Public access to protocols of contemporary cancer randomized clinical trials.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Babu C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8237482 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate to what extent evidence from previous similar trials or systematic reviews was considered before conducting new trials.DesignCohort study of contemporary protocols for trials with ethical approval.MethodsAll protocols for randomised trials approved by the five ethical committees in Denmark between January 2012 and March 2013 were screened for eligibility. Included protocols were read in full to determine whether a systematic search had been conducted and references were checked to evaluate whether trial rationale and design could be challenged for not adequately considering previous evidence. To investigate whether protocols cited relevant trials, we used simple search strategies that could easily be conducted by researchers without experience with literature searches.ResultsSixty-seven protocols were included. Only two (3%) of the protocols explicitly stated to have conducted a literature search and only one (1%) provided information that allowed the search to be replicated. Eleven (16%) of the protocols described trials where we found the information insufficient to judge if the trial was ethically justified, either due to a comparator that was not supported by the presented evidence (six protocols), because they did not present a rationale for conducting the trial (two protocols), or for both reasons (three protocols). For eight (12%) of the protocols, our search identified trials that could have been relevant to cite as justification.ConclusionsWhile most protocols seem to adequately consider existing evidence, a substantial minority of trials might lack a sufficient evidence base. Very few trials seemed to have been based on a literature search which makes it impossible to know whether all relevant previous trials had been considered. Rules for ethical approval should include requirements for systematic literature searches to ensure that research participants are not exposed to sub-optimal treatments or unnecessary harms as well as to reduce research waste.
| S-EPMC6858261 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Clinical trials are an essential part of evidence-based medicine. Hence, to ensure transparency and accountability in these clinical trials, policies for registration have been framed with emphasis on mandatory submission of trial elements, specifically outcome measures. As these efforts evolve further, we sought to evaluate the current status of endpoint reporting in clinical trial registries. METHODS:We reviewed 71 oncology related randomized controlled trials published in three high impact journals. We compared primary (PEP) and non-primary endpoints (NPEP) between the clinical trial protocols of these trials and their corresponding registration in one of the 14 primary global clinical trial registries. A discrepancy was defined as the non-reporting or absence of an endpoint in either the protocol or registry. The primary endpoint was the rate of discrepancy between secondary endpoints in clinical trial protocols and clinical trial registries. RESULTS:Of the 71 clinical trials, a discrepancy in PEP was found in only 4 trials (6%). Secondary endpoint (SEP) differences were found in 45 (63%) trials. Among these 45 trials, 36 (80%) had SEPs that were planned in the protocol but not reported in the registry and 19 (42%) had SEPs with endpoints in the registry that were not found in the protocol. The total number of SEPs that were absent from the corresponding registry and protocol were 84 and 29, respectively. Of these endpoints, 48 (57%) and 9 (31%) were included in the published report of these trials. CONCLUSION:Although recent regulations and enhanced procedures have improved the number and quality of clinical trial registrations, inconsistencies regarding endpoint reporting still exist. Though further guidelines for the registration of clinical trials will help, greater efforts to provide a correct, easily accessible, and complete representation of planned endpoints are needed.
| S-EPMC6292048 | biostudies-other
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC8552052 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Randomized clinical trials are considered the milestones of clinical research in oncology, and guided the development and approval of new compounds so far. In the last few years, however, molecular and genomic profiling led to a change of paradigm in therapeutic algorithms of many cancer types, with the spread of different biomarker-driven therapies (or targeted therapies). This scenario of "personalized medicine" revolutionized therapeutic strategies and the methodology of the supporting clinical research. New clinical trial designs are emerging to answer to the unmet clinical needs related to the development of these targeted therapies, overcoming the "classical" structure of randomized studies. Innovative trial designs able to evaluate more than one treatment in the same group of patients or many groups of patients with the same treatment (or both) are emerging as a possible future standard in clinical trial methodology. These are identified as "master protocols", and include umbrella, basket and platform trials. In this review, we described the main characteristics of these new trial designs, focusing on the opportunities and limitations of their use in the era of personalized medicine.
