Dataset Information

Clinical Trials on Diabetic Nephropathy: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Treatment options and decisions are often based on the results of clinical trials. We have evaluated the public availability of results from completed, registered phase III clinical trials on diabetic nephropathy and current treatment options.

Methods

This was a cross-sectional analysis in which STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology criteria were applied for design and analysis. In June 2017, 34 completed phase III clinical trials on diabetic nephropathy in the ClinicalTrials. gov registry were identified and matched to publications in the ClinicalTrials.gov registry and to those in the PubMed and Google Scholar databases. If no publication was identified, the principal investigator was contacted. The ratio of published and non-published studies was calculated. Various parameters, including study design, drugs, and comparators provided, were analyzed.

Results

Drugs/supplements belonged to 26 different categories of medications, with the main ones being angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors, angiotensin-II receptors blockers, and dipeptidyl-peptidase-4-inhibitors. Among the trials completed before 2016 (n = 32), 22 (69%) were published, and ten (31%) remained unpublished. Thus, data on 11 different interventions and more than 1000 patients remained undisclosed. Mean time to publication was 26.5 months, which is longer than the time constrictions imposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act. Most trials only showed weak effects on micro- and macroalbuminuria, with an absolute risk reduction of 1.0 and 0.3%, respectively, and the number needed to treat varied between 91 and 333, without any relevant effect on end-stage-renal disease by intensive glucose-lowering treatment. Comparison of the results, however, was difficult since study design, interventions, and the renal outcome parameters vary greatly between the studies.

Conclusion

Despite the financial and human resources involved and the relevance for therapeutic guidelines and clinical decisions, about one-third of phase III clinical trials on diabetic nephropathy remain unpublished. Interventions used in published trials showed a low efficacy on renal outcome.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG): SFB 1118.

SUBMITTER: Modafferi S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6349284 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Poor accrual is a significant barrier to the successful completion of oncology clinical trials; half of all phase 3 oncology trials close due to insufficient accrual. Timely access to accrual data fosters an understanding of successful trial design and can be used to inform the design of new clinical trials prospectively. Accrual statistics are available within research networks, such as the cancer cooperative groups, but comprehensive data reflecting the overall portfolio of cancer clinical trials are lacking. As a demonstration case, the purpose of this study was to quantify the public availability of accrual data across all recent renal cell carcinoma (RCC) trials. METHODS: The database for the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov (AACT) summarizes all trials registered between October 2007 and September 2010. In total, 108 trials of pharmacologic therapy for RCC were included. Accrual data on these trials were gathered via ClinicalTrials.gov (CTG), a manual review of resulting publications, and online surveys sent to principle investigators or trial coordinators. RESULTS: In total, 26% (20 of 76) of trials listing a government, academic, or cooperative group (GAC) sponsor responded to the survey vs 0% (0 of 32) of those listing only industry sponsors. Across all methods, accrual data were available for only 40% (43 of 108) of trials, including 37% (28 of 76) of GAC trials and 47% (15 of 32) of industry trials. Moreover, 87% (66 of 76) of GAC trials were ongoing (open, actively recruiting, or of unknown status) vs 75% (24 of 32) of industry trials, while 9% (10 of 108) of trials were terminated or suspended. CONCLUSIONS: Despite extensive efforts (surveys, phone calls, CTG abstraction, publication searches), accurate accrual data remained inaccessible for 60% of the RCC trial cohort. While CTG reports trial results, ongoing accrual data are also critically needed. Poor access to accrual data will continue to limit attempts to develop a national summary of clinical trials metrics and to optimize the cancer clinical research portfolio.

Project description:Background and objectivesAlbuminuria change is often used to assess drug efficacy in intervention trials in nephrology. The change is often calculated using a variable number of urine samples collected at baseline and end of treatment. Yet more albuminuria measurements usually occur. Because albuminuria shows a large day-to-day variability, this study assessed to what extent the average and the precision of the antialbuminuric drug effect varies with the number of urine collections at each visit and the number of follow-up visits.Design, setting, participants, & measurementsThis study used data from three randomized intervention trials (Aliskiren Combined with Losartan in Type 2 Diabetes and Nephropathy, Selective Vitamin D Receptor Activation for Albuminuria Lowering, and Residual Albuminuria Lowering with Endothelin Antagonist Atrasentan) including patients with type 2 diabetes and macroalbuminuria. Albuminuria-lowering drug effects were estimated from one, two, or three urine collections at consecutive days before each study visit and reported as albuminuria change from baseline to end of treatment or the change over time considering an average of all follow-up albuminuria measurements.ResultsIncreasing the number of urine collections for an albuminuria measurement at baseline and end of treatment or using all study visits during follow-up did not alter the average drug effect. The precision of the drug effect increased (decreased SEM) when the number of study visits and the number of urine collections per visit were increased. Using all albuminuria measurements at all study visits led to a 4- to 6-fold reduction in sample size to detect a 30% albuminuria-lowering treatment effect with 80% power compared with using baseline and end-of-treatment albuminuria measurements alone.ConclusionsIncreasing the number of urine collections per study visit and the number of visits over time does not change the average drug effect estimate but markedly increases the precision, thereby enhancing statistical power. Thus, clinical trial designs in diabetic nephropathy using albuminuria as an end point can be significantly improved, leading to smaller sample sizes and less complex trials.

