Clinical and technical factors in endoscopic skull base surgery associated with reconstructive success

BACKGROUND

In this study, we identified key discrete clinical and technical factors that may correlate with primary reconstructive success in endoscopic skull base surgery (ESBS).

METHODS

ESBS cases with intraoperative cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) leaks at four tertiary academic rhinology programs were retrospectively reviewed. Logistic regression identified factors associated with surgical outcomes by defect subsite (anterior cranial fossa [ACF], suprasellar [SS], purely sellar, posterior cranial fossa [PCF]).

RESULTS

Of 706 patients (50.4% female), 61.9% had pituitary adenomas, 73.4% had sellar or SS defects, and 20.5% had high-flow intraoperative CSF leaks. The postoperative CSF leak rate was 7.8%. Larger defect size predicted ACF postoperative leaks; use of rigid reconstruction and older age protected against sellar postoperative leaks; and use of dural sealants compared to fibrin glue protected against PCF postoperative leaks. SS postoperative leaks occurred less frequently with the use of dural onlay. Body-mass index, intraoperative CSF leak flow rate, and the use of lumbar drain were not significantly associated with postoperative CSF leak. Meningitis was associated with larger tumors in ACF defects, nondissolvable nasal packing in SS defects, and high-flow intraoperative leaks in PCF defects. Sinus infections were more common in sellar defects with synthetic grafts and nondissolvable nasal packing.

CONCLUSIONS

Depending on defect subsite, reconstructive success following ESBS may be influenced by factors, such as age, defect size, and the use of rigid reconstruction, dural onlay, and tissue sealants.

Pivotal Trial Demographic Representation and Clinical Development Times for Oncology Therapeutics

This study evaluates whether FDA-approved novel cancer therapeutics supported by pivotal trials with adequate representation of minoritized groups were associated with slower clinical development times than those with inadequate representation.

Transparency of Results Reporting in Cancer Clinical Trials

This cross-sectional study investigates rates of results reporting among oncology clinical trials across trial registries, medical journals, and medical conferences.

Clinical Trial Diversity-Will We Know It When We See It?

This Editorial discusses the existing policy efforts in the US for ensuring adequate racial and ethnic diversity in clinical trials, identifies barriers to consistency and acceptable representation, and suggests measures to address them.

Drug repurposing: a systematic review on root causes, barriers and facilitators

BACKGROUND

Repurposing is a drug development strategy receiving heightened attention after the Food and Drug Administration granted emergency use authorization of several repurposed drugs to treat Covid-19. There remain knowledge gaps on the root causes, facilitators and barriers for repurposing.

METHOD

This systematic review used controlled vocabulary and free text terms to search ABI/Informa, Academic Search Premier, Business Source Complete, Cochrane Library, EconLit, Google Scholar, Ovid Embase, Ovid Medline, Pubmed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection databases for the characteristics, reasons and example of companies deprioritizing development of promising drugs and barriers, facilitators and examples of successful re-purposing.

RESULTS

We identified 11,814 articles, screened 5,976 for relevance, found 437 eligible for full text review, 115 of which were included in full analysis. Most articles (66%, 76/115) discussed why promising drugs are abandoned, with lack of efficacy or superiority to other therapies (n = 59), strategic business reasons (n = 35), safety problems (n = 28), research design decisions (n = 12), the complex nature of a studied disease or drug (n = 7) and regulatory bodies requiring more information (n = 2) among top reasons. Key barriers to repurposing include inadequate resources (n = 42), trial data access and transparency around abandoned compounds (n = 20) and expertise (n = 11). Additional barriers include uncertainty about the value of repurposing (n = 13), liability risks (n = 5) and intellectual property (IP) challenges (n = 26). Facilitators include the ability to form multi-partner collaborations (n = 38), access to compound databases and database screening tools (n = 32), regulatory modifications (n = 5) and tax incentives (n = 2).

CONCLUSION

Promising drugs are commonly shelved due to insufficient efficacy or superiority to alternate therapies, poor market prospects, and industry consolidation. Inadequate resources and data access and challenges negotiating IP are key barriers to repurposing reaching its full potential as a core approach in drug development. Multi-partner collaborations and the availability and use of compound databases and tax incentives are key facilitators for repurposing. More research is needed on the current value of repurposing in drug development and how to better facilitate resources to support it, where valuable, especially financial, staffing for out-licensing shelved products, and legal expertise to negotiate IP agreements in multi-partner collaborations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The protocol was registered on Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/f634k/ ) as it was not eligible for registration on PROSPERO as the review did not focus on a health-related outcome.

Access to COVID-19 Vaccines in High-, Middle-, and Low-Income Countries Hosting Clinical Trials

This cross-sectional study examines authorization and delivery of COVID-19 vaccines recommended by the World Health Organization in the countries where they were tested.

Implementation of 21st Century Cures Act Expanded Access Policies Requirements

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expanded access pathway allows patients with life-threatening or serious conditions to access investigational drugs outside of trials, under certain conditions. The 21st Century Cures Act ("Cures Act") requires certain drug companies to publicly disclose their expanded access policies. We characterized the proportion of applicable US biopharmaceutical companies, with an oncology related drug, implementing Cures Act requirements for expanded access policies and whether available policies contain the information described in the Act. We found about one-third of applicable biopharmaceutical companies (32%, 140/423) implemented the Cures Act requirement to have a public expanded access policy. Less than one-third of public policies contained all described information (31%, 44/140). Larger companies and those with at least one drug receiving an FDA expedited designation (59% vs. 21%; P < 0.001), or at least one FDA-approved drug (57% vs. 28%; P < 0.001) were more likely to have a public policy. Our results suggest the Cures Act may be having a limited impact on its goals of supporting timely medical decisions and closing informational gaps for patients and doctors around expanded access to investigational oncology therapies, especially for products sponsored by smaller and newer companies.

A Comparison of Regularized Maximum-Likelihood, Regularized 2-Stage Least Squares, and Maximum-Likelihood Estimation with Misspecified Models, Small Samples, and Weak Factor Structure

Several structural equation modeling estimation methods have recently been developed to alleviate problems associated with model misspecification. Two of the more popular such approaches are 2-stage least squares and regularization methods. Prior work examining the performance of these estimators has generally focused on problems with adequately sized samples and relatively large factor loadings. In contrast, relatively little research has been conducted comparing these estimation techniques with small samples and weak loadings, though both conditions are not uncommon in the multivariate modeling. The current simulation study focused on comparing these relatively new structural estimation methods for misspecified models (e.g., misspecified interactions and cross-loadings) with small samples and relatively weak factor loadings. Results indicated that regularized 2-stage least squares estimation performed better compared to the regularized structural equation modeling framework for small samples and with weak factor loadings. Implications and guidelines for applied researchers are presented.

