Dataset Information

Does access to clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency reduce reporting biases? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the effect of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in cancer patients.

ABSTRACT: Since 2010, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has provided access to clinical study reports (CSRs). We requested CSRs for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in cancer patients from EMA and identified RCT publications with literature searches. We assessed CSR availability and completeness, the impact of unreported and unpublished data obtained from CSRs on the effects of ESAs on quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients, and discrepancies between data reported in the public domain and in CSRs. We used random-effects meta-analyses to evaluate the effect of ESAs on QoL measured with Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Anemia (FACT-An), FACT-Fatigue (FACT-F) and FACT-Anemia Total (FACT-An Total) stratified by data source and the impact of discrepancies on QoL, mortality, adverse events, and clinical effectiveness outcomes. We identified 94 eligible RCTs; CSRs or other study documentation were available for 17 (18%) RCTs at EMA. Median report length was 1,825 pages (range 72-14,569). Of 180 outcomes of interest reported in the EMA documentation, 127 (71%) were publicly available. For 80 of those (63%) we noted discrepancies, but these had little impact on the pooled effect estimates. Of 27 QoL outcomes reported in the CSRs, 17 (63%) were unpublished. Including six unpublished comparisons (pooled mean difference [MD] 0.20; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.93, 2.33) reduced the pooled effect of ESAs for FACT-An from MD 5.51 (95% CI 4.20, 6.82) in published data to MD 3.21 (95% CI 1.38, 5.03), which is below a clinically important difference (defined as MD ?4). Effects were similar for FACT-F and FACT-An Total. Access to CSRs from EMA reduced reporting biases for QoL outcomes. However, EMA received documentation for a fraction of all RCTs on effects of ESAs in cancer patients. Additional efforts by other agencies and institutions are needed to make CSRs universally available for all RCTs.

SUBMITTER: Rohner E

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5724886 | biostudies-literature | 2017

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Does access to clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency reduce reporting biases? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the effect of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in cancer patients.

Rohner Eliane E Grabik Michael M Tonia Thomy T Jüni Peter P Pétavy Frank F Pignatti Francesco F Bohlius Julia J

PloS one 20171211 12

Since 2010, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has provided access to clinical study reports (CSRs). We requested CSRs for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) in cancer patients from EMA and identified RCT publications with literature searches. We assessed CSR availability and completeness, the impact of unreported and unpublished data obtained from CSRs on the effects of ESAs on quality of life (QoL) of cancer patients, and discrepancies between data ...[more]

PMID: 29228059

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAn accurate and comprehensive assessment of harms is a fundamental part of an accurate weighing of benefits and harms of an intervention when making treatment decisions; however, harms are known to be underreported in journal publications. Therefore, we sought to compare the completeness of reporting of harm data, discrepancies in harm data reported, and the delay to access results of oncological clinical trials between three sources: clinical study reports (CSRs), clinical trial registries and journal publications.MethodsWe used the EMA clinical data website to identify all trials submitted to the EMA between 2015 and 2018. We retrieved all CSRs and included all phase II, II/III or III randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing targeted therapy and immunotherapy for cancer. We then identified related records in clinical trial registries and journals. We extracted harms data for eight pre-specified variables and determined the completeness of reporting of harm data in each of the three sources.ResultsWe identified 42 RCTs evaluating 13 different drugs. Results were available on the EMA website in CSRs for 37 (88%) RCTs, ClinicalTrials.gov for 36 (86%), the European Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) for 20 (48%) and in journal publications for 32 (76%). Harms reporting was more complete in CSRs than other sources. We identified marked discrepancies in harms data between sources, e.g. the number of patients discontinuing due to adverse events differed in CSRs and clinical trial registers for 88% of trials with data in both sources. For CSRs and publications, the corresponding number was 90%. The median (interquartile range) delay between the primary trial completion date and access to results was 4.34 (3.09-7.22) years for CSRs, 2.94 (1.16-4.52) years for ClinicalTrials.gov, 5.39 (4.18-7.33) years for EUCTR and 2.15 (0.64-5.04) years for publications.ConclusionsHarms of recently approved oncological drugs were reported more frequently and in more detail in CSRs than in trial registries and journal publications. Systematic reviews seeking to address harms of oncological treatments should ideally use CSRs as the primary source of data; however, due to problems with access, this is currently not feasible.

