Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness research: an empirical study of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The $1.1 billion investment in comparative effectiveness research will reshape the evidence-base supporting decisions about treatment effectiveness, safety, and cost. Defining the current prevalence and characteristics of comparative effectiveness (CE) research will enable future assessments of the impact of this program.

Methods

We conducted an observational study of clinical trials addressing priority research topics defined by the Institute of Medicine and conducted in the US between 2007 and 2010. Trials were identified in ClinicalTrials.gov. Main outcome measures were the prevalence of comparative effectiveness research, nature of comparators selected, funding sources, and impact of these factors on results.

Results

231 (22.3%; 95% CI 19.8%-24.9%) studies were CE studies and 804 (77.7%; 95% CI, 75.1%-80.2%) were non-CE studies, with 379 (36.6%; 95% CI, 33.7%-39.6%) employing a placebo control and 425 (41.1%; 95% CI, 38.1%-44.1%) no control. The most common treatments examined in CE studies were drug interventions (37.2%), behavioral interventions (28.6%), and procedures (15.6%). Study findings were favorable for the experimental treatment in 34.8% of CE studies and greater than twice as many (78.6%) non-CE studies (P<0.001). CE studies were more likely to receive government funding (P?=?0.003) and less likely to receive industry funding (P?=?0.01), with 71.8% of CE studies primarily funded by a noncommercial source. The types of interventions studied differed based on funding source, with 95.4% of industry trials studying a drug or device. In addition, industry-funded CE studies were associated with the fewest pediatric subjects (P<0.001), the largest anticipated sample size (P<0.001), and the shortest study duration (P<0.001).

Conclusions

In this sample of studies examining high priority areas for CE research, less than a quarter are CE studies and the majority is supported by government and nonprofits. The low prevalence of CE research exists across CE studies with a broad array of interventions and characteristics.

SUBMITTER: Bourgeois FT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3253780 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparative effectiveness research: an empirical study of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.

Bourgeois Florence T FT Murthy Srinivas S Mandl Kenneth D KD

PloS one 20120109 1

<h4>Background</h4>The $1.1 billion investment in comparative effectiveness research will reshape the evidence-base supporting decisions about treatment effectiveness, safety, and cost. Defining the current prevalence and characteristics of comparative effectiveness (CE) research will enable future assessments of the impact of this program.<h4>Methods</h4>We conducted an observational study of clinical trials addressing priority research topics defined by the Institute of Medicine and conducted ...[more]

PMID: 22253698

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceSARS-CoV-2 has infected over 200 million people worldwide, resulting in more than 4 million deaths. Randomized controlled trials are the single best tool to identify effective treatments against this novel pathogen.ObjectiveTo describe the characteristics of randomized controlled trials of treatments for COVID-19 in the United States launched in the first 9 months of the pandemic. Design, Setting, and Participants We conducted a cross-sectional study of all completed or actively enrolling randomized, interventional, clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19 in the United States registered on www.clinicaltrials.gov as of August 10, 2020. We excluded trials of vaccines and other interventions intended to prevent COVID-19. Main Outcomes and Measures We used descriptive statistics to characterize the clinical trials and the statistical power for the available studies. For the late-phase trials (i.e., phase 3 and 2/3 studies), we compared the geographic distribution of the clinical trials with the geographic distribution of people diagnosed with COVID-19.ResultsWe identified 200 randomized controlled trials of treatments for people with COVID-19. Across all trials, 87 (43.5%) were single-center, 64 (32.0%) were unblinded, and 80 (40.0%) were sponsored by industry. The most common treatments included monoclonal antibodies (N=46 trials), small molecule immunomodulators (N=28), antiviral medications (N=24 trials), and hydroxychloroquine (N=20 trials). Of the 9 trials completed by August 2020, the median sample size was 450 (IQR 67-1113); of the 191 ongoing trials, the median planned sample size was 150 (IQR 60-400). Of the late-phase trials (N=54), the most common primary outcome was a severity scale (N=23, 42.6%), followed by a composite of mortality and ventilation (N=10, 18.5%), and mortality alone (N=6, 11.1%). Among these late-phase trials, all trials of antivirals, monoclonal antibodies, or chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine had a power of less than 25% to detect a 20% relative risk reduction in mortality. Had the individual trials for a given class of treatments instead formed a single trial, the power to detect that same reduction in mortality would have been greater than 98%. There was large variability in access to trials with the highest number of trials per capita in the Northeast and the lowest in the Midwest.Conclusions and relevanceA large number of randomized trials were launched early in the pandemic to evaluate treatments for COVID-19. However, many trials were underpowered for important clinical endpoints and substantial geographic disparities were observed, highlighting the importance of improving national clinical trial infrastructure.

