RESUMO
Importance: ClinicalTrials.gov is a valuable resource that can be used to trace the state and nature of trials. Since its launch in 2000, more than 345â¯000 trials have been registered. Little is known about the characteristics and trends in clinical trials over time and how they differ by sponsor type. Objective: To assess trends in clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov over time and by sponsor type. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included clinical trials (interventional studies) registered in ClinicalTrials.gov from January 1, 2000, through December 31, 2019. The trials were grouped by lead sponsor: National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other US government agencies, industry, and other sources (foundations, universities, hospitals, clinics, and others). A static version of the Clinical Trials Transformation Initiative Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database was downloaded on January 1, 2020, for analysis. Main Outcomes and Measures: ClinicalTrials.gov registration fields, including overall status, phase, intervention, number of sites, use of masking and randomization, sample size, and time to study completion by start year and lead sponsor (organization that provided funding or support for a clinical study). Results: A total of 245â¯999 clinical trials (interventional studies) were started between 2000 and 2019, of which 135â¯144 (54.9%) were completed. Among completed trials, 5113 (3.8%) were sponsored by the NIH or a US government agency, 48â¯668 (36.0%) by industry, and 81â¯363 (60.2%) by other sources. Most trials were single center (61.3%), randomized (65.6%), and phase 1 to 2 (35.5%) or did not have a US Food and Drug Administration-defined phase (38.4%), with fewer drug trials being conducted over time. Sample sizes were small (median, 60; interquartile range [IQR], 30-160) and diminished over time. Trial median completion times varied by lead sponsor: 3.4 years (IQR, 1.9-5.0 years) for NIH- and US government-sponsored trials, 1.2 years (IQR, 0.5-2.4 years) for industry trials, and 2.1 years (IQR, 1.1-3.7) for trials sponsored by other sources. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings suggest that the composition and design of trials changed from 2000 to 2019 and differed substantially by sponsor type. Increased funding toward larger randomized clinical trials may be warranted to inform clinical decision-making and guide future research.
Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Bases de Dados Factuais , Projetos de Pesquisa/estatística & dados numéricos , Projetos de Pesquisa/tendências , Estudos Transversais , Humanos , Internet , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Estados UnidosRESUMO
PURPOSE: In 2014, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) requested public comments on a draft policy requiring NIH-funded, U.S.-based investigators to use a single institutional review board (sIRB) for ethical review of multicenter studies. The authors conducted a directed content analysis and qualitative summary of the comments and discuss how they shaped the final policy. METHOD: Two reviewers independently assessed support for the policy from a review of comments on the draft policy in 2016. A reviewer conducted an open text review to identify prespecified and additional comment themes. A second researcher reviewed 20% of comments; discrepancies were resolved through discussion. RESULTS: The NIH received 167 comments: 65% (108/167) supportive of the policy, 23% (38/167) not supportive, and 12% (21/167) not indicating support. Clarifications or changes to the policy were suggested in 102/167 comments (61%). Criteria for selecting sIRBs were addressed in 32/102 comments (31%). Also addressed were institutional review board (IRB) responsibilities (39/102; 38%), cost (27/102; 26%), the role of local IRBs (14/102; 14%), and allowable policy exceptions (19/102; 19%). The NIH further clarified or provided guidance for selection criteria, IRB responsibilities, and cost in the final policy (June 2016). Local IRB reviews and exemptions guidance were unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: In this case study, public comments were effective in shaping policy as the NIH modified provisions or planned supplemental guidance in response to comments. Yet critical knowledge gaps remain, and empirical data are necessary. The NIH is considering mechanisms to support the establishment of best practices for sIRB implementation.