Evaluation of Drug Trials in High-, Middle-, and Low-Income Countries and Local Commercial Availability of Newly Approved Drugs

IMPORTANCE

Clinical research supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals is largely conducted outside the US.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize where drugs were tested for FDA approval and to determine how commonly and quickly these drugs received marketing approval in the countries where they were tested, both overall and by country income level and geographical region.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional analysis of trials supporting FDA approval of novel drugs in 2012 and 2014, sponsored by large drug companies, did not involve human participants. The settings were the countries hosting trials supporting US drug approval. Data sources included Drugs@FDA, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and drug regulatory agency websites. Data analysis was completed March through September 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary outcomes were the proportion of drugs approved for marketing in the countries where they were tested for FDA approval within 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years of FDA approval and the proportion of countries contributing participants to trials supporting FDA approvals receiving market access to the drugs they helped test within 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years of FDA approval.

RESULTS

In 2012 and 2014, the FDA approved 34 novel drugs sponsored by large companies, on the basis of a total of 898 trials, 563 of which had location information available. Each drug was tested in a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 25 (18-37) unique countries, including a median (IQR) of 20 (13-25) high-income countries, 6 (4-11) upper-middle-income countries, and 1 (0-2) low-middle-income country. One drug was approved for marketing in all testing countries within 1 year of FDA approval and 15% (5 of 34 drugs) were approved in all testing countries within 5 years of FDA approval. Of the 70 countries contributing research participants for FDA drug approvals, 7% (5 countries) received market access to drugs they helped test within 1 year of FDA approval and 31% (22 countries) did so within 5 years. Access within 1 year occurred in 13% (5 of 39) of high-income countries, 0 of 22 upper-middle-income countries (0%), and 0 of 9 lower-middle-income countries (0%), whereas at 5 years access rates were 46% (18 of 39 countries), 9% (2 of 22 countries), and 22% (2 of 9 countries), respectively. Approvals were faster in high-income countries (median [IQR], 8 [0-11] months) than in upper-middle-income countries (median [IQR], 11 [5-29] months) or lower-middle-income countries (median [IQR], 17 [11-27] months) after FDA approval. Access was lowest in African countries.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

These findings suggest that substantial gaps exist between where FDA-approved drugs are tested and where they ultimately become available to patients, raising concerns about the equitable distribution of research benefits at the population level.

Reporting of Study Participant Demographic Characteristics and Demographic Representation in Premarketing and Postmarketing Studies of Novel Cancer Therapeutics

IMPORTANCE

Adequate representation of demographic subgroups in premarketing and postmarketing clinical studies is necessary for understanding the safety and efficacy associated with novel cancer therapeutics.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize and compare the reporting of demographic data and the representation of individuals by sex, age, and race in premarketing and postmarketing studies used by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to evaluate novel cancer therapeutics.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

In this cross-sectional study, premarketing and postmarketing studies for novel cancer therapeutics approved by the FDA from 2012 through 2016 were identified. Study demographic information was abstracted from publicly available sources, and US cancer population demographic data was abstracted from US Cancer Statistics. Analyses were conducted from February 25 through September 21, 2020.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The percentages of trials reporting sex, age, and race/ethnicity were calculated, and participation to prevalence ratios (PPRs) were calculated by dividing the percentage of study participants in each demographic group by the percentage of the US cancer population in each group. PPRs were constructed for premarketing and postmarketing studies and by cancer type. Underrepresentation was defined as PPR less than 0.8.

RESULTS

From 2012 through 2016, the FDA approved 45 cancer therapeutics. The study sample included 77 premarketing studies and 56 postmarketing studies. Postmarketing studies, compared with premarketing studies, were less likely to report patient sex (42 studies reporting [75.0%] vs 77 studies reporting [100%]; P < .001) and race (27 studies reporting [48.2%] vs 62 studies reporting [80.5%]; P < .001). Women were adequately represented in premarketing studies (mean [SD] PPR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.91) and postmarketing studies (mean PPR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01). Although older adults and Black patients were underrepresented in premarketing studies (older adults: mean PPR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.72-0.74; Black patients: mean PPR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.31-0.32), these groups continued to be underrepresented in postmarketing studies (older adults: mean PPR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.75-0.76; Black patients: mean PPR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.21-0.21).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This study found that older adults and Black patients were underrepresented in postmarketing studies of novel cancer therapeutics to a similar degree that they were underrepresented in premarketing studies. These findings suggest that postmarketing studies are not associated with improvements to gaps in demographic representation present at the time of FDA approval.

0468 A Multiple Dose, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Double-Blind, Multicenter Study to Investigate Triprolidine in the Treatment of Temporary Sleep Disturbance

Introduction

American Association of Sleep Medicine guidelines states that the primary goals of the treatment of insomnia are to improve sleep quality and related daytime function. While H1 antihistamines have sedative effects, they are associated with residual daytime sleepiness and an effective dose range for hypnotic effect has hitherto not been established. Triprolidine a first generation antihistamine used to treat allergic rhinitis and the common cold has a mean half-life of 3.2 hours. We evaluated the effect of two doses of triprolodine compared with placebo on sleep onset latency and daytime sleepiness to determine the optimum dose in subjects with temporary sleep disturbance.

Methods

Multicenter, placebo-controlled, parallel group, double blind, multiple dose, randomized study of 178 patients aged 18 years or above with a primary diagnosis of temporary sleep disturbance. Patients were randomized to one of three groups. Group 1: 2 x placebo tablets; Group 2: 1 x placebo tablet + 1 x 2.5mg triprolidine tablet; Group 3: 2 x 2.5mg triprolodine tablets, taken 20 minutes before intended sleep on three consecutive evenings. Efficacy was measured objectively using the Sleep Disturbance Index using a wrist actimeter and subjectively using the Loughborough Sleep Log and Karolinska Sleepiness Scale.

