Children's presence in research. A review of online registers

Drug development: how academia, industry and authorities interact

Unfortunately, abundant examples could be given of pitfalls in the current drug development paradigm-including in the design, conduct and evaluation of phase III clinical trials. This article discusses issues of particular relevance to clinical trials in nephrology, including the inappropriate use of placebo, publication of reports that emphasize potential treatment benefits over adverse reactions, the sometimes dubious impartiality of independent guidelines, and inadequate recruitment of elderly patients. This Perspectives article aims to highlight and summarize the flaws in the current drug development process, while suggesting a way forward that equally satisfies the requirements of academia, patients and the pharmaceutical industry. We suggest improvements to the drug development process and related legislation that intend to balance public needs with commercial aims and ensure effective drug evaluation by regulatory authorities.

A healthy nation: strengthening child health research in the UK

Despite a general acknowledgment that research in children is necessary and ethical, the evidence base for child-specific treatments is still sparse. We investigated children's biomedical and health services research in the UK in relation to training, infrastructure and activity, research evidence, and visibility. We show that excellent opportunities for career researchers exist through a competitive, national integrated academic training programme, but that the number of academic paediatricians has decreased by 18% between 2000 and 2011, falling from 11·3% to 5·9% of the consultant workforce. The potential for rapid delivery of studies in children through the National Health Service (NHS) is not being realised: clinical trainees are poorly equipped with core research skills; most newly appointed consultant paediatricians have little or no research experience; less than 5% of contracted consultant time supports research; less than 2·5% of the 2 million children seen in the NHS every year are recruited to studies; and ten of the 20 UK children's hospitals do not have a clinical research facility. Support through National Institute for Health Research networks is good for studies into drugs, but inconsistent for non-drug research; less than 5% of registered studies involve children and only one children's biomedical research centre has been allocated funding from 2012. Of the UK annual public and charitable biomedical research expenditure of roughly £2·2 billion, about 5% is directed at child health research. The scant evidence base is impeding the development of clinical guidance and policy-less than 20% of the outputs of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence are applicable to children. Paediatric representation on major research boards is weak. Parent and young people's advocacy is fragmented, and their views are insufficiently heeded by regulatory bodies. The strong UK Government commitment to biomedical research has not been translated fully to research for children. The power of research in children to turn the tide of the growing burden of non-communicable, chronic, adult diseases that have their origins in early life, to benefit the health of an ageing population and future generations, and to reduce health-care costs is inadequately recognised. On the basis of our findings, we make several recommendations to improve early-years research, including the formation of multidisciplinary, cross-institutional groups of clinical and non-clinical child health researchers and their access to diagnostic and laboratory facilities suitable for children; a unified Children's Research Network for drug studies and non-drug studies; regulatory assessment of research that is proportionate and based on consistent national criteria; an expansion of research posts; support for parents' and young people's advocacy; collaboration between children's research charities; improved research training for paediatric trainees; and closer integration of child health research with core NHS activities.

A descriptive analysis of a representative sample of pediatric randomized controlled trials published in 2007

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for trials assessing the effects of therapeutic interventions; therefore it is important to understand how they are conducted. Our objectives were to provide an overview of a representative sample of pediatric RCTs published in 2007 and assess the validity of their results.

METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials using a pediatric filter and randomly selected 300 RCTs published in 2007. We extracted data on trial characteristics; outcomes; methodological quality; reporting; and registration and protocol characteristics. Trial registration and protocol availability were determined for each study based on the publication, an Internet search and an author survey.

RESULTS

Most studies (83%) were efficacy trials, 40% evaluated drugs, and 30% were placebo-controlled. Primary outcomes were specified in 41%; 43% reported on adverse events. At least one statistically significant outcome was reported in 77% of trials; 63% favored the treatment group. Trial registration was declared in 12% of publications and 23% were found through an Internet search. Risk of bias (ROB) was high in 59% of trials, unclear in 33%, and low in 8%. Registered trials were more likely to have low ROB than non-registered trials (16% vs. 5%; p = 0.008). Effect sizes tended to be larger for trials at high vs. low ROB (0.28, 95% CI 0.21,0.35 vs. 0.16, 95% CI 0.07,0.25). Among survey respondents (50% response rate), the most common reason for trial registration was a publication requirement and for non-registration, a lack of familiarity with the process.

CONCLUSIONS

More than half of this random sample of pediatric RCTs published in 2007 was at high ROB and three quarters of trials were not registered. There is an urgent need to improve the design, conduct, and reporting of child health research.

Controlled trials in children: quantity, methodological quality and descriptive characteristics of pediatric controlled trials published 1948-2006

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to describe randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) in child health published between 1948 and 2006, in terms of quantity, methodological quality, and publication and trial characteristics. We used the Trials Register of the Cochrane Child Health Field for overall trends and a sample from this to explore trial characteristics in more detail.

METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

We extracted descriptive data on a random sample of 578 trials. Ninety-six percent of the trials were published in English; the percentage of child-only trials was 90.5%. The most frequent diagnostic categories were infectious diseases (13.2%), behavioural and psychiatric disorders (11.6%), neonatal critical care (11.4%), respiratory disorders (8.9%), non-critical neonatology (7.9%), and anaesthesia (6.5%). There were significantly fewer child-only studies (i.e., more mixed child and adult studies) over time (P = 0.0460). The proportion of RCTs to CCTs increased significantly over time (P<0.0001), as did the proportion of multicentre trials (P = 0.002). Significant increases over time were found in methodological quality (Jadad score) (P<0.0001), the proportion of double-blind studies (P<0.0001), and studies with adequate allocation concealment (P<0.0001). Additionally, we found an improvement in reporting over time: adequate description of withdrawals and losses to follow-up (P<0.0001), sample size calculations (P<0.0001), and intention-to-treat analysis (P<0.0001). However, many trials still do not describe their level of blinding, and allocation concealment was inadequately reported in the majority of studies across the entire time period. The proportion of studies with industry funding decreased slightly over time (P = 0.003), and these studies were more likely to report positive conclusions (P = 0.028).

CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE

The quantity and quality of pediatric controlled trials has increased over time; however, much work remains to be done, particularly in improving methodological issues around conduct and reporting of trials.