Dataset Information

Race reporting and diversity in US food and drug administration (FDA) registration trials for prostate cancer; 2006-2020.

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

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) have transformed the management of cancer, particularly for older adults, who constitute a majority of the global cancer patient population. This study aimed to assess the inclusion, characteristics, and reporting of older adults enrolled in Food and Drug Administration (FDA) registration clinical trials of ICI between 2018 and 2022. Clinical trials of ICI leading to an FDA approval in solid tumor oncology between 2018 and 2022 were included. Primary study reports and all available secondary publications were assessed. The availability and completeness of older subgroup data for protocol-defined clinical efficacy endpoints, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and toxicity outcomes, and baseline characteristics were assessed according to predefined criteria which categorized reporting completeness hierarchically in relation to the availability of published data, including effect size, sample size, and measures of precision. 53 registration trials were included, involving a total of 37,094 participants. Most trials (64.2%) were of ICI combination therapy. 42.3% of patients were aged≥65 years; 11.1% were aged≥75. No trials specified an upper age limit for eligibility. 98.1% of trials excluded patients with European Cooperative Oncology Group performance status>1. 87.2% of primary efficacy endpoints and 17.9% of secondary efficacy endpoints were reported completely for older adults. Five studies (9.4%) reported baseline characteristics, three (6.1%) reported HRQOL assessments, and four (7.5%) reported toxicity outcomes completely among older subgroups. No trials conducted baseline geriatric assessments or reported geriatric-specific symptoms or quality of life scales. This analysis highlights significant deficits in the enrollment and reporting of older subgroups in pivotal trials of ICI therapy. The findings highlight an urgent need for improved reporting and inclusion standards in clinical trials of ICI to better inform treatment decisions for older adults.

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.

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.