Race reporting and diversity in US food and drug administration (FDA) registration trials for prostate cancer; 2006-2020.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
There is significant racial disparity in prostate cancer (PCa) in terms of incidence, treatment, and outcomes. Racial diversity and compliance with FDA race reporting guidelines in PCa drug registration trials are unknown. We analyzed racial diversity and race reporting in drug licensing trials for PCa.Methods
New drug authorizations for PCa from 2006 to 2020 were identified. The corresponding licensing trial publications were analyzed to check compliance with current FDA recommendations for race reporting. If race was unreported, the clinical trial report was analyzed to determine participant recruitment by race and lead the recruiting country.Results
During the study period, 17 new drug registrations for the management of PCa involving ten unique drugs were identified. In total, 18,455 participants were included in FDA registration trials, of which 76.3% were white or Caucasian, 7.9% Asian, 2.9% Black or African American, 0.5% American Indian or Alaskan Native, 0.1% Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, 1.8% other or multiple races and 10.5% unknown. 53% of trials reported race in the licensing publication, however of this only 55% met current FDA recommendations. When the race was unreported in the licensing publication, 88% of studies had further information in the clinical study report.Conclusion
We found a significant under-representation of non-white participants in FDA drug registration trials for PCa. Race reporting in licensing publication is inconsistent and both FDA and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors guidelines are not being universally followed. Given the disproportionality of the disease burden of PCa, recruitment of Black and other minority participants to trials should be a research priority.
SUBMITTER: Lythgoe MP
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8616766 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7988366 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Pediatric patient-reported outcome (PRO) data can help inform the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) benefit-risk assessment of cancer therapeutics by quantifying symptom and functional outcomes from the patient's perspective.This study assessed use of PROs in commercial pediatric oncology trials submitted to the FDA for regulatory review. FDA databases were searched to identify pediatric oncology product applications approved between 1997 and 2020. Sponsor-submitted documents were reviewed to determine whether PRO data were collected, which instruments were used, and the quality of collected data (ie, sample size, completion rates, and use of fit-for-purpose instruments). The role of PROs in each trial (endpoint hierarchy) was also recorded in addition to whether any PRO endpoints were included in product labeling.We reviewed 17 pediatric oncology applications, 4 of which included PRO data: denosumab, tisagenlecleucel, larotrectinib, and selumetinib. In these 4 instances, PROs served as exploratory endpoints and were not incorporated in product labeling. Trials that collected PRO data were phase II or phase I/II single-arm studies with sample sizes of 28 to 88 patients. Symptomatic adverse events (AEs) were characterized using clinician-reported Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) without additional patient self-report.PROs were infrequently used in pediatric cancer registration trials. When PROs were used, PRO data were limited by lack of a clear research objective and corresponding prospective statistical analysis plan. Contemporary PRO symptom libraries, such as the National Cancer Institute's Pediatric PRO-CTCAE, may provide an opportunity to better evaluate the occurrence and impact of symptomatic AEs, from the patient's perspective, in pediatric oncology trials.
| S-EPMC8755487 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSelective clinical trial publication and outcome reporting has the potential to bias the medical literature. The 2007 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendment Act (FDAAA) mandated clinical trial registration and outcome reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov, a publicly accessible trial registry.MethodsUsing publicly available data from ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA documents, and PubMed, we determined registration, publication, and reporting of findings for all efficacy trials supporting FDA approval of new drugs for cardiovascular disease and diabetes between 2005 and 2014, before and after the FDAAA. For published trials, we compared the published interpretation of the findings (positive, equivocal, or negative) with the FDA reviewer's interpretation.ResultsBetween 2005 and 2014, the FDA approved 30 drugs for 32 indications of cardiovascular disease (n?=?17) and diabetes (n?=?15) on the basis of 183 trials (median per indication 5.7 (IQR, 3-8)). Compared with pre FDAAA, post-FDAAA studies were more likely to be registered (78 of 78 (100%) vs 73 of 105 (70%); p?<?0.001), to be published (76 of 78 (97%) vs 93 of 105 (89%); p?=?0.03), and to present findings concordant with the FDA reviewer's interpretation (74 of 76 (97%) vs 78 of 93 (84%); p?=?0.004). Pre FDAAA, the FDA reviewer interpreted 80 (76%) trials as positive and 91 (98%) were published as positive. Post FDAAA, the FDA reviewer interpreted 71 (91%) trials as positive and 71 (93%) were published as positive.ConclusionsFDAAA was associated with increased registration, publication, and FDA-concordant outcome reporting for trials supporting FDA approval of new drugs for cardiovascular disease and diabetes.