Results

Both doses were statistically significantly superior to placebo in terms of quality and duration of sleep and sleep interruptions. No hangover effects or daytime sleepiness were observed with either dose compared to placebo. Patients on the 2.5 mg dose awoke more refreshed than the 5 mg dose. No serious adverse effects observed in any group and anticholinergic events i.e. dry mouth were very low.

Conclusion

Tripolidine is effective and safe in the treatment of temporary sleep disturbance. The optimum dose is 2.5mg.

Support

The study was sponsored by Boots Healthcare International.

Genome-wide association study to identify genetic loci associated with gastrointestinal nematode resistance in Katahdin sheep

Resistance to gastrointestinal nematodes has previously been shown to be a moderately heritable trait in some breeds of sheep, but the mechanisms of resistance are not well understood. Selection for resistance currently relies upon faecal egg counts (FEC), blood packed cell volumes and FAMACHA visual indicator scores of anaemia. Identifying genomic markers associated with disease resistance would potentially improve the selection process and provide a more reliable means of classifying and understanding the biology behind resistant and susceptible sheep. A GWAS was conducted to identify possible genetic loci associated with resistance to Haemonchus contortus in Katahdin sheep. Forty animals were selected from the top and bottom 10% of estimated breeding values for FEC from a total pool of 641 sires and ram lambs. Samples were genotyped using Applied Biosystems™ Axiom™ Ovine Genotyping Array (50K) consisting of 51 572 SNPs. Following quality control, 46 268 SNPs were included in subsequent analyses. Analyses were conducted using a linear regression model in plink v1.90 and a single‐locus mixed model in snp and variation suite. Genome‐wide significance was determined by a Bonferroni correction for multiple testing. Using linear regression, loci on chromosomes 2, 3, 16, 23 and 24 were significantly associated at the genome level with FEC estimated breeding values, and we identified a region on chromosome 2 that was significant using both statistical analyses. We suggest a potential role for the gene DIS3L2 for gastrointestinal nematode resistance in Katahdin sheep, although further research is needed to validate these findings.

Managing conflicts of interest in pharmacy and therapeutics committees: A proposal for multicentre formulary development

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE

While many countries have central agencies responsible for formulary development, within the United States, each hospital, health care system, or insurance provider has their own pharmacy and therapeutic committee, leading to both inefficiencies and inequalities across formularies. The number and variety of processes within pharmacy and therapeutic committees also increases the likelihood that conflicts of interest will influence the development of formularies. We sought to determine how such influences could be reduced by reviewing international evidence related to the presence and harms of conflicts of interest in formulary development.

METHODS

Several approaches have been taken to reduce the influence of conflicts of interest in pharmacy and therapeutics committee processes, including include disclosure, recusal, exclusion, universal consideration and dual committees. The feasibility of each of these approaches is considered in the context of the United States.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A proposal is drawn from the discussion of various approaches to conflicts of interest in pharmacy and therapeutics committees: multicenter formulary development.

WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION

Multicentre formulary development, where resources are pooled across institutions, may lead to a reduction in the influence of conflicts of interest in pharmacy and therapeutics committee processes in the United States, increasing the chances of including the most safe, efficacious and cost-effective drugs on formularies.

Postmarketing commitments for novel drugs and biologics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration: a cross-sectional analysis

BACKGROUND

Postmarketing commitments are clinical studies that pharmaceutical companies agree to conduct at the time of FDA approval, but which are not required by statute or regulation. As FDA increasingly adopts a lifecycle evaluation process, greater emphasis will be placed on postmarket evidence as a component of therapeutic evaluation. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to determine how often postmarketing commitments agreed upon by pharmaceutical companies at first FDA approval lead to new clinical trials and to establish the characteristics and rates of completion and dissemination of postmarketing commitments.

METHODS

For new drugs and biologics approved in 2009-2012, we used public FDA documents, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Scopus, to determine postmarketing commitments and their characteristics known at the time of FDA approval; number subject to reporting requirements, for which FDA is required to make study status information available to the public ("506B studies"), and their statuses; and rates of registration and results reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov and publication in peer-reviewed journals for all clinical trials.

RESULTS

Among 110 novel drugs and biologics approved by the FDA between 2009 and 2012, 61 (55.5%) had at least one postmarketing commitment at the time of first approval. Of 331 total postmarketing commitments, 33 (10.0%) were for new clinical trials; 27 of these were 506B studies subject to public reporting requirements, of which 12 (44.4%) did not have a recent (i.e., up-to-date) or closed (i.e., fulfilled or released) status provided publicly by the FDA. Although two postmarketing commitments were insufficiently described in FDA records to perform searches on ClinicalTrials.gov, nearly all (28, 90.3%) of the 31 remaining postmarketing commitments for new clinical trials were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Among the registered trials, 23 (23 of 28, 82.1%) were classified as completed or terminated, of which 22 (95.7%) had reported results. When considering all 29 completed or terminated clinical trials, registered or unregistered on ClinicalTrials.gov, only half (14, 48.3%) were published in peer-reviewed journals.

CONCLUSIONS

While only 15% of postmarketing commitments agreed to by pharmaceutical companies at the time of FDA approval were for new clinical trials, these trials were nearly always registered with reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov. However, only half were published, and despite FDA public reporting requirements, recent status information was often unavailable for 506B studies.

Registration, results reporting, and publication bias of clinical trials supporting FDA approval of neuropsychiatric drugs before and after FDAAA: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Mandatory trial registration, and later results reporting, were proposed to mitigate selective clinical trial publication and outcome reporting. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act (FDAAA) was enacted by Congress on September 27, 2007, requiring the registration of all non-phase I clinical trials involving FDA-regulated medical interventions and results reporting for approved drugs. The association between FDAAA enactment and the registration, results reporting, and publication bias of neuropsychiatric trials has not been studied.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all efficacy trials supporting FDA new drug approvals between 2005 to 2014 for neuropsychiatric indications. Trials were categorized as pre- or post-FDAAA based on initiation and/or completion dates. The main outcomes were the proportions of trials registered and reporting results in ClinicalTrials.gov, and the degree of publication bias, estimated using the relative risks pre- and post-FDAAA of both the publication of positive vs non-positive trials, as well as of publication of positive vs non-positive trials without misleading interpretations. Registration and results reporting proportions were compared pre- and post-FDAAA using the two-tailed Fisher exact test, and the degrees of publication bias were compared by calculating the ratio of relative risks (RRR) for each period.