| S-EPMC8618758 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAccess to protocols and statistical analysis plans (SAPs) increases the transparency of randomised trial by allowing readers to identify and interpret unplanned changes to study methods, however they are often not made publicly available. We sought to determine how often study investigators would share unavailable documents upon request.MethodsWe used trials from two previously identified cohorts (cohort 1: 101 trials published in high impact factor journals between January and April of 2018; cohort 2: 100 trials published in June 2018 in journals indexed in PubMed) to determine whether study investigators would share unavailable protocols/SAPs upon request. We emailed corresponding authors of trials with no publicly available protocol or SAP up to four times.ResultsOverall, 96 of 201 trials (48%) across the two cohorts had no publicly available protocol or SAP (11/101 high-impact cohort, 85/100 PubMed cohort). In total, 8/96 authors (8%) shared some trial documentation (protocol only [n = 5]; protocol and SAP [n = 1]; excerpt from protocol [n = 1]; research ethics application form [n = 1]). We received protocols for 6/96 trials (6%), and a SAP for 1/96 trial (1%). Seventy-three authors (76%) did not respond, 7 authors responded (7%) but declined to share a protocol or SAP, and eight email addresses were invalid (8%). A total of 329 emails were sent (an average of 41 emails for every trial which sent documentation). After emailing authors, the total number of trials with an available protocol increased by only 3%, from 52% in to 55%.ConclusionsMost study investigators did not share their unpublished protocols or SAPs upon direct request. Alternative strategies are needed to increase transparency of randomised trials and ensure access to protocols and SAPs.
| S-EPMC9387046 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) has been proposed as an effective alternative method for the adjunctive treatment of all classes of oral infections. The multifactorial nature of its mechanism of action correlates with various influencing factors, involving parameters concerning both the photosensitizer and the light delivery system. This study aims to critically evaluate the recorded parameters of aPDT applications that use lasers as the light source in randomized clinical trials in dentistry. METHODS:PubMed and Cochrane search engines were used to identify human clinical trials of aPDT therapy in dentistry. After applying specific keywords, additional filters, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the initial number of 7744 articles was reduced to 38. RESULTS:Almost one-half of the articles presented incomplete parameters, whilst the others had different protocols, even with the same photosensitizer and for the same field of application. CONCLUSIONS:No safe recommendation for aPDT protocols can be extrapolated for clinical use. Further research investigations should be performed with clear protocols, so that standardization for their potential dental applications can be achieved.
| S-EPMC7558404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe burden of cancer falls disproportionally on low-middle-income countries (LMICs). It is not well known how novel therapies are tested in current clinical trials and the extent to which they match global disease burden.ObjectivesTo describe the design, results, and publication of oncology randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and examine the extent to which trials match global disease burden and how trial methods and results differ across economic settings.Design, setting, and participantsIn this retrospective cohort study, a literature search identified all phase 3 RCTs evaluating anticancer therapies published from 2014 to 2017. Randomized clinical trials were classified based on World Bank economic classification. Descriptive statistics were used to compare RCT design and results from high-income countries (HICs) and low/middle-income countries (LMICs). Statistical analysis was conducted in January 2020.Main outcomes and measuresDifferences in the design, results, and output of RCTs between HICs and LMICs.ResultsThe study cohort included 694 RCTs: 636 (92%) led by HICs and 58 (8%) led by LMICs. A total of 601 RCTs (87%) tested systemic therapy and 88 RCTs (13%) tested radiotherapy or surgery. The proportion of RCTs relative to global deaths was higher for breast cancer (121 RCTs [17%] and 7% of deaths) but lower for gastroesophageal cancer (38 RCTs [6%] and 14% of deaths), liver cancer (14 RCTs [2%] and 8% of deaths), pancreas cancer (14 RCTs [2%] and 5% of deaths), and cervical cancer (9 RCTs [1%] and 3% of deaths). Randomized clinical trials in HICs were more likely than those in LMICs to be funded by industry (464 [73%] vs 24 [41%]; P < .001). Studies in LMICs were smaller than those in HICs (median, 219 [interquartile range, 137-363] vs 474 [interquartile range, 262-743] participants; P < .001) and more likely to meet their primary end points (39 of 58 [67%] vs 286 of 636 [45%]; P = .001). The observed median effect size among superiority trials was larger in LMICs compared with HICs (hazard ratio, 0.62 [interquartile range, 0.54-0.76] vs 0.84 [interquartile range, 0.67-0.97]; P < .001). Studies from LMICs were published in journals with lower median impact factors than studies from HICs (7 [interquartile range, 4-21] vs 21 [interquartile range, 7-34]; P < .001). Publication bias persisted when adjusted for whether a trial was positive or negative (median impact factor: LMIC negative trial, 5 [interquartile range, 4-6] vs HIC negative trial, 18 [interquartile range, 6-26]; LMIC positive trial, 9 [interquartile range, 5-25] vs HIC positive trial, 25 [interquartile range, 10-48]; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceThis study suggests that oncology RCTs are conducted predominantly by HICs and do not match the global burden of cancer. Randomized clinical trials from LMICs are more likely to identify effective therapies and have a larger effect size than RCTs from HICs. This study suggests that there is a funding and publication bias against RCTs led by LMICs. Policy makers, research funders, and journals need to address this issue with a range of measures including building capacity and capability in RCTs.
| S-EPMC7844695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) has become an increasingly common limitation to effective anticancer therapy. Yet, whether CVD events were consistently reported in pivotal trials supporting contemporary anticancer drugs is unknown.ObjectivesThe authors sought to evaluate the incidence, consistency, and nature of CVD event reporting in cancer drug trials.MethodsFrom the Drugs@FDA, clinicaltrials.gov, MEDLINE, and publicly available U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug reviews, all reported CVD events across latter-phase (II and III) trials supporting FDA approval of anticancer drugs from 1998 to 2018 were evaluated. The primary outcome was the report of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as incident myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, coronary revascularization, atrial fibrillation, or CVD death, irrespective of treatment arm. The secondary outcome was report of any CVD event. Pooled reported annualized incidence rates of MACE in those without baseline CVD were compared with reported large contemporary population rates using relative risks. Population risk differences for MACE were estimated. Differences in drug efficacy using pooled binary endpoint hazard ratios on the basis of the presence or absence of reported CVD were also assessed.ResultsOverall, there were 189 trials, evaluating 123 drugs, enrolling 97,365 participants (58.5 ± 5 years, 46.0% female, 72.5% on biologic, targeted, or immune-based therapies) with 148,138 person-years of follow-up. Over a median follow-up of 30 months, 1,148 incidents of MACE (375 heart failure, 253 myocardial infarction, 180 strokes, 65 atrial fibrillation, 29 revascularizations, and 246 CVD deaths; 792 in the intervention vs. 356 in the control arm; p < 0.01) were reported from the 62.4% of trials noting any CVD. The overall weighted-average incidence was 542 events per 100,000 person-years (716 per 100,000 in the intervention arm), compared with 1,408 among similar-aged non-cancer trial subjects (relative risk: 0.38; p < 0.01), translating into a risk difference of 866. There was no association between reporting CVD events and drug efficacy (hazard ratio: 0.68 vs. 0.67; p = 0.22).ConclusionsAmong pivotal clinical trials linked to contemporary FDA-approved cancer drugs, reported CVD event rates trail expected population rates.
| S-EPMC7860639 | biostudies-literature
Project description:A randomized clinical trial is widely regarded as the most rigorous study design to determine the efficacy of intervention because spurious causality and bias associated with other experimental designs can be avoided. The purpose of this article is to provide clinicians and clinical researchers the types of randomized clinical trials used in stroke studies and to discuss the advantages and the limitations for each type of randomized stroke clinical trials.
| S-EPMC2837939 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundIn 2012, 11 standards describing best supportive care (bsc) in clinical trials in advanced cancer were defined through consensus statements. The consensus included 15 key components. Our objective was to analyze whether clinical trials that involved patients with advanced cancer and that included bsc in at least 1 arm met the standards and contained the key components.MethodsWe reviewed clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, the isrctn (International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number) registry, the EU Clinical Trials Register, and the International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for 2012-2018. We selected only phase iii studies in patients with advanced cancer that included bsc in at least 1 arm. We describe the characteristics of the trials, together with the definition and components of bsc. We analyzed how the trials met the standards and adopted the key components of bsc.ResultsOf 193 trials retrieved, only 64 met the inclusion criteria; 36 of those trials (56%) had no definition of bsc. Less than 7% of the trials included even 3 of the 8 bsc standards that were defined to be included in the design of trials. Furthermore, trials mentioned only 5 of the 15 key components that the consensus defined to be fundamental, with symptom management appearing in 22% of trials and the other 4 components appearing in less than 8%.SummaryMost clinical trials registered during 2012-2018 that involved patients with cancer and an arm with bsc did not define the bsc concept. Hence, the design of those trials does not meet the consensus recommendations.
| S-EPMC7253756 | biostudies-literature