Publishing of Results from Ophthalmology Trials Registered on ClinicalTrials.gov

Publication Rates of Registered Corneal Trials on ClinicalTrials.gov

PURPOSE

This study aimed to characterize cornea-centered clinical trials, completed before 2020, registered on ClinicalTrials.gov and identify discrepancies in publication.

METHODS

ClinicalTrials.gov, a database from the National Institutes of Health, was queried to identify registered cornea-related clinical trials. Trials were included if they were interventional and completed before January 1, 2020. ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed.gov, and Google Scholar were then searched to evaluate publications from the trial. Data collected for each trial included sponsor, intervention type, phase, dry eye focus, and location of the principal investigator.

RESULTS

A total of 520 trials were included in the final analysis. Of all studies, 270 (51.9%) were found to have published results. Industry-sponsored studies were associated with drug intervention trials, dry eye focus, and the principal investigator's location within the United States ( P < 0.05 for all). Nonindustry sponsors were associated with device and procedure intervention trials ( P < 0.05 for both). Overall, trials that were categorized as procedure interventions were published at a significantly higher rate than other interventional categories (64.2% vs. 50.1%; P = 0.03). Subgroup analysis revealed that among nonindustry studies, late-phase trials and procedural-based trials were published at a significantly higher rate compared with other studies (67.2% vs. 51.6%; P = 0.04 and 67.8% vs. 51.6%; P = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Only 51.9% of registered interventional cornea-based clinical trials result in publications in the peer-reviewed literature, highlighting potential publishing discrepancies.

Sex or Gender Reporting in Ophthalmology Clinical Trials Among US Food and Drug Administration Approvals, 1995 to 2022

Importance

As critical determinants of scientific rigor, reproducibility, and equity, sex and gender should be considered in clinical trial design and reporting.

Objective

To evaluate the accuracy of sex and gender reporting and extent of sex- and gender-based analysis in clinical trials associated with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2022.

Design, Setting, and Participants

In this cross-sectional study of participants enrolled in FDA ophthalmology trials, the following trial documents were reviewed by pairs of independent reviewers in decreasing order of priority: peer-reviewed publication, ClinicalTrials.gov report, and FDA medical and statistical reviews. Trial protocols and supplementary materials were also reviewed.

Main Outcome and Measures

The proportion of trials that correctly applied sex and gender terminology, reported the method of assessing sex or gender, and conducted sex- or gender-based data analysis; incorrect application of sex and gender terminology was defined as interchangeable use of sex- and gender-related terms without a clear justification.

Results

Between 1995 and 2022, 34 ophthalmic drugs corresponding to 85 trials (34 740 participants) received FDA approval, of which 16 drugs (47.1%) corresponding to 32 trials (18 535 participants [37.6%]) were associated with peer-reviewed publications. Sixteen trials used sex and gender terminology correctly (19.5%). No trial reported how sex and gender were collected nor enrolled participants from sexual and gender identity minority populations. Most trials reported sex- and gender-disaggregated demographic data (96.5%), but few conducted sex- or gender-based analysis for data on dropout (1.2%), primary outcomes (28.2%), secondary outcomes (2.4%), and adverse events (9.4%). Erroneous sex and gender reporting was associated with later publication year (2008.5 vs 2001.0; median difference, 7.5; 95% CI, -6.0 to 11.0; P < .001) and higher journal influence metrics, including 2022 journal impact factor (13.7 vs 5.9; median difference, 7.8; 95% CI, -1.4 to 152.4, P < .001) and 2022 journal citation indicator (4.9 vs 2.1; median difference, 2.9; 95% CI, 0-20.0, P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this observational study, over three-quarters of ophthalmology trials associated with FDA drug approvals conflated sex and gender and over two-thirds lacked sex- and gender-based analyses. More rigorous integration of sex and gender appears warranted for FDA, and presumably other trials, to improve their validity, reproducibility, and equity.

DIAGNOSTIC PATTERNS OF AGE-RELATED MACULAR DEGENERATION

PURPOSE

To characterize prevalence estimates by race, age, sex, and comorbidity (diabetes and hypertension) within the Medicare beneficiary demographic.

METHODS

In this US population-based retrospective cohort analysis, the Vision and Eye Health Surveillance System was analyzed for a 100% sample of Medicare Fee-For-Service beneficiary populations of Asians and non-Hispanic Whites between 2014 and 2018. Exclusionary criteria included beneficiaries younger than 40 years. Prevalence rate ratios, defined as prevalence rate for Asians divided by prevalence rate for non-Hispanic Whites, were calculated using multivariate negative binomial regression or Pearson-scaled Poisson regression, stratified by age, sex, and comorbidity.