Results

The FDA approved 37 new drugs for neuropsychiatric indications between 2005 and 2014 on the basis of 142 efficacy trials, of which 101 were pre-FDAAA and 41 post-FDAAA. Post-FDAAA trials were significantly more likely to be registered (100% vs 64%; p < 0.001) and report results (100% vs 10%; p < 0.001) than pre-FDAAA trials. Pre-FDAAA, positive trials were more likely to be published (relative risk [RR] = 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17–1.99; p = 0.002) and published without misleading interpretations (RR = 2.47; CI = 1.57–3.73; p < 0.001) than those with non-positive results. In contrast, post-FDAAA positive trials were equally likely to have been published (RR = 1; CI = 1–1, p = NA) and published without misleading interpretations (RR = 1.20; CI = 0.84–1.72; p = 0.30). The likelihood of publication bias pre-FDAAA vs post-FDAAA was greater for positive vs non-positive trials (RRR = 1.52; CI = 1.16–1.99; p = 0.002) and for publication without misleading interpretations (RRR = 2.06, CI = 1.17–3.61, p = 0.01).

Conclusions

The enactment of FDAAA was followed by significantly higher proportions of trials that were registered and reporting results on ClinicalTrials.gov and significantly lower degrees of publication bias among trials supporting recent FDA approval of drugs for neuropsychiatric indications.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2957-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Genetic parameters for fecal egg counts and their relationship with body weights in Katahdin lambs

Reliance on anthelmintic drugs to control internal parasites in sheep is no longer sustainable because of the development of resistance to these drugs in parasite populations. Genetic selection may offer an alternative long-term solution, as differences in parasite resistance exist both within and among sheep breeds. However, selection for parasite resistance may have correlated effects on other production traits. The objectives of this study were to estimate genetic parameters for weaning (WFEC) and postweaning (PWFEC) fecal egg counts (FEC) and assess their relationship with birth (BWT), weaning (WWT), and postweaning (PWWT) BW in Katahdin lambs. The study used WFEC (n = 2,537), PWFEC (n = 3.421), BWT (n = 12,869), WWT (n = 10,961), and PWWT (n = 7,812) from 12,869 lambs measured between 2003 and 2015 in 13 flocks enrolled in the U.S. National Sheep Improvement Program. Animal and sire models were fitted to the data using the ASReml statistical package. Records were corrected for fixed effects of dam age, joint effect of type of birth and rearing, and management group (defined by joint effects of flock, sex, and birth year and season); lamb age in days at each measurement time was fitted as a covariate. Maternal additive and maternal permanent environmental effects were not significant (P > 0.05), but litter effects influenced (P < 0.01) both WFEC and PWFEC. Heritability estimates ranged from 0.18 to 0.26 for WFEC and 0.23 to 0.46 for PWFEC, depending on the model used. Heritability estimates from sire models were higher than estimates from animal models. Direct additive, litter, residual, and phenotypic correlations between WFEC and PWFEC were 0.82, 0.25, 0.15, and 0.29, respectively. Bivariate analyses revealed low to moderate correlations between BW and FEC. Moderate heritabilities for FEC in this study indicated that genetic progress for this trait can be achieved in Katahdin lambs and that selection for low FEC should have little or no effect on BW.

Adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' (ICMJE) prospective registration policy and implications for outcome integrity: a cross-sectional analysis of trials published in high-impact specialty society journals

BACKGROUND

Registration of clinical trials is critical for promoting transparency and integrity in medical research; however, trials must be registered in a prospective fashion to deter unaccounted protocol modifications or selection of alternate outcomes that may enhance favorability of reported findings. We assessed adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' (ICMJE) prospective registration policy and identified the frequency of registrations occurring after potential observation of primary outcome data among trials published in the highest-impact journals associated with US professional medical societies. Additionally, we examined whether trials that are unregistered or registered after potential observation of primary outcome data were more likely to report favorable findings.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of the 50 most recently published clinical trials that reported primary results in each of the ten highest-impact US medical specialty society journals between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the proportions of trials that were: registered; registered retrospectively; registered retrospectively potentially after initial ascertainment of primary outcomes; and reporting favorable findings, overall and stratified by journal and trial characteristics. Chi-squared analyses were performed to assess differences in registration by journal and trial characteristics.

RESULTS

We reviewed 6869 original research reports published between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015 to identify a total of 486 trials across 472 publications. Of these 486 trials, 47 (10%) were unregistered. Among 439 registered trials, 340 (77%) were registered prospectively and 99 (23%) retrospectively. Sixty-seven (68%) of these 99 retrospectively registered trials, or 15% of all 439 registered trials, were registered after potential observation of primary outcome data ascertained among participants enrolled at inception. Industry-funded trials, those with enrollment sites in the US, as well as those assessing FDA-regulated interventions each had lower rates of retrospective registration. Unregistered trials were more likely to report favorable findings than were registered trials (89% vs. 64%; relative risk (RR) = 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.20-1.58; p = 0.004), irrespective of registration timing.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to the ICMJE's prospective registration policy remains sub-standard, even in the highest-impact journals associated with US professional medical societies. These journals frequently published unregistered trials and trials registered after potential observation of primary outcome data.

Delays in the Publication of Important Clinical Trial Findings in Oncology

Importance

The complete and timely dissemination of clinical trial data is essential to all fields of medicine, with delayed or incomplete data release having potentially deleterious effects on both patient care and scientific inquiry. While prior analyses have noted a substantial lag in the reporting of final clinical study results, we sought to refine these observations through use of a novel starting point for the measurement of dissemination delays: the date of a corporate press release regarding a phase 3 study's results.

Objective

To measure the length of time elapsed between when a sponsor had results of study findings they deemed important to announce, and when the medical community had access to them.

Design and Setting

Covering the years 2011 through 2016, we measured the delay from when 8 large pharmaceutical companies issued a press release announcing completed analyses of phase 3 clinical trials in oncology, and the public sharing of those results either on ClinicalTrials.gov or in a peer-reviewed biomedical journal as found via PubMed or Google Scholar. Press releases announcing regulatory steps and presentation schedules for conferences were excluded, as were those announcing results from preclinical trials, follow-up analyses, and studies of supportive care therapies or various modes of infusion for the same therapy.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Time to public dissemination of clinical trial data.