Project description:ObjectivesThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has prompted many initiatives to identify safe and efficacious treatments, yet little is known regarding where early efforts have focused. We aimed to characterise registered clinical trials assessing drugs or plasma treatments for COVID-19.Design, setting and participantsCross-sectional analysis of clinical trials for the treatment of COVID-19 that were registered in the USA or in countries contributing to the WHO's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. Relevant trial entries of drugs or plasma were downloaded on 26 March 2020, deduplicated, verified with reviews of major medical journals and WHO websites and independently analysed by two reviewers.Main outcomesTrial intervention, sponsorship, critical design elements and specified outcomes RESULTS: Overall, 201 clinical trials were registered for testing the therapeutic benefits of 92 drugs or plasma, including 64 in monotherapy and 28 different combinations. Only eight (8.7%) products or combinations involved new molecular entities. The other test therapies had a wide range of prior medical uses, including as antivirals, antimalarials, immunosuppressants and oncology treatments. In 152 trials (75.7%), patients were randomised to treatment or comparator, including 55 trials with some form of blinding and 97 open-label studies. The 49 (24.4%) of trials without a randomised design included 29 single armed studies and 20 trials with some comparison group. Most trial designs featured multiple endpoints. Clinical endpoints were identified in 134 (66.7%) of trials and included COVID-19 symptoms, death, recovery, required intensive care and hospital discharge. Clinical scales were being used in 33 (16.4%) trials, most often measures of oxygenation and critical illness. Surrogate endpoints or biomarkers were studied in 88 (42.3%) of trials, primarily assays of viral load. Although the trials were initiated in more than 17 countries or regions, 100 (49.8%) were registered in China and 78 (37.8%) in the USA. Registered trials increased rapidly, with the number of registered trials doubling from 1 March to 26 March 2020.ConclusionsWhile accelerating morbidity and mortality from the COVID-19 pandemic has been paralleled by early and rapid clinical investigation, many trials lack features to optimise their scientific value. Global coordination and increased funding of high-quality research may help to maximise scientific progress in rapidly discovering safe and effective treatments.

Project description:ObjectiveTo identify the availability of results for trials registered on the European Union Clinical Trials Register (EUCTR) compared with other dissemination routes to understand its value as a results repository.DesignCross sectional audit study.SettingEUCTR protocols and results sections, data extracted 1-3 December 2020.PopulationRandom sample of 500 trials registered on EUCTR with a completion date of more than two years from the beginning of searches (ie, 1 December 2018).Main outcome measuresProportion of trials with results across the examined dissemination routes (EUCTR, ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN registry, and journal publications), and for each dissemination route individually. Prespecified secondary outcomes were number and proportion of unique results, and the timing of results, for each dissemination route.ResultsIn the sample of 500 trials, availability of results on EUCTR (53.2%, 95% confidence interval 48.8% to 57.6%) was similar to the peer reviewed literature (58.6%, 54.3% to 62.9%) and exceeded the proportion of results available on other registries with matched records. Among the 383 trials with any results, 55 (14.4%, 10.9% to 17.9%) were only available on EUCTR. Also, after the launch of the EUCTR results database, median time to results was fastest on EUCTR (1142 days, 95% confidence interval 812 to 1492), comparable with journal publications (1226 days, 1074 to 1551), and exceeding ClinicalTrials.gov (3321 days, 1653 to undefined). For 117 trials (23.4%, 19.7% to 27.1%), however, results were published elsewhere but not submitted to the EUCTR registry, and no results were located in any dissemination route for 117 trials (23.4%, 19.7% to 27.1).ConclusionsEUCTR should be considered in results searches for systematic reviews and can help researchers and the public to access the results of clinical trials, unavailable elsewhere, in a timely way. Reporting requirements, such as the EU's, can help in avoiding research waste by ensuring results are reported. The registry's true value, however, is unrealised because of inadequate compliance with EU guidelines, and problems with data quality that complicate the routine use of the registry. As the EU transitions to a new registry, continuing to emphasise the importance of EUCTR and the provision of timely and complete data is critical. For the future, EUCTR will still hold important information from the past two decades of clinical research in Europe. With increased efforts from sponsors and regulators, the registry can continue to grow as a source of results of clinical trials, many of which might be unavailable from other dissemination routes.