Project description:Objective: Clinical trials are the most effective way to judge the merits of diagnosis and treatment strategies. The in-depth mining of clinical trial data enables us to grasp the application trend of artificial intelligence (AI) for cancer diagnosis. The aim of this study was to analyze the characteristics of registered trials on AI for cancer diagnosis. Methods: Clinical trials on AI for cancer diagnosis registered on the ClinicalTrials.gov database were searched and downloaded. Statistical analysis was performed by using SPSS 20.0 software. Results: A total of 97 registered trials were included. Of them, only 27 (27.8%) were interventional trials and 70 (72.1%) were observational trials. Fifteen (15.4%) trials had been completed. Fifty trials were in recruitment, and another 18 remained unrecruited. The number of cases included in the clinical trials tended to be large, 31 (32.0%) trials including samples ranging from 100 to 499 cases and 17 (17.5%) trials including samples ranging from 500 to 999 cases. Of the 27 interventional trials, only two trials reported trials' phase. Most (85.2%) interventional trials were for diagnosis, and a few (3.7%) were for the purpose of both the diagnosis and therapy of cancers. For the observational clinical trials, 46 (65.7%) were cohort studies, and 11 (15.7%) were case-only studies. Among the observational trials, 46 (65.7%) were prospective studies and 13 (18.6%) were retrospective studies. Among 97 trials, 37 (38.1%) involved colorectal cancer, 11 (11.3%) involved breast cancer, 43 (44.3%) were for imaging diagnosis, 33 (34.0%) were for endoscopic diagnosis, and 11 (11.3%) were for pathological diagnosis. For the interventional trials, 11 trials were parallel assignment (40.7%), and 14 were single group assignment (51.9%). Among the 27 interventional trials, 18 (66.7%) trials were performed without masking, 6 (22.2%) trials were performed with single masking, only 1 (3.7%) was performed with double masking, and 2 (7.4%) was performed with triple masking. Conclusion: It appears that most registered trials on AI for cancer diagnosis are observational design, and more trials are needed in this field.

Project description:BackgroundData monitoring committees advise on clinical trial conduct through appraisal of emerging data to ensure participant safety and scientific integrity. While consideration of their use is recommended for trials performed with vulnerable populations, previous research has shown that data monitoring committees are reported infrequently in publications of pediatric randomized controlled trials. We aimed to assess the frequency of reported data monitoring committee adoption in ClinicalTrials.gov registry records and to examine the influence of key trial characteristics.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional data analysis of all randomized controlled trials performed exclusively in a pediatric population and registered in ClinicalTrials.gov between 2008 and 2021. We used the Access to Aggregate Content of ClinicalTrials.gov database to retrieve publicly available information on trial characteristics and data on safety results. Abstracted data included reported trial design and conduct parameters, population and intervention characteristics, reasons for prematurely halting, serious adverse events, and mortality outcomes. We performed descriptive analyses on the collected data and explored the influence of clinical, methodological, and operational trial characteristics on the reported adoption of data monitoring committees.ResultsWe identified 13,928 pediatric randomized controlled trial records, of which 39.7% reported adopting a data monitoring committee, 49.0% reported not adopting a data monitoring committee, and 11.3% did not answer on this item. While the number of registered pediatric trials has been increasing since 2008, we found no clear time trend in the reported adoption of data monitoring committees. Data monitoring committees were more common in multicenter trials (50.6% vs 36.9% for single-center), multinational trials (60.2% vs 38.7% for single-country), National Institutes of Health-funded (60.3% vs 40.1% for industry-funded or 37.5% for other funders), and placebo-controlled (47.6% vs 37.5% for other types of control groups). Data monitoring committees were also more common among trials enrolling younger participants, trials employing blinding techniques, and larger trials. Data monitoring committees were more common in trials with at least one serious adverse event (52.6% vs 38.4% for those without) as well as for trials with reported deaths (70.3% vs 38.9% for trials without reported deaths). In all, 4.9% were listed as halted prematurely, most often due to low accrual rates. Trials with a data monitoring committee were more often halted for reasons related to scientific data than trials without a data monitoring committee (15.7% vs 7.3%).ConclusionAccording to registry records, the use of data monitoring committees in pediatric randomized controlled trials was more frequent than previously reported in reviews of published trial reports. The use of data monitoring committees varied across key clinical and trial characteristics based on which their use is recommended. Data monitoring committees may still be underutilized in pediatric trials, and reporting of this item could be improved.