| S-EPMC5516301 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMandatory trial registration, and later results reporting, were proposed to mitigate selective clinical trial publication and outcome reporting. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act (FDAAA) was enacted by Congress on September 27, 2007, requiring the registration of all non-phase I clinical trials involving FDA-regulated medical interventions and results reporting for approved drugs. The association between FDAAA enactment and the registration, results reporting, and publication bias of neuropsychiatric trials has not been studied.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study of all efficacy trials supporting FDA new drug approvals between 2005 to 2014 for neuropsychiatric indications. Trials were categorized as pre- or post-FDAAA based on initiation and/or completion dates. The main outcomes were the proportions of trials registered and reporting results in ClinicalTrials.gov, and the degree of publication bias, estimated using the relative risks pre- and post-FDAAA of both the publication of positive vs non-positive trials, as well as of publication of positive vs non-positive trials without misleading interpretations. Registration and results reporting proportions were compared pre- and post-FDAAA using the two-tailed Fisher exact test, and the degrees of publication bias were compared by calculating the ratio of relative risks (RRR) for each period.ResultsThe FDA approved 37 new drugs for neuropsychiatric indications between 2005 and 2014 on the basis of 142 efficacy trials, of which 101 were pre-FDAAA and 41 post-FDAAA. Post-FDAAA trials were significantly more likely to be registered (100% vs 64%; p <?0.001) and report results (100% vs 10%; p <?0.001) than pre-FDAAA trials. Pre-FDAAA, positive trials were more likely to be published (relative risk [RR]?=?1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?1.17-1.99; p?=?0.002) and published without misleading interpretations (RR?=?2.47; CI?=?1.57-3.73; p?<?0.001) than those with non-positive results. In contrast, post-FDAAA positive trials were equally likely to have been published (RR?=?1; CI?=?1-1, p?=?NA) and published without misleading interpretations (RR?=?1.20; CI?=?0.84-1.72; p?=?0.30). The likelihood of publication bias pre-FDAAA vs post-FDAAA was greater for positive vs non-positive trials (RRR?=?1.52; CI?=?1.16-1.99; p?=?0.002) and for publication without misleading interpretations (RRR?=?2.06, CI?=?1.17-3.61, p?=?0.01).ConclusionsThe enactment of FDAAA was followed by significantly higher proportions of trials that were registered and reporting results on ClinicalTrials.gov and significantly lower degrees of publication bias among trials supporting recent FDA approval of drugs for neuropsychiatric indications.
| S-EPMC6199729 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies of drug trials submitted to regulatory authorities have documented selective reporting of both entire trials and favorable results. The objective of this study is to determine the publication rate of efficacy trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in approved New Drug Applications (NDAs) and to compare the trial characteristics as reported by the FDA with those reported in publications.Methods and findingsThis is an observational study of all efficacy trials found in approved NDAs for New Molecular Entities (NMEs) from 2001 to 2002 inclusive and all published clinical trials corresponding to the trials within the NDAs. For each trial included in the NDA, we assessed its publication status, primary outcome(s) reported and their statistical significance, and conclusions. Seventy-eight percent (128/164) of efficacy trials contained in FDA reviews of NDAs were published. In a multivariate model, trials with favorable primary outcomes (OR = 4.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.33-17.1, p = 0.018) and active controls (OR = 3.4, 95% CI 1.02-11.2, p = 0.047) were more likely to be published. Forty-one primary outcomes from the NDAs were omitted from the papers. Papers included 155 outcomes that were in the NDAs, 15 additional outcomes that favored the test drug, and two other neutral or unknown additional outcomes. Excluding outcomes with unknown significance, there were 43 outcomes in the NDAs that did not favor the NDA drug. Of these, 20 (47%) were not included in the papers. The statistical significance of five of the remaining 23 outcomes (22%) changed between the NDA and the paper, with four changing to favor the test drug in the paper (p = 0.38). Excluding unknowns, 99 conclusions were provided in both NDAs and papers, nine conclusions (9%) changed from the FDA review of the NDA to the paper, and all nine did so to favor the test drug (100%, 95% CI 72%-100%, p = 0.0039).ConclusionsMany trials were still not published 5 y after FDA approval. Discrepancies between the trial information reviewed by the FDA and information found in published trials tended to lead to more favorable presentations of the NDA drugs in the publications. Thus, the information that is readily available in the scientific literature to health care professionals is incomplete and potentially biased.
| S-EPMC2586350 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveMany people dealing with Parkinson's disease (PD) turn to complementary and alternative medicine when searching for a cure or relief from symptoms. Acupuncture is widely used in the Korean PD population to alleviate symptoms and in hopes of curing the illness. However, acupuncture use for PD patients has only recently begun to be studied scientifically and is still considered an unproven treatment for PD. Therefore, there is an urgent need for acupuncture to be studied, validated and used for PD. Thus, our study's aim is to examine how many acupuncture studies in PD are registered and reported in Korea.MethodsThe registries Clinicaltrials.gov and the Clinical Research Information Service (CRIS) and the search engine PubMed were searched to find relevant human clinical studies involving acupuncture therapy in PD patients. We examined the registration of trials, the posting and publication of results, and whether published articles were registered.ResultsIn Clinicaltrials.gov, one completed trial was found with published results. In CRIS, one completed trial was found with published results. A total of 6 publications were found in our study: 2 articles were registered, but only 1 had the registered trial number listed in the article.ConclusionAcupuncture is popular among the PD population in Korea regardless of its unproven safety and efficacy. Despite the pressing need for clinical trials, the number of studies listed in the registries was small, and only a few publications were registered. More effort and rigor are needed to validate the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for PD.
| S-EPMC5615176 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Pharmaceutical companies and other trial sponsors must submit certain trial results to ClinicalTrials.gov. The validity of these results is unclear. PURPOSE:To validate results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov against publicly available U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews on Drugs@FDA. DATA SOURCES:ClinicalTrials.gov (registry and results database) and Drugs@FDA (medical and statistical reviews). STUDY SELECTION:100 parallel-group, randomized trials for new drug approvals (January 2013 to July 2014) with results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov (15 March 2015). DATA EXTRACTION:2 assessors extracted, and another verified, the trial design, primary and secondary outcomes, adverse events, and deaths. RESULTS:Most trials were phase 3 (90%), double-blind (92%), and placebo-controlled (73%) and involved 32 drugs from 24 companies. Of 137 primary outcomes identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, 134 (98%) had corresponding data at Drugs@FDA, 130 (95%) had concordant definitions, and 107 (78%) had concordant results. Most differences were nominal (that is, relative difference <10%). Primary outcome results in 14 trials could not be validated. Of 1927 secondary outcomes from ClinicalTrials.gov, Drugs@FDA mentioned 1061 (55%) and included results data for 367 (19%). Of 96 trials with 1 or more serious adverse events in either source, 14 could be compared and 7 had discordant numbers of persons experiencing the adverse events. Of 62 trials with 1 or more deaths in either source, 25 could be compared and 17 were discordant. LIMITATION:Unknown generalizability to uncontrolled or crossover trial results. CONCLUSION:Primary outcome definitions and results were largely concordant between ClinicalTrials.gov and Drugs@FDA. Half the secondary outcomes, as well as serious events and deaths, could not be validated because Drugs@FDA includes only "key outcomes" for regulatory decision making and frequently includes only adverse event results aggregated across multiple trials. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:National Library of Medicine.
| S-EPMC5028264 | 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:BackgroundSystemic progress in improving trial representation is uncertain, and previous analyses of minority trial participation have been limited to small cohorts with limited exploration of driving factors.MethodsWe analyzed detailed trial records from all US clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from March 2000 to March 2020. Minority enrollment was compared to 2010 US Census demographic estimates using Wilcoxon test. We utilized logistic regression and generalized linear regression with a logit link to assess the association of possible drivers (including trials' funding source, size, phase, and design) with trials' disclosure of and amount of minority enrollment respectively.FindingsAmong 20,692 US-based trials with reported results (representing ~4·76 million enrollees), only 43% (8,871/20,692) reported any race/ethnicity data. The majority of enrollees were White (median 79·7%; interquartile range [IQR] 61·9-90·0%), followed by Black (10·0%; IQR 2·5-23·5%), Hispanic/Latino (6·0%; IQR 0·43-15·4%), Asian (1·0%; IQR 0·0-4·1%), and American Indian (0·0%; IQR 0·0-0·2%). Median combined enrollment of minority race/ethnicity groups (Black, Hispanic/Latino, Asian, American Indian, Other/Multi) was below census estimates (27·6%) (p<0·001) however increased at an annual rate of 1·7%. Industry and Academic funding were negatively associated with race/ethnicity reporting (Industry adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 0·42, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0·38 to 0·46, p<0.0001; Academic aOR: 0·45, CI: 0·41 to 0·50, p<0.0001). Industry also had a negative association with the proportion of minority ethnicity enrollees (aOR: 0·69, CI: 0·60 to 0·79) compared to US Government-funded trials.InterpretationOver the past two decades, the majority of US trials in ClinicalTrials.gov do not report race/ethnicity enrollment data, and minorities are underrepresented in trials with modest improvement over time.FundingStanford Medical Scholars Research Funding, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, NIH (1K01HL144607) and the American Heart Association/Robert Wood Johnson Medical Faculty Development Program.
| S-EPMC9302767 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background There are limited real-world studies on the differences in leukotriene receptor antagonists (LTRA), H1-antihistamines (H1-AH), and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) associated neuropsychiatric events. In this study, we aimed to analyze the characteristics of drug associated neuropsychiatric events, and compare the differences among different drug categories. Methods Disproportionality analysis and Bayesian analysis were used in data mining to identify suspected neuropsychiatric events associated with LTRA, H1-AH, and ICS based on the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) from January 2004 to September 2020. Demographic information, time interval to onset, and death rates of LTRA, H1-AH, and ICS-associated neuropsychiatric events were also analyzed. Results A total of 9475 neuropsychiatric events were identified. The number of neuropsychiatric events related to LTRA, H1-AH, and ICS were 5201 (54.89%), 3226 (34.05%), and 1048 (11.06%), respectively. LTRA related neuropsychiatric events were more common in patients aged 4–6 years (18.66%). H1-AH and ICS related neuropsychiatric events were more common in patients aged 18–44 years (29.92%) and older than 65 years (30.60%), respectively. Montelukast was highly associated with neuropsychiatric events, with a high reporting odds ratio (ROR). Most neuropsychiatric symptoms occurred within the first 10 days after drug initiation (78.63% for LTRA, 91.39% for H1-AH, and 84.07% for ICS). The death rate due to neuropsychiatric events of first generation H1-AH was significantly higher than that of LTRA and ICS (p < 0.001). Conclusions LTRA associated neuropsychiatric events reported in FAERS were most frequent in 4 to 6-year-old children. Most reported cases occurred within the first 10 days after drug initiation. The second generation H1-AH was relatively safe for neuropsychiatric events compared with the first generation. The fatality rate due to first generation H1-AH associated neuropsychiatric events was higher than that of LTRA and ICS. More attention should be paid to specific patients treated with LTRA and H1-AH.
| S-EPMC8498094 | biostudies-literature