RESULTS

A total of 21,892,200 Medicare beneficiaries fulfilled the inclusionary criteria in 2018. Of the entire cohort, 3.2% of the beneficiaries (N = 714,500) were Asian. For beneficiaries aged 40 to 64 years, Asian male (prevalence rate ratios 1.73, 95% confidence interval 1.64-1.83, P < 0.0001) and female (prevalence rate ratios 1.34, 95% confidence interval 1.28-1.41, P < 0.0001) beneficiaries had an increased prevalence rate of all age-related macular degeneration relative to non-Hispanic Whites. Significant time-wise increases in prevalence rate ratios were observed within several age groups, sexes, and comorbidities (race-time interaction coefficients P < 0.05 ).

CONCLUSION

This analysis highlights increased age-related macular degeneration prevalence estimates within the Asian American demographic relative to non-Hispanic Whites. Furthermore, specific Asian subpopulations are experiencing accelerated prevalence rates over time.

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Ophthalmology Clinical Trials Resulting in US Food and Drug Administration Drug Approvals From 2000 to 2020

Importance

Diverse, representative enrollment in pivotal clinical trials is vital to sufficiently power subgroup analyses and ensure equity and validity of trial results.

Objective

To evaluate the racial/ethnic representation, trends, and disparities in clinical trials leading to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ophthalmology drug approvals from 2000 to 2020.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cohort study used data from participants in clinical trials of drugs for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), open-angle glaucoma (OAG), and expanded indications for diabetic retinopathy (DR) from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2020. Trial data were sourced from FDA reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov, and relevant linked studies. National expected racial/ethnic proportions were sourced from public National Eye Institute prevalence data as well as published rates scaled using US Census Bureau data.

Main Outcomes and Measures

The primary outcome measures were the distribution of and change over time in the racial/ethnic proportion of participants in clinical trials leading to FDA approval of drugs for AMD, OAG, and DR.

Results

During the 20-year period, 31 clinical trials were identified for 13 medications with 18 410 participants. The distribution of trial participants was different from the expected trial distribution for most approvals with regard to race/ethnicity (12 drugs) and sex (10 drugs). Compared with the first decade (2000-2010), trials conducted in the second decade (2011-2020) showed increases in enrollment of Asian (odds ratio [OR], 2.30; 95% CI, 1.97-2.68; P < .001) and Hispanic or Latinx participants (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.49-2.03; P < .001) for AMD, Asian participants (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.46-3.42; P < .001) for DR, and Black (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.43-1.78; P < .001) and Hispanic or Latinx participants (OR, 10.31; 95% CI, 8.05-13.35; P < .001) for OAG. There was a decrease in Black participants in DR trials (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.79; P < .001). Based on these trends, the enrollment incidence ratio is expected to worsen by 2050, with overrepresentation of white participants vs underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic or Latinx participants in trials of drugs for AMD (1.08 vs 0.04 vs 0.77), DR (1.83 vs 0.87 vs 0.59), and OAG (1.62 vs 0.90 vs 0.37).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this cohort study, Black, Hispanic or Latinx, and other non-White participants were underrepresented in clinical trials leading to FDA ophthalmology drug approvals compared with the expected disease burden and racial/ethnic distribution in the US. Although there was meaningful improvement from 2000 to 2020, further efforts to increase minority enrollment in clinical trials seem to be warranted.

Public availability of results of ClinicalTrials.gov-registered expanded access studies

AIMS

Expanded access is the use of investigational treatments outside of clinical trials. Results of expanded access studies provide insights into how investigational treatments work in real-world settings. The objective of this study was to evaluate public availability of results of expanded access studies.

METHODS

Eligible expanded access studies were identified in ClinicalTrials.gov (CT.gov). Publications matching records of individual studies were searched for in Medline and Embase. In addition, we assessed whether results of the included studies were publicly available from other sources including CT.gov, sponsor web sites and conference proceedings.

RESULTS

After median time of 49.5 (interquartile range, 36.7-64.7) months from study completion, the results of 69 out of the 152 included studies (45.39%) were publicly available, either as a journal publication (53 studies; 34.87%) or from other source (16 studies; 10.52%). The percentage of studies whose results were available as a journal publication after 12, 24, 36 and 48 months from study completion was 13.2, 21.1, 33.1 and 35.7%, respectively. The percentage of studies whose results were publicly available from any source (including journal publications) at 12, 24, 36 and 48 months were 19.1, 29.6, 43.2 and 47.5%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Results of a considerable proportion of expanded access studies are not publicly available. In view of the growing importance of real-world data, sponsors and principal investigators of those studies should always consider making their findings public.