Project description:Objective: This study aimed to analyze the characteristics and reasons of early discontinuation of obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Methods: OCD trials and relevant publications were searched on ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed, respectively. The characteristics and details regarding the timely publication of trials were recorded. Cox regression analysis was used to explore factors associated with the early discontinuation of OCD trials. Results: The analysis included 298 OCD therapy trials. Most investigations recruited <100 patients and were more likely to involve adults. Of all OCD studies identified, 67.8% were randomized and 61.4% were blind (single- or double-blind). Universities and hospitals were recorded as the two primary locations in the majority of trials. A total of 155 trials (52%) were completed; however, only 29% of those were published. Of the published trials, >70% were published at least 1 year after completion. Behavioral therapy trials were the most common type of major treatment-aimed OCD trials (39%), followed by drug trials (35.1%) and device/procedure trials (24.7%). The univariate Cox regression analysis indicated that drug trials [hazard ratio (HR) = 2.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.21-5.43], absence of collaborators (HR = 3.87, 95% CI: 1.62-9.26), and sponsorship by industry (HR = 3.97, 95% CI: 1.49-10.53) were risk factors for early discontinuation of OCD trials. Further multivariate Cox regression showed that drug trials (HR = 3.93, 95% CI: 1.71-9.08) and absence of collaborators (HR = 5.17, 95% CI: 1.97-13.54) were independent risk factors for early trial discontinuation of OCD trials. The sensitivity analysis confirmed these results. Non-drug trials (OR = 3.32, 95% CI: 1.21-9.11), absence of collaborators (OR = 3.25, 95% CI: 1.10-9.60), and non-blinded trials (OR = 5.23, 95% CI: 1.05-26.2) were independent risk factors for unreported results in registry. Conclusion: The diagnosis and prevention of OCD are rarely investigated in trials. Underreporting and delayed reporting remain major problems. The type of intervention and participation of collaborators are associated with early discontinuation of OCD trials.

Project description:Background:Interventional clinical trials for infectious diseases in old population have arisen much attention in recent years, however, little is known about the characteristics of registered clinical trials regarding this field. This study aimed to investigate the characteristics of registered interventional trials for infectious diseases in old populations on ClinicalTrials.gov. Methods:A cross-sectional study was performed. We used viral OR bacterial OR fungal OR parasitic OR infectious disease to search the ClinicalTrials.gov database and to assess characteristics of included trials. The age of participants was restricted to more than 65 years old. All analyses were performed using the SPSS19.0 software. Results:A total of 138 registered trials were included. Among them, 105(76.1%) trials were completed; however, the results were available in ClinicalTrials.gov for only 44(31.9%) trials. North America was the most frequently identified study location (52.9%), followed by Europe (30.4%) and Asia (11.6%). Seventy-one percent trials focused on viral pathogens, followed by bacterial pathogens (22.5%). A total of 84.1% trials were prevention oriented. A total of 84.1% trials used randomization, 73.2% trials used parallel assignment, and 64.5% used masking. Eighty-six trials were industry-funded and 52 were non-industry-funded. Industry-funded trials had higher percentages than non-industry-funded trials in available results, prevention trial, and phase 2 and phase 3 trial, and lager sample size trial. One hundred eleven trials were vaccine trials and 27 trials were non-vaccine trials. Vaccine trials had higher percentages than non-vaccine trials in available results, leading industry sponsor and viral etiology. Conclusions:The current study is the first study of the landscape of interventional clinical trials for infectious diseases in old populations registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, providing the basis for treatment and prevention of infectious diseases in old populations. Trials in this field are still relatively lacking, and additional and better trials are needed.

Dataset Information

Comparative effectiveness research: an empirical study of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Comparative effectiveness research: an empirical study of trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets