Dataset Information

Delays in reporting and publishing trial results during pandemics: cross sectional analysis of 2009 H1N1, 2014 Ebola, and 2016 Zika clinical trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Pandemic events often trigger a surge of clinical trial activity aimed at rapidly evaluating therapeutic or preventative interventions. Ensuring rapid public access to the complete and unbiased trial record is particularly critical for pandemic research given the urgent associated public health needs. The World Health Organization (WHO) established standards requiring posting of results to a registry within 12 months of trial completion and publication in a peer reviewed journal within 24 months of completion, though compliance with these requirements among pandemic trials is unknown.

Methods

This cross-sectional analysis characterizes availability of results in trial registries and publications among registered trials performed during the 2009 H1N1 influenza, 2014 Ebola, and 2016 Zika pandemics. We searched trial registries to identify clinical trials testing interventions related to these pandemics, and determined the time elapsed between trial completion and availability of results in the registry. We also performed a comprehensive search of MEDLINE via PubMed, Google Scholar, and EMBASE to identify corresponding peer reviewed publications. The primary outcome was the compliance with either of the WHO's established standards for sharing clinical trial results. Secondary outcomes included compliance with both standards, and assessing the time elapsed between trial completion and public availability of results.

Results

Three hundred thirty-three trials met eligibility criteria, including 261 H1N1 influenza trials, 60 Ebola trials, and 12 Zika trials. Of these, 139 (42%) either had results available in the trial registry within 12 months of study completion or had results available in a peer-reviewed publication within 24 months. Five trials (2%) met both standards. No results were available in either a registry or publication for 59 trials (18%). Among trials with registered results, a median of 42 months (IQR 16-76 months) elapsed between trial completion and results posting. For published trials, the median elapsed time between completion and publication was 21 months (IQR 9-34 months). Results were available within 24 months of study completion in either the trial registry or a peer reviewed publication for 166 trials (50%).

Conclusions

Very few trials performed during prior pandemic events met established standards for the timely public dissemination of trial results.

SUBMITTER: Jones CW

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8185489 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Biogas plants (BGPs) produce methane and carbon dioxide through the anaerobic digestion of agricultural waste. Identification of strategies for more stable biogas plant operation and increased biogas yields require better knowledge about the individual degradation steps and the interactions within the microbial communities. The metaprotein profiles of ten agricultural BGPs and one laboratory reactor were investigated using a metaproteomics pipeline. Fractionation of samples using SDS-PAGE was combined with a high resolution Orbitrap mass spectrometer, metagenome sequences specific for BGPs, and the MetaProteomeAnalyzer software. This enabled us to achieve a high coverage of the metaproteome of the BGP microbial communities. The investigation revealed approx. 17,000 protein groups (metaproteins), covering the majority of the expected metabolic networks of the biogas process such as hydrolysis, transport, fermentation processes, amino acid metabolism, methanogenesis and bacterial C1-metabolism. Biological functions could be linked with the taxonomic composition. Two different types of BGPs were classified by the abundance of the acetoclastic methanogenesis and by abundance of enzymes implicating syntrophic acetate oxidation. Linking of the identified metaproteins with the process steps of the Anaerobic Digestion Model 1 proved the main model assumptions but indicated also some improvements such as considering syntrophic acetate oxidation. Beside the syntrophic interactions, the microbial communities in BGPs are also shaped by competition for substrates and host-phage interactions causing cell lysis. In particular, larger amounts of Bacteriophages for the bacterial families Bacillaceae, Enterobacteriaceae and Clostridiaceae, exceeding the cell number of the Bacteria by approximately four-fold. In contrast, less Bacteriophages were found for Archaea, but more CRISPR proteins were detected. On the one hand, the virus induced turnover of biomass might cause slow degradation of complex biomass in BGP. On the other hand, the lysis of bacterial cells allows cycling of essential nutrients.

Project description:BackgroundHealthcare and other front-line workers are at particular risk of infection with Ebola virus (EBOV). Despite the large-scale deployment of international responders, few cases of Ebola virus disease have been diagnosed in this group. Since asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic infection has been described, it is plausible that infections have occurred in healthcare workers but have escaped being diagnosed. We aimed to assess the prevalence of asymptomatic or pauci-symptomatic infection, and of exposure events, among returned responders to the West African Ebola epidemic 2014-2016.Methods and findingsWe used snowball sampling to identify responders who had returned to the UK or Ireland, and used an online consent and questionnaire to determine their exposure to EBOV and their experience of illness. Oral fluid collection devices were sent and returned by post, and samples were tested using an EBOV IgG capture assay that detects IgG to Ebola glycoprotein. Blood was collected from returnees with reactive samples for further testing. Unexposed UK controls were also recruited. In all, 300 individuals consented, of whom 268 (89.3%) returned an oral fluid sample (OFS). The majority had worked in Sierra Leone in clinical, laboratory, research, and other roles. Fifty-three UK controls consented and provided samples using the same method. Of the returnees, 47 (17.5%) reported that they had had a possible EBOV exposure. Based on their free-text descriptions, using a published risk assessment method, we classified 43 (16%) as having had incidents with risk of Ebola transmission, including five intermediate-risk and one high-risk exposure. Of the returnees, 57 (21%) reported a febrile or diarrhoeal illness in West Africa or within 1 mo of return, of whom 40 (70%) were not tested at the time for EBOV infection. Of the 268 OFSs, 266 were unreactive. Two returnees, who did not experience an illness in West Africa or on return, had OFSs that were reactive on the EBOV IgG capture assay, with similar results on plasma. One individual had no further positive test results; the other had a positive result on a double-antigen bridging assay but not on a competitive assay or on an indirect EBOV IgG ELISA. All 53 controls had non-reactive OFSs. While the participants were not a random sample of returnees, the number participating was high.ConclusionsThis is the first study, to our knowledge, of the prevalence of EBOV infection in international responders. More than 99% had clear negative results. Sera from two individuals had discordant results on the different assays; both were negative on the competitive assay, suggesting that prior infection was unlikely. The finding that a significant proportion experienced "near miss" exposure events, and that most of those who experienced symptoms did not get tested for EBOV at the time, suggests a need to review and standardise protocols for the management of possible exposure to EBOV, and for the management of illness, across organisations that deploy staff to outbreaks.