Results

Of the 100 press releases in our sample, 70 (70%) reported positive results, but only 31 (31%) included the magnitude of study findings. Through the end of follow-up, 99 (99%) of press releases had an associated peer-reviewed publication, complete data posting to ClinicalTrials.gov, or both, with a median time to reporting of 300 days (95% CI, 263-348 days). Positive findings were reported more quickly than negative ones (median of 272; 95% CI, 211-318 days vs 407; 95% CI, 298-705 days; log-rank P < .001).

Conclusions and Relevance

Even for the most pressing study findings, median publication delays approach 1 year. As publication delays hinder research progress and advancements in clinical care, policies that enable early preprint release or public posting of completed data analysis should be pursued.

Availability of Investigational Medicines Through the US Food and Drug Administration's Expanded Access and Compassionate Use Programs

IMPORTANCE

The Right to Try Act of 2017 allows patients with life-threatening conditions to access investigational medicines outside clinical trials without oversight from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A better understanding of existing expanded access programs can inform the consideration and implementation of both the federal Right to Try Act and state right-to-try laws.

OBJECTIVE

To determine the timing and duration of expanded access programs for investigational medicines initiated prior to FDA approval.

DESIGN AND SETTING

This cross-sectional study examined expanded access and compassionate use programs registered through August 1, 2017, identified from ClinicalTrials.gov and publicly available FDA documents.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Start date of each program and 3 key regulatory dates (investigational new drug application activation, initial new drug application submission, and FDA approval), and timing and duration of expanded access availability in relation to new drug application submission and FDA approval.

RESULTS

Through ClinicalTrials.gov, 92 FDA-approved drugs and biologics with associated expanded access programs initiated prior to FDA approval were identified. These programs were initiated between September 1996 and June 2017 for medicines that were most commonly used to treat cancer (n = 46 [50.0%]); metabolic, endocrine, and genetic diseases (n = 16 [17.4%]); and infectious diseases (n = 14 [15.2%]). The median (interquartile range) premarket expanded access availability was 10.0 (6.0-19.5) months, constituting a median (interquartile range) of 14% (7%-25%) of the premarket clinical development period (investigational new drug application activation to FDA approval). Of 92 expanded access programs, 64 (69.6%) were initiated just before or after new drug application submission: 24 (26.1%) were initiated during the 6-month period before, and 40 (43.5%) in the 6 months after.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Over the past 2 decades, expanded access programs have provided access to investigational medicines for which evidence of safety and effectiveness was established. For medicines that ultimately receive FDA approval, these findings suggest that the FDA and pharmaceutical industry have established a balance between investigational new drug access and protection of patients from therapies without established safety. This balance may be compromised by policy makers seeking to speed access to investigational medicines through the Right to Try Act.

Postmarket studies required by the US Food and Drug Administration for new drugs and biologics approved between 2009 and 2012: cross sectional analysis

OBJECTIVES

To characterize postmarketing requirements for new drugs and biologics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and to examine rates and timeliness of registration, results reporting, and publication of required prospective cohort studies, registries, and clinical trials.

DESIGN

Cross sectional analysis.

SETTING

Postmarketing requirements for all new drugs and biologics approved by the FDA between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2012, with follow-up up to 15 November 2017.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Postmarketing requirements and their characteristics known at the time of FDA approval, including FDA authority, study design, and study characteristics. Rates and timeliness of registration and results reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov and publication in peer reviewed journals of required prospective cohort studies, registries, and clinical trials.

RESULTS

Between 2009 and 12, the FDA approved 97 new drugs and biologics for 106 indications with at least one postmarketing requirement at the time of first approval, for a total of 437 postmarketing requirements. Postmarket study descriptions were short (median word count 44 (interquartile range 29-71)) and often lacked information to determine an up to date progress (131 (30%)). 220 (50.3%) postmarketing requirements were for new animal or other studies (including pharmacokinetic studies); 134 (30.7%) were for prospective cohort studies, registries, and clinical trials; and 83 (19.0%) were for secondary analyses or follow-up studies. Of 110 clinical trials, 38 (34.5%), 44 (40.0%), 62 (56.4%), 66 (60.0%), and 98 (89.1%) did not report enough information to establish use of randomization, comparator type, allocation, outcome, and number of patients to be enrolled, respectively. Of 134 required prospective cohort studies, registries, and clinical trials, 102 (76.1%) were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov; of 50 registered and completed studies, 36 (72.0%) had reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov. Among 65 completed studies, 47 (72.3%) had either reported results or were published a median of 47 months (interquartile range 32-67) after FDA approval. 32 (68.1%) of these 47 studies did not report results publicly by the time of their original FDA report submission deadline.

CONCLUSIONS

Postmarketing requirements for new drugs and biologics were often briefly described and did not contain enough information to characterize study designs. Approximately three quarters of postmarketing requirements for prospective cohort studies, registries, and clinical trials were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov, and nearly three quarters of completed studies reported results or were published, suggesting that at least a quarter of these required studies are not being publicly disseminated.

Measuring clinical trial transparency: an empirical analysis of newly approved drugs and large pharmaceutical companies

OBJECTIVES

To define a series of clinical trial transparency measures and apply them to large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and their 2014 FDA-approved drugs.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional descriptive analysis of all clinical trials supporting 2014 Food and Drugs Administration (FDA)-approved new drug applications (NDAs) for novel drugs sponsored by large companies.

DATA SOURCES

Data from over 45 sources, including Drugs@FDA.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov, corporate and international registries; PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, corporate press releases, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings and personal communications with drug manufacturers.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Trial registration, results reporting, clinical study report (CSR) synopsis sharing, biomedical journal publication, and FDA Amendments Acts (FDAAA) compliance, analysed on the drug level.

RESULTS

The FDA approved 19 novel new drugs, sponsored by 11 large companies, involving 553 trials, in 2014. We analysed 505 relevant trials. Per drug, a median of 100% (IQR 86%-100%) of trials in patients were registered, 71% (IQR 57%-100%) reported results or shared a CSR synopsis, 80% (70%-100%) were published and 96% (80%-100%) were publicly available in some form by 13 months after FDA approval. Disclosure rates were lower at FDA approval (65%) and improved significantly by 6 months post FDA approval. Per drug, a median of 100% (IQR 75%-100%) of FDAAA-applicable trials were compliant. Half of reviewed drugs had publicly disclosed results for all trials in patients in our sample. One trial was uniquely registered in a corporate registry, and not ClinicalTrials.gov; 0 trials were uniquely registered in international registries.

