report results to ClinicalTrials.gov in a timely fashion during the study period. Industry-funded trials adhered to legal obligations more often than did trials funded by the NIH or other government or academic institutions. (Funded by the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative and the NIH.).

Results availability for analgesic device, complex regional pain syndrome, and post-stroke pain trials: comparing the RReADS, RReACT, and RReMiT databases

Evidence-based medicine rests on the assumption that treatment recommendations are robust, free from bias, and include results of all randomized clinical trials. The Repository of Registered Analgesic Clinical Trials search and analysis methodology was applied to create databases of complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) and central post-stroke pain (CPSP) trials and adapted to create the Repository of Registered Analgesic Device Studies databases for trials of spinal cord stimulation (SCS), repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS), and transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS). We identified 34 CRPS trials, 18 CPSP trials, 72 trials of SCS, and 92 trials of rTMS/tDCS. Irrespective of time since study completion, 45% of eligible CRPS and CPSP trials and 46% of eligible SCS and rTMS/tDCS trials had available results (peer-reviewed literature, results entered on registry, or gray literature); peer-reviewed publications could be found for 38% and 39%, respectively. Examining almost 1000 trials across a spectrum of painful disorders (fibromyalgia, diabetic painful neuropathy, post-herpetic neuralgia, migraine, CRPS, CPSP) and types of treatment, no single study characteristic consistently predicts unavailability of results. Results availability is higher 12 months after study completion but remains below 60% for peer-reviewed publications. Recommendations to increase results availability include supporting organizations advocating for transparency, enforcing existing results reporting regulations, enabling all primary registries to post results, stating trial registration numbers in all publication abstracts, and reducing barriers to publishing "negative" trials. For all diseases and treatment modalities, evidence-based medicine must rigorously adjust for the sheer magnitude of missing results in formulating treatment recommendations.

How transparent are migraine clinical trials? Repository of Registered Migraine Trials (RReMiT)

Transparency in research requires public access to unbiased information prior to trial initiation and openly available results upon study completion. The Repository of Registered Migraine Trials is a global snapshot of registered migraine clinical trials and scorecard of results availability via the peer-reviewed literature, registry databases, and gray literature. The 295 unique clinical trials identified employed 447 investigational agents, with 30% of 154 acute migraine trials and 11% of 141 migraine prophylaxis trials testing combinations of agents. The most frequently studied categories in acute migraine trials were triptans, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, antiemetics, calcitonin gene-related peptide antagonists, and acetaminophen. Migraine prophylaxis trials frequently studied anticonvulsants, β-blockers, complementary/alternative therapies, antidepressants, and botulinum toxin. Overall, 237 trials were eligible for a results search. Of 163 trials completed at least 12 months earlier, 57% had peer-reviewed literature results, and registries/gray literature added another 13%. Using logistic regression analysis, studies with a sample size below the median of 141 subjects were significantly less likely to have results, but the dominant factor associated with availability of results was time since study completion. In unadjusted models, trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and trials with industry primary sponsorship were significantly more likely to have results. Recently completed trials rarely have publicly available results; 2 years after completion, the peer-reviewed literature contains results for fewer than 60% of completed migraine trials. To avoid bias, evidence-based therapy algorithms should consider factors affecting results availability. As negative trials are less likely to be published, special caution should be exercised before recommending a therapy with a high proportion of missing trial results.

RReACT goes global: perils and pitfalls of constructing a global open-access database of registered analgesic clinical trials and trial results

Eliminating publication bias requires ensuring public awareness of studies and access to results. Clinical trial registries provide basic trial information, but access to unbiased trial results is inadequate. Nearly all studies of trial registration and results reporting have been limited to the ClinicalTrials.gov registry. We analyzed trial registration, registry functionality, cross-registry harmonization, and results reporting on all 15 primary registries in the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) for postherpetic neuralgia, painful diabetic neuropathy, and fibromyalgia. A total of 447 unique trials were identified, with 86 trials listed on more than one registry. A comprehensive search algorithm was used to find trial results in the peer-reviewed literature and the grey literature. Creating a global database of registered trials and trial results proved surprisingly difficult for several reasons: (1) ICTRP does not reliably identify trials listed on multiple registries, manual searches are necessary; (2) Searching ICTRP yields different results than searching individual registries; (3) Outcome measure descriptions for multiply registered trials vary between registries; (4) Registry-publication pairings are often inaccurate or incomplete; (5) Grey literature results are not permanent. Overall, only 46% of all trials had results available. Trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov were significantly more likely to have results (52% vs. 18%, P<0.001), partly due to the ability to post results directly to the registry. In addition to the simple remedy of including trial registration numbers on all meeting abstracts and peer-reviewed papers, specific strategies are offered to facilitate identifying multiply registered studies and ensuring accurate pairing of results and publications.