Project description:AimsTo systematically assess the level of evidence for psychotropic drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).MethodsCross-sectional analysis of all European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) and meta-analyses of the many studies reported in these EPARs. Eligible EPARs were identified from the EMA's website and individual study reports were requested from the Agency when necessary. All marketing authorisation applications (defined by the drug, the route of administration and given indications) for psychotropic medications for adults (including drugs used in psychiatry and addictology) were considered. EPARs solely based on bioequivalence studies were excluded. Our primary outcome measure was the presence of robust evidence of comparative effectiveness, defined as at least two 'positive' superiority studies against an active comparator. Various other features of the approvals were assessed, such as evidence of non-inferiority v. active comparator and superiority v. placebo. For studies with available data, effect sizes were computed and pooled using a random effect meta-analysis for each dose of each drug in each indication.ResultsTwenty-seven marketing authorisations were identified. For one, comparative effectiveness was explicitly considered as not needed in the EPAR. Of those remaining, 21/26 (81%) did not provide any evidence of superiority against an active comparator, 2/26 (8%) were based on at least two trials showing superiority against active comparator and three (11%) were based on one positive trial; 1/26 provided evidence for two positive non-inferiority analyses v. active comparator and seven (26%) provided evidence for one. In total, 20/27 (74%) evaluations reported evidence of superiority v. placebo with two or more trials. Among the meta-analyses of initiation studies against active comparator (57 available comparisons), the median effect size was 0.051 (range -0.503; 0.318). Twenty approved evaluations (74%) reported evidence of superiority v. placebo on the basis of two or more initiation trials and seven based on a single trial. Among meta-analyses of initiation studies against placebo (125 available comparisons), the median effect size was -0.283 (range -0.820; 0.091). Importantly, among the 89 study reports requested on the EMA website, only 19 were made available 1 year after our requests.ConclusionsThe evidence for psychiatric drug approved by the EMA was in general poor. Small to modest effects v. placebo were considered sufficient in indications where an earlier drug exists. Data retrieval was incomplete after 1 year despite EMA's commitment to transparency. Improvements are needed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical study reports (CSRs) have been increasingly utilised within academic research in recent years. European Medicines Agency (EMA) Policy 0070 'Phase 1,' which came into effect in January 2015, requires the publication of regulatory documents such as CSRs from central applications in an anonymised format. EMA Policy 0070 requires sponsors to demonstrate careful consideration of data utility within anonymised CSRs published within the scope of the policy, yet the concept of data utility is not clearly defined in the associated anonymisation guidance. OBJECTIVE:To review the use of data from CSRs in published academic research and to hypothesise the potential data utility of CSRs anonymised under the objectives of EMA Policy 0070 for future academic research. METHODS:Review of the objectives, research methodologies and findings of academic research reports using unpublished data from CSRs (prior to EMA Policy 0070). Semi-structured interviews with authors of academic research reports, including questions related to data utility of anonymised CSRs published under EMA Policy 0070. RESULTS:Thirteen academic research reports were identified and reviewed. The research purposes ranged from assessment of reporting bias, comparison of methods and results with published data sources, detailed evaluation of harms and adverse events, re-analysis and novel analyses including systematic reviews and meta-analysis. All of the examples identified required access to the methods and results sections of CSRs (including aggregated summary tables) and research purposes relating to evaluation of adverse events also required access to participant narratives. Retaining anonymised participant narratives relating to interventions, findings and events, while maintaining an acceptably low risk of participant re-identification, may provide an important gain in data utility and further understanding of drug safety profiles. CONCLUSIONS:This work provides an initial insight into the previous use of CSR data and current practices for including regulatory data in academic research. This work also provides early guidance to qualitatively assess and document data utility within anonymised CSRs published under EMA Policy 0070.

Project description:BackgroundTransparency and reproducibility are expected to be normative practices in clinical trials used for decision-making on marketing authorisations for new medicines. This registered report introduces a cross-sectional study aiming to assess inferential reproducibility for main trials assessed by the European Medicines Agency.MethodsTwo researchers independently identified all studies on new medicines, biosimilars and orphan medicines given approval by the European Commission between January 2017 and December 2019, categorised as 'main studies' in the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). Sixty-two of these studies were randomly sampled. One researcher retrieved the individual patient data (IPD) for these studies and prepared a dossier for each study, containing the IPD, the protocol and information on the conduct of the study. A second researcher who had no access to study reports used the dossier to run an independent re-analysis of each trial. All results of these re-analyses were reported in terms of each study's conclusions, p-values, effect sizes and changes from the initial protocol. A team of two researchers not involved in the re-analysis compared results of the re-analyses with published results of the trial.ResultsTwo hundred ninety-two main studies in 173 EPARs were identified. Among the 62 studies randomly sampled, we received IPD for 10 trials. The median number of days between data request and data receipt was 253 [interquartile range 182-469]. For these ten trials, we identified 23 distinct primary outcomes for which the conclusions were reproduced in all re-analyses. Therefore, 10/62 trials (16% [95% confidence interval 8% to 28%]) were reproduced, as the 52 studies without available data were considered non-reproducible. There was no change from the original study protocol regarding the primary outcome in any of these ten studies. Spin was observed in the report of one study.ConclusionsDespite their results supporting decisions that affect millions of people's health across the European Union, most main studies used in EPARs lack transparency and their results are not reproducible for external researchers. Re-analyses of the few trials with available data showed very good inferential reproducibility.Trial registrationhttps://osf.io/mcw3t/.