CONCLUSIONS

Among large pharmaceutical companies and new drugs, clinical trial transparency is high based on several standards, although opportunities for improvement remain. Transparency is markedly higher for trials in patients than among all trials supporting drug approval, including trials in healthy volunteers. Ongoing efforts to publicly track companies' transparency records and recognise exemplary companies may encourage further progress.

Prevalence and risk factors associated with intestinal parasitic infections among schoolchildren in Punjab, Pakistan

Intestinal parasitic infections (IPIs) are a major cause of morbidity worldwide and have been described as an important public health concern. The present study aimed to determine the prevalence and identification of risk factors associated with IPIs among 3-15 years old school age children residing in Mandi Bahauddin, Pakistan from 2011- 2013. A cross sectional school-based study was conducted using a structured pre-tested questionnaire. Anthropometric tools and stool tests were used to obtain epidemiological and disease data. The direct wet mount preperation in saline/iodine/haematoxylin stain and Kato-Katz methods were used for stool examination. Data were analysed using appropriate descriptive, univariate and multivariable logistic regression methods. Of the 1,434 children studied (mean age of 8.6±3.6 years) the overall prevalence rate for intestinal parasitic infections was found to be 33.3%. Children infected with single parasite accounted for 27.6% and 5.7% were detected with poly-parasitism. The study showed that helminths (21.4%) were more prevalent than protozoans (17.9%). Ascaris lumbricoides (17.5%), Giardia lamblia (9.8%), Entamoeba histolytica (8.2%), Hymenolepis nana (2.0%), Trichuris trichiura (1.3%) and Taenia saginata (0.7%) were identified in children living in irrigated areas. The multiple logistic regression model indicated that age of the child, gender, family size, source of drinking water, type of milk used, house condition, feeding habit, personal hygiene and socioeconomic status were significantly (p<0.05) associated with the IPIs. Intestinal parasites were prevalent in varying magnitude among the schoolchildren located in irrigated areas. We conclude that there is a need for mass scale campaigns to create awareness regarding health and hygiene in children, and the need for development of effective poverty control programmes because deworming alone is not adequate to control parasitic infections.

Association of the FDA Amendment Act with trial registration, publication, and outcome reporting

Background

Selective clinical trial publication and outcome reporting has the potential to bias the medical literature. The 2007 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendment Act (FDAAA) mandated clinical trial registration and outcome reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov, a publicly accessible trial registry.

Methods

Using publicly available data from ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA documents, and PubMed, we determined registration, publication, and reporting of findings for all efficacy trials supporting FDA approval of new drugs for cardiovascular disease and diabetes between 2005 and 2014, before and after the FDAAA. For published trials, we compared the published interpretation of the findings (positive, equivocal, or negative) with the FDA reviewer’s interpretation.

Results

Between 2005 and 2014, the FDA approved 30 drugs for 32 indications of cardiovascular disease (n = 17) and diabetes (n = 15) on the basis of 183 trials (median per indication 5.7 (IQR, 3–8)). Compared with pre FDAAA, post-FDAAA studies were more likely to be registered (78 of 78 (100%) vs 73 of 105 (70%); p < 0.001), to be published (76 of 78 (97%) vs 93 of 105 (89%); p = 0.03), and to present findings concordant with the FDA reviewer’s interpretation (74 of 76 (97%) vs 78 of 93 (84%); p = 0.004). Pre FDAAA, the FDA reviewer interpreted 80 (76%) trials as positive and 91 (98%) were published as positive. Post FDAAA, the FDA reviewer interpreted 71 (91%) trials as positive and 71 (93%) were published as positive.

Conclusions

FDAAA was associated with increased registration, publication, and FDA-concordant outcome reporting for trials supporting FDA approval of new drugs for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2068-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Association between FAMACHA scores and fecal egg counts in Katahdin lambs

The FAMACHA system was introduced to the U.S. just over 10 yr ago to allow selective deworming of lambs with anemia associated with and retard the development of anthelmintic resistance. The FAMACHA system was initially developed as a predictor of packed cell volume (PCV), but correlations between FAMACHA and fecal egg counts (FEC) have also been reported. It is important to understand factors that influence FAMACHA scores among farms to improve management of gastrointestinal nematodes. The objectives of this study were therefore to quantify associations between FAMACHA scores, FEC, BW, and age in Katahdin lambs at 2 different measurement times in 8 flocks in the eastern U.S., and to assess consistency of relationships between FAMACHA and FEC among flocks. Data came from 1,644 Katahdin lambs from 7 flocks sampled at approximately 90 d of age, and 1,295 lambs from 6 flocks sampled at approximately 120 d of age over a 5 yr period. Residual correlations among log-transformed FEC (LFEC), FAMACHA scores, BW, and lamb ages at each measurement time were determined. Repeatability of each variable was also determined as residual correlations among repeated measures. At both 90 and 120 d of age, correlations of FAMACHA scores with LFEC and BW were significant ( < 0.001), but numerically modest (0.25 and -0.16, respectively at 90 d; 0.31 and -0.16, respectively at 120 d), demonstrating that higher FAMACHA scores were associated with higher FEC and more likely to be observed in lighter lambs. A small negative correlation was observed between FAMACHA score and lamb age ( = -0.05, = 0.05, 90 d; = -0.11, < 0.001, 120 d) indicating that younger lambs were more likely to have elevated FAMACHA scores. Thus, younger and lighter lambs will likely be more susceptible to parasitism and may need to be managed more diligently than older or heavier lambs. In addition, FAMACHA scores have potential to improve breeding value estimates in programs designed to genetically improve parasite resistance.

Factors affecting fecal egg counts in periparturient Katahdin ewes and their lambs

Selection for low fecal egg counts (FEC) can be used to genetically enhance resistance to gastrointestinal nematode parasites in growing lambs, thereby reducing the frequency of use of anthelmintics, facilitating marketing of organic lamb, and reducing the risk of development of anthelmintic resistance by the parasite. Recording of FEC in lambs has, therefore, been incorporated into several national sheep genetic evaluation programs. Ewes in late gestation and early lactation are also vulnerable to parasite infection and commonly experience a periparturient rise in FEC. This study was designed to assess factors associated with the periparturient rise in FEC in Katahdin ewes and associated changes in FEC in their lambs. Data came from 1,487 lambings by 931 Katahdin ewes from 11 farms in the Eastern United States. Fecal egg counts were measured in ewes at approximately 0, 30, and 60 d postpartum and in their lambs at approximately 60, 90, and 120 d of age. Approximately 1,400 lambs were evaluated at each measurement age. Data were analyzed separately for ewes and lambs and also initially analyzed separately for each measurement time. Repeated-measures analyses were then used to evaluate responses across measurement times. In ewes, FEC peaked at approximately 28 d postpartum, and we concluded that informative periparturient FEC could be obtained from 1 wk before until approximately 5 wk after lambing. Yearling ewes had higher FEC than adult ewes ( < 0.01), and ewes that nursed twin or triplet lambs had higher FEC than ewes that nursed single lambs ( < 0.01). In lambs, FEC increased through approximately 120 d of age. Lambs from yearling ewes and lambs nursed in larger litters were, like their dams, at greater risk of parasitism ( < 0.05). Ewes and lambs in these groups would benefit from enhanced monitoring of parasite loads at lambing and in early lactation. Correlations () between FEC in lambs at 90 d of age and FEC in ewes at 0, 30, and 60 d postpartum of 0.05 to 0.09 ( ≤ 0.05) support the presence of a genetic relationship between these 2 indicators of parasite resistance.

Incorporating ethical principles into clinical research protocols: a tool for protocol writers and ethics committees

A novel Protocol Ethics Tool Kit ('Ethics Tool Kit') has been developed by a multi-stakeholder group of the Multi-Regional Clinical Trials Center of Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard. The purpose of the Ethics Tool Kit is to facilitate effective recognition, consideration and deliberation of critical ethical issues in clinical trial protocols. The Ethics Tool Kit may be used by investigators and sponsors to develop a dedicated Ethics Section within a protocol to improve the consistency and transparency between clinical trial protocols and research ethics committee reviews. It may also streamline ethics review and may facilitate and expedite the review process by anticipating the concerns of ethics committee reviewers. Specific attention was given to issues arising in multinational settings. With the use of this Tool Kit, researchers have the opportunity to address critical research ethics issues proactively, potentially speeding the time and easing the process to final protocol approval.

Clinical trial registration, reporting, publication and FDAAA compliance: a cross-sectional analysis and ranking of new drugs approved by the FDA in 2012

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate clinical trial registration, reporting and publication rates for new drugs by: (1) legal requirements and (2) the ethical standard that all human subjects research should be publicly accessible to contribute to generalisable knowledge.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of all clinical trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for drugs approved in 2012, sponsored by large biopharmaceutical companies.

DATA SOURCES

Information from Drugs@FDA, ClinicalTrials.gov, MEDLINE-indexed journals and drug company communications.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Clinical trial registration and results reporting in ClinicalTrials.gov, publication in the medical literature, and compliance with the 2007 FDA Amendments Acts (FDAAA), analysed on the drug level.

RESULTS

The FDA approved 15 drugs sponsored by 10 large companies in 2012. We identified 318 relevant trials involving 99 599 research participants. Per drug, a median of 57% (IQR 32-83%) of trials were registered, 20% (IQR 12-28%) reported results in ClinicalTrials.gov, 56% (IQR 41-83%) were published, and 65% (IQR 41-83%) were either published or reported results. Almost half of all reviewed drugs had at least one undisclosed phase II or III trial. Per drug, a median of 17% (IQR 8-20%) of trials supporting FDA approvals were subject to FDAAA mandated public disclosure; of these, a median of 67% (IQR 0-100%) were FDAAA-compliant. 68% of research participants (67,629 of 99,599) participated in FDAAA-subject trials, with 51% (33,405 of 67,629) enrolled in non-compliant trials. Transparency varied widely among companies.

CONCLUSIONS

Trial disclosures for new drugs remain below legal and ethics standards, with wide variation in practices among drugs and their sponsors. Best practices are emerging. 2 of our 10 reviewed companies disclosed all trials and complied with legal disclosure requirements for their 2012 approved drugs. Ranking new drugs on transparency criteria may improve compliance with legal and ethics standards and the quality of medical knowledge.

Examination of commercially available copper oxide wire particles in combination with albendazole for control of gastrointestinal nematodes in lambs

Control of gastrointestinal nematodes (GIN) remains a critical issue due to the prevalence of anthelmintic resistance. The objective of the experiment was to determine the efficacy of copper oxide wire particles (COWP) from three commercial sources and a combination of COWP and albendazole to control GIN and/or Haemonchus contortus in lambs. Naturally infected Katahdin lambs in early June 2014 and 2015 were randomly assigned to receive no COWP (CON; n=9 and 12) or 2g COWP in a gel capsule as Copasure(®) (COP; n=4 and 17; Animax Ltd.), copper oxide-wire form (AUS; n=7 in 2014 only; Pharmplex), Ultracruz™ (ULT; n=8 and 15; Santa Cruz Animal Health™), no COWP and albendazole (CON+alb; n=10 in 2015 only; 15mg/kg BW; Valbazen(®); Zoetis Animal Health), or COWP+alb (n=7 and 11; in 2014, lambs were administered alb on day 3). Lambs grazed grass pastures as a group and were supplemented with 227g/lamb daily of a commercial grain mix (15% crude protein) and the same amount of alfalfa pellets. Feces were collected on days 0 (day of COWP treatment), 7, and 14 for determination of fecal egg counts (FEC). Pooled (2014) or pooled treatment group feces were cultured on days 0, 7, and 14 (2015 only) to determine GIN genera. Data were analyzed using repeated measures in a mixed model, and FEC were log transformed. The predominant GIN on day 0 was H. contortus (87%) in 2014, and there was a mixed population in 2015. The mean FEC was reduced by day 7 in AUS and ULT lambs (treatment×day, P=0.001), and all of the COWP products were similar. By day 14, the AUS FEC were lower than the CON and COP groups. When examining the combination of COWP and synthetic anthelmintic, the FEC of COWP+alb were reduced to nearly 0eggs/g (back-transformed) and lower than the other groups (treatment×day, P=0.001). The percentage of H. contortus in cultured feces was reduced to a greater extent in the COWP than CON or CON+alb groups of lambs. In a mixed GIN population, the COWP products appeared to be similar in efficacy and using a combination of COWP+alb increased the efficacy not only against H. contortus, but all GIN genera present, offering options in the face of resistance to benzimidazoles.

The ethics and regulatory landscape of including vulnerable populations in pragmatic clinical trials

Policies have been developed to protect vulnerable populations in clinical research, including the US federal research regulations (45 Code of Federal Regulations 46 Subparts B, C, and D). These policies generally recognize vulnerable populations to include pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons. The aim has been to protect these populations from harm, often by creating regulatory and ethical checks that may limit their participation in many clinical trials. The recent increase in pragmatic clinical trials raises at least two questions about this approach. First, is exclusion itself a harm to vulnerable populations, as these groups may be denied access to understanding how health interventions work for them in clinical settings? Second, are groups considered vulnerable in traditional clinical trials also vulnerable in pragmatic clinical trials? We argue first that excluding vulnerable subjects from participation in pragmatic clinical trials can be harmful by preventing acquisition of data to meaningfully inform clinical decision-making in the future. Second, we argue that protections for vulnerable subjects in traditional clinical trial settings may not be translatable, feasible, or even ethical to apply in pragmatic clinical trials. We conclude by offering specific recommendations for appropriately protecting vulnerable research subjects in pragmatic clinical trials, focusing on pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons.

Gatekeepers for pragmatic clinical trials

To successfully implement a pragmatic clinical trial, investigators need access to numerous resources, including financial support, institutional infrastructure (e.g. clinics, facilities, staff), eligible patients, and patient data. Gatekeepers are people or entities who have the ability to allow or deny access to the resources required to support the conduct of clinical research. Based on this definition, gatekeepers relevant to the US clinical research enterprise include research sponsors, regulatory agencies, payers, health system and other organizational leadership, research team leadership, human research protections programs, advocacy and community groups, and clinicians. This article provides a framework to help guide gatekeepers' decision-making related to the use of resources for pragmatic clinical trials. Relevant ethical considerations for gatekeepers include (1) concern for the interests of individuals, groups, and communities affected by the gatekeepers' decisions, including protection from harm and maximization of benefits; (2) advancement of organizational mission and values; and (3) stewardship of financial, human, and other organizational resources. Separate from these ethical considerations, gatekeepers' actions will be guided by relevant federal, state, and local regulations. This framework also suggests that to further enhance the legitimacy of their decision-making, gatekeepers should adopt transparent processes that engage relevant stakeholders when feasible and appropriate. We apply this framework to the set of gatekeepers responsible for making decisions about resources necessary for pragmatic clinical trials in the United States, describing the relevance of the criteria in different situations and pointing out where conflicts among the criteria and relevant regulations may affect decision-making. Recognition of the complex set of considerations that should inform decision-making will guide gatekeepers in making justifiable choices regarding the use of limited and valuable resources.

The ethics and regulatory landscape of including vulnerable populations in pragmatic clinical trials

Policies have been developed to protect vulnerable populations in clinical research, including the US federal research regulations (45 Code of Federal Regulations 46 Subparts B, C, and D). These policies generally recognize vulnerable populations to include pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons. The aim has been to protect these populations from harm, often by creating regulatory and ethical checks that may limit their participation in many clinical trials. The recent increase in pragmatic clinical trials raises at least two questions about this approach. First, is exclusion itself a harm to vulnerable populations, as these groups may be denied access to understanding how health interventions work for them in clinical settings? Second, are groups considered vulnerable in traditional clinical trials also vulnerable in pragmatic clinical trials? We argue first that excluding vulnerable subjects from participation in pragmatic clinical trials can be harmful by preventing acquisition of data to meaningfully inform clinical decision-making in the future. Second, we argue that protections for vulnerable subjects in traditional clinical trial settings may not be translatable, feasible, or even ethical to apply in pragmatic clinical trials. We conclude by offering specific recommendations for appropriately protecting vulnerable research subjects in pragmatic clinical trials, focusing on pregnant women, fetuses, neonates, children, prisoners, persons with physical handicaps or mental disabilities, and disadvantaged persons.

Anthelmintic properties of extracts from Artemisia plants against nematodes

Artemisia plant genus, natural inhabitant of northern Punjab Pakistan, is well known for its anthelmintic properties; many Artemisia species have not been so far scientifically proved. The aim of this study was to assess in vitro anthelmintic activity of Artemisia indica and Artemisia roxburghiana against mixed infection of gastrointestinal nematodes in small ruminants. This study is first scientifically proven study on anthelmintic activity of A. indica and A. roxburghiana. Five different concentrations (50, 25, 12.5, 6.25 and 3.75 mg/mL) accompanied by negative control (PBS) and positive control (albendazole, 10%) were used to carry out the egg hatch inhibition assay, larval mortality assay and adult worm mortality assay. The Baermann technique was used first time in larval mortality assay and proved to be effective. The results revealed that methanolic extracts of both A. indica and A. roxburghiana, showed maximum anthelmintic activity at concentration of 50 mg/ml by egg hatch inhibition (85±21.2; 80±28.3), larvae mortality (18±2.8; 17±4.2) and adult worm mortality (8.5±2.1; 8±2.8) assays. However, at concentration of 50 mg/ml both plant extracts in comparison to albendazole showed statistically insignificant (p≤0.05) results. The A. indica showed higher anthelmintic activity at all concentrations as compared to A. roburghiana. It has been concluded both plants exhibit anthelmintic activity and further evaluation of these plants should be carried out to purify the active ingredients for anthelmintic activity. Moreover, the decoctions of these plants could be used to GINs after confirming anthelmintic properties through in vivo.

From bad pharma to good pharma: aligning market forces with good and trustworthy practices through accreditation, certification, and rating

This article explores whether the bioethical performance and trustworthiness of pharmaceutical companies can be improved by harnessing market forces through the use of accreditation, certification, or rating. Other industries have used such systems to define best practices, set standards, and assess and signal the quality of services, processes, and products. These systems have also informed decisions in other industries about where to invest, what to buy, where to work, and when to regulate. Similarly, accreditation, certification, and rating programs can help drug companies address stakeholder concerns in four areas: clinical trial design and management, dissemination of clinical trial results, marketing practices, and the accessibility of medicines. To illuminate processes - such as conflicts of interests and revolving-door policies - that can jeopardize the integrity of accreditation, certification, and ratings systems, the article concludes with a consideration of recent failures of credit-rating agencies and a review of the regulatory capture literature.