Transparency in reporting of phase 3 cancer clinical trial results.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Patel RR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7951952 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10413165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the accuracy of a 2015 cross-sectional analysis published in the BMJ Open which reported that pharmaceutical industry compliance with clinical trial registration and results reporting requirements under US law was suboptimal and varied widely among companies.DesignWe performed a reassessment of the data reported in Miller et al to evaluate whether statutory compliance analyses and conclusions were valid.Data sourcesInformation from the Dryad Digital Repository, ClinicalTrials.gov, Drugs@FDA and direct communications with sponsors.Main outcome measuresCompliance with the clinical trial registration and results reporting requirements under the Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act (FDAAA).ResultsIndustry compliance with FDAAA disclosure requirements was notably higher than reported by Miller et al. Among trials subject to FDAAA, Miller et al reported that, per drug, a median of 67% (middle 50% range: 0%-100%) of trials fully complied with registration and results reporting requirements. On reanalysis of the data, we found that a median of 100% (middle 50% range: 93%-100%) of clinical trials for a particular drug fully complied with the law. When looking at overall compliance at the trial level, our reassessment yields 94% timely registration and 90% timely results reporting among the 49 eligible trials, and an overall FDAAA compliance rate of 86%.ConclusionsThe claim by Miller et al that industry compliance is below legal standards is based on an analysis that relies on an incomplete dataset and an interpretation of FDAAA that requires disclosure of study results for drugs that have not yet been approved for any indication. On reanalysis using a different interpretation of FDAAA that focuses on whether results were disclosed within 30 days of drug approval, we found that industry compliance with US statutory disclosure requirements for the 15 reviewed drugs was consistently high.
| S-EPMC5623439 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Phase I Safety, Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacogenomic Trial of ES-285, a Novel Marine Cytotoxic Agent Administered as an Infusion over 24 h Every 21 Days in Patients with Solid Tumors Purpose: A dose-escalation, phase I study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacogenomics and efficacy of ES-285, a novel agent isolated from a marine mollusc, in adult cancer patients. Experimental design: Patients received a 24-hour i.v. infusion of ES-285 once every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The starting dose was 4mg/m2. Dose escalation proceeded according to the worst toxicity observed in the previous cohort. Results: 28 patients were treated with 72 courses of ES-285 across 8 dose levels. No doselimiting toxicities (DLTs) were seen between 4mg/m2 and 128mg/m2. Two out of 4 patients treated at 256mg/m2 had dose-limiting reversible grade 3 transaminitis; one patient at 256mg/m2 also had transient grade 3 central neurotoxicity. One of 3 patients subsequently treated at 200mg/m2 died following drug-related central neurotoxicity. Pharmacokinetic studies indicated dose-proportionality with high volume of distribution (median Vss at 256mg/m2 was 2389L, range 1615-4051L) and long elimination half life (median t1/2 at 256mg/m2 was 29h, range 21-32h). The 3 patients with DLT had the highest drug exposure. Pharmacogenomic studies of paired surrogate tissue samples identified changes in gene expression following treatment that correlated with increasing dose. Pre-treatment 59- and 49-gene sets were identified in blood and skin respectively, that may predict DLT. Disease stabilisation for 6 to 18 weeks was recorded in 9 patients. Conclusion: Using this schedule, 128 mg/m2 was considered safe and feasible. At this dose, pharmacologically relevant concentrations of drug were safely achieved with pharmacogenomic studies indicating changes in the expression of genes of potential biological relevance. Keywords: dose response
2009-04-01 | GSE12062 | GEO
Project description:Cytomegalovirus (CMV) is one of the most significant viral pathogens during pregnancy and in immunocompromised patients. Antiviral prophylactic strategies are limited by toxicities, drug-drug interactions and development of antiviral resistance. A safe and protective vaccine against CMV is highly desirable in view of the potential positive impact on CMV-associated morbidity and mortality as well as healthcare costs. Unfortunately, this demand could not be met in the past four decades although development of a CMV vaccine has been ranked at the highest priority by the US Institute of Medicine. Multiple different vaccine candidates have been developed and evaluated in phase I clinical trials and few succeeded to phase II trials. Nevertheless, two different vaccines showed recently promising results in trials that studied healthy adults and immunocompromised solid-organ and bone-marrow transplant recipients, respectively. The gB/MF59 vaccine exhibited a vaccine efficacy of 50% in healthy, postpartum females. In transplant patients, gB/MF59 and the DNA vaccine TransVax both limited the periods of viraemia and consequently the need for antiviral treatment. The success of these trials is encouraging and will probably give new impetus to the development of an effective CMV vaccine. Sterilizing immunity may not be attainable in the near future and may not be necessary for a CMV vaccine to have a significant impact on health care as discussed in the present review.
| S-EPMC5716458 | biostudies-literature
Project description:More than one published paper are often derived from analyzing the same cohort of individuals to make full use of the collected information. Preplanned study outcomes are generally mentioned in open databases while exhaustive information on methodological aspects are provided in submitted articles.
| S-EPMC7427052 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundConfidence that randomized controlled trial (RCT) results accurately reflect intervention effectiveness depends on proper trial conduct and the accuracy and completeness of published trial reports. The Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology (JCCP) is the primary trials journal amongst American Psychological Association (APA) journals. The objectives of this study were to review RCTs recently published in JCCP to evaluate (1) adequacy of primary outcome analysis definitions; (2) registration status; and, (3) among registered trials, adequacy of outcome registrations. Additionally, we compared results from JCCP to findings from a recent study of top psychosomatic and behavioral medicine journals.MethodsEligible RCTs were published in JCCP in 2013-2014. For each RCT, two investigators independently extracted data on (1) adequacy of outcome analysis definitions in the published report, (2) whether the RCT was registered prior to enrolling patients, and (3) adequacy of outcome registration.ResultsOf 70 RCTs reviewed, 12 (17.1%) adequately defined primary or secondary outcome analyses, whereas 58 (82.3%) had multiple primary outcome analyses without statistical adjustment or undefined outcome analyses. There were 39 (55.7%) registered trials. Only two trials registered prior to patient enrollment with a single primary outcome variable and time point of assessment. However, in one of the two trials, registered and published outcomes were discrepant. No studies were adequately registered as per Standard Protocol Items: Recommendation for Interventional Trials guidelines. Compared to psychosomatic and behavioral medicine journals, the proportion of published trials with adequate outcome analysis declarations was significantly lower in JCCP (17.1% versus 32.9%; p = 0.029). The proportion of registered trials in JCCP (55.7%) was comparable to behavioral medicine journals (52.6%; p = 0.709).ConclusionsThe quality of published outcome analysis definitions and trial registrations in JCCP is suboptimal. Greater attention to proper trial registration and outcome analysis definition in published reports is needed.
| S-EPMC4651548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is currently one of the most frequently diagnosed cancers. Our aim was to evaluate transparency and selective reporting in interventional trials studying CRC.MethodsFirst, we assessed indicators of transparency with completeness of reporting, according to the CONSORT statement, and data sharing. We evaluated a selection of reporting items for a sample of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying CRC with published full-text articles between 2021-03-22 and 2018-03-22. Selected items were issued from the previously published CONSORT based peer-review tool (COBPeer tool). Then, we evaluated selective reporting through retrospective registration and primary outcome(s) switching between registration and publication. Finally, we determined if primary outcome(s) switching favored significant outcomes.ResultsWe evaluated 101 RCTs with published full-text articles between 2021-03-22 and 2018-03-22. Five trials (5%) reported all selected CONSORT items completely. Seventy-four (73%), 53 (52%) and 13 (13%) trials reported the primary outcome(s), the allocation concealment process and harms completely. Twenty-five (25%) trials were willing to share data. In our sample, 49 (49%) trials were retrospectively registered and 23 (23%) trials had primary outcome(s) switching. The influence of primary outcome(s) switching could be evaluated in 16 (16/23 = 70%) trials, with 6 (6/16 = 38%) trials showing a discrepancy that favored statistically significant results.ConclusionsOur results highlight a lack of transparency as well as frequent selective reporting in interventional trials studying CRC.
| S-EPMC8925077 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The analysis was performed in 2 parts: a descriptive analysis of the response within each adjuvant group and an analysis at the individual subject level. We used blood transcriptional modules to perform interpretation of the results.
2020-11-15 | GSE116975 | GEO
Project description:Clinical trial related injury and serious adverse events (SAE) are a major area of concern. In all such scenarios the investigator is responsible for medical care of the trial participant and also ethically bound to report the event to all the stakeholders of the clinical trial. The trial sponsor is responsible for ongoing safety evaluation of the investigational product, reporting and compensating the participant in case of any SAE. The Ethics Committee and regulatory body of the country are to uphold the ethical principles of beneficence, justice, non-maleficence in such cases. Any unwanted and noxious effect of a drug when used in recommended doses is an adverse drug reaction (ADR) whereas if causal association is not yet established it is termed adverse event (AE). An AE or ADR that is associated with death, in-patient hospitalization, prolongation of hospitalization, persistent or significant disability or incapacity, a congenital anomaly, or is otherwise life threatening is termed as an SAE. The principal investigator reports the event to the licensing authority (DCGI), sponsor and Chairperson of the Ethics Committee (EC) within 24 hours of occurrence of the SAE. This report is furthered by a detailed report by both the investigator and the EC and given to the DCGI who then gives a final decision on the amount of compensation to be given by the sponsor or the sponsor's representative to the grieving party.
| S-EPMC5527719 | biostudies-other
Project description:Determination of shared antigens in Pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) tumor lysate and the allogeneic tumor drug product. The list of tumor antigenes was thereby dervied from preceeding RNA and literature research (e.g. [Cheevers et al 2009](https://europepmc.org/article/MED/19723653)).
2022-08-17 | PXD025210 | Pride