Assuntos
Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa/legislação & jurisprudência , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto/métodos , Políticas , Opinião Pública , Comitês de Ética em Pesquisa/tendências , Humanos , Estudos Multicêntricos como Assunto/normas , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/legislação & jurisprudência , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/tendências , Formulação de Políticas , Estados UnidosAssuntos
Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Indústria Farmacêutica/tendências , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/tendências , Sistema de Registros , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/tendências , Bases de Dados Factuais/estatística & dados numéricos , Bases de Dados Factuais/tendências , Indústria Farmacêutica/estatística & dados numéricos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Estados UnidosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: We wanted to assess if sertraline treatment (versus placebo) or remission of depression at 12 weeks (versus nonremission) in Alzheimer patients is associated with improved caregiver well being. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial of the efficacy and safety of sertraline for the treatment of depression in individuals with Alzheimer disease in five clinical research sites across the United States. Participants were caregivers of patients enrolled in the Depression in Alzheimer's Disease Study 2 (N = 131). All caregivers received standardized psychosocial support throughout the study. Caregiver outcome measures included depression (Beck Depression Inventory), distress (Neuropsychiatric Inventory), burden (Zarit Burden Interview), and quality of life (Medical Outcomes Study Short Form Health Survey). RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent of caregivers were spouses, 63.4% were women, and 64.1% were white. Caregivers of patients in both treatment groups had significant reductions in distress scores over the 24-week study period, but there was not a greater benefit for caregivers of patients taking sertraline. However, caregivers of patients whose depression was in remission at week 12 had greater declines in distress scores over the 24 weeks than caregivers of patients whose depression did not remit by week 12. CONCLUSION: Patient treatment with sertraline was not associated with significantly greater reductions in caregiver distress than placebo treatment. Distress but not level of depression or burden lessened for all caregivers regardless of remission status and even more so for those who cared for patients whose depression remitted. Results imply an interrelationship between caregiver distress and patient psychiatric outcomes.
Assuntos
Doença de Alzheimer/enfermagem , Doença de Alzheimer/psicologia , Cuidadores/psicologia , Depressão/tratamento farmacológico , Qualidade de Vida/psicologia , Sertralina/uso terapêutico , Estresse Psicológico , Idoso , Doença de Alzheimer/complicações , Efeitos Psicossociais da Doença , Depressão/complicações , Depressão/enfermagem , Método Duplo-Cego , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Escalas de Graduação Psiquiátrica , Remissão Espontânea , Sertralina/efeitos adversosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: In 1993 Congress passed the NIH Revitalization Act, which instructed the Director of the NIH to ensure that phase III clinical trials are 'designed and carried out in a manner sufficient to provide for a valid analysis of whether the variables being studied in the trial affect females or members of minority groups, as the case may be, differently than other subjects in the trial.' PURPOSE: The purpose of this article is to track the PubMed indexing of gender in clinical trial publications since 1991 with a view toward assessing the impact of the legislation on the number of gender specific trials. METHODS: We searched PubMed for full-length publications from years 1991 to 2008 of research on humans indexed as publication type 'clinical trial', 'randomized clinical trial' and multicenter randomized trial ('multicenter study' AND 'randomized clinical trial'), and counted the number of trials indexed as male-only, female-only, male and female, and gender unknown in PubMed. RESULTS: The majority of trial publications were indexed in PubMed as including both genders. The proportion of publications indexed as including both genders has increased while the number of publications not indexed with respect to gender and the number of publications indexed as male-only have decreased. In 2005, approximately 13% of NIH expenditures were for female specific or related research compared to 6% for male specific or related research. LIMITATIONS: The proportion of clinical trial publications that were indexed in PubMed as including females began to increase before the legislation so it is difficult to conclude that changes in the number of female-only or male-only trials are due to the legislation. PubMed listings do not include gender enrollment, so female and male enrollment totals could not be compared. CONCLUSIONS: The NIH policy should be rewritten to be made gender neutral to bring it in line with the principle of justice as embodied in the Belmont Report.
Assuntos
Indexação e Redação de Resumos/estatística & dados numéricos , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , MEDLINE/estatística & dados numéricos , Preconceito , Editoração/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Pesquisa Biomédica/tendências , Bases de Dados Factuais/estatística & dados numéricos , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , National Library of Medicine (U.S.) , Política Organizacional , Fatores Sexuais , Justiça Social , Estados UnidosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: Research on the efficacy of antidepressant therapy for depressive symptoms in Alzheimer disease has been hampered by lack of systematic diagnosis, small sample sizes, and short-term follow up. To address these issues, the authors present the design of the Depression in Alzheimer's Disease Study-2 (DIADS-2), a randomized, placebo-controlled multicenter trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor sertraline for the treatment of depression in people with Alzheimer disease. METHODS: The authors present and discuss the following important aspects of the design: the inclusion of structured psychosocial therapy for the caregivers of all participants; the measurement not only of patient mood outcomes, but also of global and functional outcomes for patients and mood and burden outcomes for caregivers; the ongoing rating of multiple diagnostic criteria to allow nosologic study of depression in Alzheimer disease; the evaluation of both short-term efficacy and longer-term outcomes; the follow up of all patients regardless of whether they complete study treatment; and the unmasking of treatment assignment at the conclusion of each patient's treatment phase. CONCLUSIONS: The authors believe these design elements are important features to be included in trials of depression and other neuropsychiatric disturbances in Alzheimer disease.
Assuntos
Doença de Alzheimer/tratamento farmacológico , Antidepressivos de Segunda Geração/uso terapêutico , Transtorno Depressivo/tratamento farmacológico , Inibidores Seletivos de Recaptação de Serotonina/uso terapêutico , Sertralina/uso terapêutico , Afeto , Idoso , Doença de Alzheimer/diagnóstico , Doença de Alzheimer/psicologia , Antidepressivos de Segunda Geração/efeitos adversos , Cuidadores/educação , Cuidadores/psicologia , Terapia Combinada , Efeitos Psicossociais da Doença , Aconselhamento , Transtorno Depressivo/diagnóstico , Transtorno Depressivo/psicologia , Feminino , Seguimentos , Humanos , Masculino , Pacientes Desistentes do Tratamento , Resolução de Problemas , Garantia da Qualidade dos Cuidados de Saúde , Projetos de Pesquisa , Inibidores Seletivos de Recaptação de Serotonina/efeitos adversos , Sertralina/efeitos adversos , Apoio Social , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
PURPOSE: To assess whether treatment comparison of National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ) scores in a clinical trial is influenced by general health to warrant adjusting for it. DESIGN: Two randomized pilot trials. METHODS: Patients enrolled in two randomized pilot trials of submacular surgery versus observation for choroidal neovascularization had quality of life interviews (NEI-VFQ and the Short Form-36 Health Survey) 24 months after enrollment. Information on comorbidities was collected through chart reviews. Data from 120 patients were analyzed using linear regression methods. RESULTS: Adjustment for comorbidities did not change the magnitude of the treatment effect on NEI-VFQ scores. However, adjustment for Short Form-36 physical and mental component summaries produced changes in the estimated treatment effect when NEI-VFQ scores were compared. CONCLUSIONS: Adjustment of NEI-VFQ scores for general health may be advisable. The Short Form-36 summary scores may be appropriate for this purpose.
Assuntos
Neovascularização de Coroide/cirurgia , Indicadores Básicos de Saúde , Degeneração Macular/cirurgia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/normas , Inquéritos e Questionários/normas , Acuidade Visual/fisiologia , Idoso , Neovascularização de Coroide/etiologia , Neovascularização de Coroide/fisiopatologia , Comorbidade , Fatores de Confusão Epidemiológicos , Feminino , Humanos , Degeneração Macular/complicações , Degeneração Macular/fisiopatologia , Masculino , Oftalmologia/normas , Projetos Piloto , Qualidade de Vida , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Estados UnidosRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Treatment effects monitoring is a process carried out over the course of a trial to determine whether it should continue unaltered. The purpose of monitoring is to protect persons enrolled from harm, caused either by exposure to an ineffective or harmful treatment or failure to provide a better treatment. The aim of this paper is to characterize treatment effects monitoring committees (TEMCs) as extant in published trials and to examine the effect of their presence on the premature stopping of a trial. METHODS: Trials published in 1990-1995 in the Annals of Internal Medicine, Archives of Internal Medicine, British Medical Journal, Journal of the American Medical Association, Lancet, New England Journal of Medicine or Controlled Clinical Trials were identified via MEDLINE (4279 publications). Abstracts were screened to include only trials with parallel treatment designs and sample sizes of > or = 200, reducing the set to 661 papers. Those papers were then read, reducing the set to 562 after exclusion of papers not reporting trial results. The results that follow come from a review of these 562 published papers and from the responses to two questionnaires. The first was mailed to the corresponding author, and the second to the chair of the monitoring body or other contact as provided by the author in response to the first questionnaire. RESULTS: Less than half (48%) of the 562 trials had TEMCs. Factors having a positive univariate relationship with the presence of a TEMC include National Institutes of Health (NIH) sponsorship, larger sample size, multicentered, longer data collection and follow-up, and mortality as an outcome. Most of the early stops occurred in trials with TEMCs (66 out of 78). The odds ratios for early stopping for trials with TEMCs versus those without TEMCs was 4.4 (CI: 2.3-8.5). CONCLUSIONS: The evidence suggests that early stopping is associated with the presence of a TEMC, but a substantial number of trial reports do not mention the presence of a TEMC even when one was used to stop a trial early.