Project description:ObjectivesStratified medicine is often heralded as the future of clinical practice. Key part of stratified medicine is the use of predictive biomarkers, which identify patient subgroups most likely to benefit (or least likely to experience harm) from an intervention. We investigated how many and what predictive biomarkers are currently included in European Medicines Agency (EMA) licensing.SettingEMA licensing.ParticipantsIndications and contraindications of all drugs considered by the EMA and published in 883 European Public Assessment Reports and Pending Decisions.Primary and secondary outcome measuresData were collected on: the type of the biomarker, whether it selected a subgroup of patients based on efficacy or toxicity, therapeutic area, marketing status, date of licensing decision, date of inclusion of the biomarker in the indication or contraindication and on orphan designation.Results49 biomarker-indication-drug (B-I-D) combinations were identified over 16 years, which included 37 biomarkers and 41 different drugs. All identified biomarkers were molecular. Six drugs (relating to 10 B-I-D combinations) had an orphan designation at the time of licensing. The identified B-I-D combinations were mainly used in cancer and HIV treatment, and also in hepatitis C and three other indications (cystic fibrosis, hyperlipoproteinaemia type I and methemoglobinaemia). In 45 B-I-D combinations, biomarkers were used as predictive of drug efficacy and in four of drug toxicity. It appeared that there was an increase in the number of B-I-D combinations introduced each year; however, the numbers were too small to identify any trends.ConclusionsGiven the large body of literature documenting research into potential predictive biomarkers and extensive investment into stratified medicine, we identified relatively few predictive biomarkers included in licensing. These were also limited to a small number of clinical areas. This might suggest a need for improvement in methods of translation from laboratory findings to clinical practice.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting adequacy of pivotal randomised controlled trials of cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).DesignCross sectional analysis.SettingEuropean regulatory documents, clinical trial registry records, protocols, journal publications, and supplementary appendices.Eligibility criteriaPivotal randomised controlled trials of new cancer drugs approved by the EMA between 2014 and 2016.Main outcome measuresStudy design characteristics (randomisation, comparators, and endpoints); risk of bias using the revised Cochrane tool (bias arising from the randomisation process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result); and reporting adequacy (completeness and consistency of information in trial protocols, publications, supplementary appendices, clinical trial registry records, and regulatory documents).ResultsBetween 2014 and 2016, the EMA approved 32 new cancer drugs on the basis of 54 pivotal studies. Of these, 41 (76%) were randomised controlled trials and 13 (24%) were either non-randomised studies or single arm studies. 39/41 randomised controlled trials had available publications and were included in our study. Only 10 randomised controlled trials (26%) measured overall survival as either a primary or coprimary endpoint, with the remaining trials evaluating surrogate measures such as progression free survival and response rates. Overall, 19 randomised controlled trials (49%) were judged to be at high risk of bias for their primary outcome. Concerns about missing outcome data (n=10) and measurement of the outcome (n=7) were the most common domains leading to high risk of bias judgments. Fewer randomised controlled trials that evaluated overall survival as the primary endpoint were at high risk of bias than those that evaluated surrogate efficacy endpoints (2/10 (20%) v 16/29 (55%), respectively). When information available in regulatory documents and the scientific literature was considered separately, overall risk of bias judgments differed for eight randomised controlled trials (21%), which reflects reporting inadequacies in both sources of information. Regulators identified additional deficits beyond the domains captured in risk of bias assessments for 10 drugs (31%). These deficits included magnitude of clinical benefit, inappropriate comparators, and non-preferred study endpoints, which were not disclosed as limitations in scientific publications.ConclusionsMost pivotal studies forming the basis of EMA approval of new cancer drugs between 2014 and 2016 were randomised controlled trials. However, almost half of these were judged to be at high risk of bias based on their design, conduct, or analysis, some of which might be unavoidable because of the complexity of cancer trials. Regulatory documents and the scientific literature had gaps in their reporting. Journal publications did not acknowledge the key limitations of the available evidence identified in regulatory documents.

Dataset Information

Does access to clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency reduce reporting biases? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the effect of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in cancer patients.

Publications

Does access to clinical study reports from the European Medicines Agency reduce reporting biases? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials on the effect of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in cancer patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets